Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 21, 2005 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21,2005 Page 9 of 90 example of that would be the president of a homeowners association, who is going to speak on behalf of other people who are not going to speak, because he or she is speaking, we do allow that person ten minutes. And that's exclusive of any additional questions we may ask after that. But, then, even if you have signed up, we ask that you just respond that you gave your time to Sam or Susie or whoever spoke. Following the general testimony, then, we do ask during that time that the applicant be taking notes and we give the applicant an opportunity to come back and explain to us one final time anything that they can resolve that's been brought up, whether it's a new subject or something they thought up before, we give them ten minutes to answer any of the questions that have come up and resolve things. And, then, following that, theoretically, we close the Public Hearing and deliberate on what our recommendation to the City Council should be and forward it onto City Council one way or the other and, then, the City Council will have a Public Hearing, which will also be noticed. The same way that you found out about this meeting you'll find out about the City Council meeting. So, that's pretty much our procedure. We have a handy lighting system here. There is a green light and, then, a yellow light and, then, a red light. When the green light is on you have time to speak. When it goes to yellow you should begin to conclude. And when it's red your time is up and we do ask that you either ask somebody else to continue your comments or just conclude quickly. That helps us get everything done, so we do appreciate that. Item 6: Item 7: Item 8: Continued Public Hearing from May 19, 2005: AZ 05-015 Request for an Annexation and Zoning of 59.30 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Crossfield Subdivision by Packard Estates Development, LLC - 955 West Ustick Road: Continued Public Hearing from May 19, 2005: PP 05-017 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 246 building (244 residential units, 1 daycare & 1 pool/locker facility / restroom) lots and 26 other lots on 59.30 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Crossfield Subdivision by Packard Estates Development, LLC - 955 West Ustick Road Continued Public Hearing from May 19, 2005: CUP 05-022 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for single-family residential units with a request to allow for reduced setbacks, reduced lot size, reduced frontages, reduced house sizes and block lengths in excess of 1 ,000 feet in a proposed R-8 zone for Crossfield Subdivision by Packard Estates Development, LLC - 955 West Ustick Road: Zaremba: And with that I will open the continued Public Hearing for AZ 05-015, PP 05- 017, and CUP 05-022. All these relate to Crossfield Subdivision by Packard Estates Development, LLC, at 965 West Ustick Road. And we will begin with the staff comments. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. This item was on the agenda a few months ago and was not the subject of discussion. However, the Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 10 of 90 applicant submitted a letter requesting some additional time to do some more groundwater monitoring out there. Staff did receive an updated report last week or the week before from their soil scientist and have had a chance to review that and that's -- based on that report have sent this revised staff report. For the site that's located on the south side of Ustick Road, approximately one half mile west of Meridian Road. The property is within our urban services planning area and is in within the current city area of impact. It's zoned RUT in Ada County. Approximately half of this site Hes within the mixed use community designation on the Comprehensive Plan, those half moons on the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant is proposing single family dwelling lots within the development, except for a potential day care site, and I will point that out here when we get to the site plan. There is currently a single family home and some out buildings on the site. The applicant is proposing to retain the existing home near Ustick Road and remove the accessory structures. To the north of the site, just to orient you a little bit better, are some single family homes and un-platted ag land zoned RUT in Ada County. To the northeast of the site, just across Venable Lane, there has been a development Cedar Springs Subdivision is further north, right on that corner. As a professional center, a car wash has been approved for that corner of Ustick and Venable. To the south is the File Mile Creek traverses the south property right here. The File Mile. And the Meadow View Subdivision is just on the other side of that, zoned R-4 in the city. To the west are several five-acre parcels of long, skinny five acre parcels. Unplatted. They are currently being utilized for agricultural purposes and they are zoned in the county. Excuse me. To the east is Venable Lane, which currently is a private flag lane. It's not improved to any type of public standards or recognized as a public -- improved public or private street. Waterbury Park Subdivision is also to the east, zoned R-4. Salisbury Subdivision No.2, also known as Valen Courts, was recently approved. The lots are not shown here, which is a 2003 aerial. But that was also recently approved for development of single family homes. Recently the city has approved annexation and zoning developments, again, for Cedar Springs and Salisbury. Although there have been recent city approved developments in this area, the approval of this subject development will create a seven acre enclave and I just wanted to point that out, that if this development gets approved, the seven acres here will be surrounded by the city limits. Of the 246 proposed build-able lots -- I'm sorry it doesn't come out very well, it's a pretty big project. Of the 246 proposed build-able lots, 56 are within the FEMA one hundred year flood plane. The applicant is proposing to conduct 18 zero lot line lots, 67 alley loaded lots, 31 patio home lots, 128 single family detached lots, one day care lot, and one clubhouse and pool lot. To break up the attached units, a patio home lot is proposed between each pair of the attached units. And it's kind of tough to show at this scale, but, basically, you have the attached units and, then, you have the detached units, attached and, then, detached kind of on the perimeter on the north side of their collector street there. I did want to point out just one other thing with the plats and its condition in the staff report. The applicant was proposing an 18-foot wide alley within a 20 foot -- within a 20 foot easement on the back side of the build-able lots. This was a little problematic, as far as staff -- kind of played that out and there wouldn't be a rear setback for the garage and the garages could potentially be hanging out into the alley and not be a drive-able surface. The structures on the property lines that basically go down the center of the alley, so staff recommended that they put the alleys within a Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 11 of 90 common lot or dedicate it to the highway district, kind of getting some separation to buildings, that way people that park in front of their garage aren't blocking an alleyway. So, as staff has recommended, there will be 18 feet between the face of the garage and the property line and 20 feet to the asphalt of the alley. We did receive a letter from the applicant today about that condition and they seemed to be okay with that condition. All patio home lots, alley-loaded lots, and attached lots are located north of Jasper Street. That's the -- what I referred to as a collector. It's not really a collector, but this is Jasper and the pool area and all 128 single family detached lots are located south of that. So, this is kind of a demarcation line between the small lots and larger lots. The common lot with the park is right at the terminus of the collector roadway coming into a development and I will show you that a little bit more in the landscape plan in just a second. Jasper Street is proposed as an east-west stub and I think that's important, because today Venable Lane does not currently exist. There is a 20-foot wide flag, if you will, down to the seven acres. That is not improved and cannot really be improved as a street today until the property further to the east develops and is in alignment with Venable across on the north side of Ustick Road. So, the applicant is proposing to tie into that future street, what the city has designated as a collect -- north-south collector at Venable. The gross density of the subdivision is 4.13 dwelling units per acre. With the subject PO the applicant has requested reduced building setbacks, reduced lot sizes, reduced lot frontages, reduced minimum house size, and increased maximum block length. The applicant is also requesting approval for 12 accessory dwelling units to be constructed within the project. Staff is supportive of the accessory dwelling units as noted in the staff report. It's a good way to get the densities up and provide some innovative ways to provide some smaller units on single family -- traditional single-family lots. I just want to really quickly touch on the PD amenities. Here is kind of a blow up of the pool and park area, again, the main entrance to the subdivision goes up to Ustick here. The applicant is proposing a ten-foot wide asphalt pathway along the existing Ten Mile -- better go to the other slide. The existing pathway that leads to Tully Park, they are proposing to tie into that in this location down here and construct a pool with restrooms, changing areas, a splash pad area and the play area for the residents of this subdivision. I did just want to touch on a couple of things from the letter today received from Engineering Solutions and, then, hopefully, the applicant can clarify and expand on some of those things that are in there that I'm not going to address. First, I want to just explain that the design of the subdivision, staff -- I believe I could have supported it fully if the Comp Plan designation did not call for a mix of uses in this area and that's why the staff report recommended that the area north of Parkstone be left out of being final platted. So, that would be this general block here. That, basically, the applicant wait a little while until the city sees how it develops on the other side of Venable and how Venable is constructed and what kind of uses are put in there and/or a market study is performed to see if any nonresidential uses can be supported in this area. The other thing that I did just want to clarify is in the letter it does state that Meridian has too many offices, basically, to simplify the letter, but it did say it was 22 percent, I believe. That mixed-use area does not just mean office uses, it can be retail, coffee shops, restaurants, you know, those types of other uses, not just professional offices or dentist offices. So, just to clarify that, that the Comp Plan does call for these mix of uses. And I would like the applicant -- we talked a little bit before the presentation, but just to clarify Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 12 of90 how the 12 accessory dwelling units on the north side, to be constructed on the smaller lots and to talk about the parking for them and how the city should specify, you know, we have to designate somehow on a plat that these 12 lots or however many lots need to have an accessory use on it, there is no way for us to really track it in the planning department, so if the applicant could just talk about that for a minute. And, finally, the only amendment that is recommended that the Commission make to the staff report is on page 33. Staff concurs with the applicant that the parks requirements for the pathway cross-sections are pretty eccentric and would just maybe recommend some other language that the applicant shall -- I have some here, if you would like, but, basically, the point is the applicant shall coordinate the construction of the multi-use pathway with the Meridian Parks Department. I guess one more thing. The applicant did drop off a little post-it about the fencing -- perimeter fencing was questioned. Wrought iron is proposed along all the open spaces, including the park areas and pathway and, then, there will be vinyl all along the exterior and along the collector coming into the development. So, I did want to just go on record with that. And staff is recommending approval with the conditions as stated in the staff report. With that I will stand for any questions you may have. Zaremba: Commissioners, questions at this point? Moe: I think I'll wait until after the applicant. Zaremba: In that case, we are ready for the applicant. McKay: Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, 150 East Aiken Street, Eagle. I'm representing the applicant Packard Estates Development on this application. If I could put some boards up. Hopefully, the Commission can see that. This particular site, as Craig indicated, is approximately 59 acres. It's kind if an unusual site, obviously, in its configuration with this square up here and, then, this kind of long leg down in here. We had some challenges in design for this particular site. We had three existing stub streets. We have one here and a second one here on the western side. A third one here on the east. We have existing Waterbury Park here and, then, Meridian Park Subdivision, I believe, is located right here. We have Five Mile Creek that runs along the southern boundary. There is also an existing multi-use pathway that comes down, crosses the creek and goes on east. One of the other challenges we had to work around is the city installed a 21 inch sewer trunk through this property a few years ago and that trunk comes up through this property like this and, then, exits into Waterbury Park. Our fourth constraint here is the Creason Lateral that runs diagonally across it here and, then, our other thing we had to work around was the existing dwelling that's located right there on Ustick Road and currently fronts on Ustick Road. So, taking all those factors into consideration, we worked and reworked this site, we came up with three or four different ideas on it, met with staff I think at least three times, maybe more. I lost count after awhile. Trying to determine what was the best use for this particular piece of property. These neighborhood centers that are designated on the Comprehensive Plan, as Craig indicated, there is one that comes around this property kind of like this in this fashion. It encompasses about roughly 29 or 26 acres, I think, of Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 13 of 90 this 59 acres. The rest of this is designated medium density residential. So, as you well know, in the Comprehensive Plan, the neighborhood centers call for a certain criteria to be utilized in the design of the subdivision. That criteria is a more gridded pattern of the subdivision as short blocks, incorporation of alleyways, the usage of reduced roadways, centrally located open space, pedestrian friendly interconnectivity. A variety of housing choices. It talks about creating a site where you have a radiating pattern of housing types where it's denser and, then, it decreases in density and the lot sizes and home sizes, obviously, increase. We feel that in working with this site, we incorporated those factors. And when you -- when you look at the Comprehensive Plan and it gives you this more gridded central half mile collector concept to work with, you know, it is not intended to be this is the only way to do it, but it is intended as, obviously, a guideline of one way to do it and that is how the staff has explained it to us in the past in our discussions. Now, one of the problems that we had with the neighborhood center is, obviously, the center of it is right there and -- but there is no collector roadway in that location and that collector roadway can't be built in that location until the Ward property to the east were to redevelop -- or to develop, excuse me, which, then, would allow for an alignment of the public portion of Venable to the north that goes into Cedar Springs. The other second factor is when -- when the Comprehensive Plan showed a half mile collector coming down, there were no provisions when Waterbury Park came through -- and Capital Development did that, for any interconnectivity. So, there was no mechanism for this -- a collector here to ever feed this main interior out to Ustick Road. So, it's one of those situations -- I think we have talked about it before on other projects, where, you know, kind of the sins of the past are affecting what we are able to do in the future. So, we had to come in with a central collector here. The best solution I could come up with is there is a flag drain that comes down the east boundary. We intend to pipe that and, then, have that landscaped through there -- that would be like a perforated pipe that goes down and dumps into the Creason Lateral and, then, we created this kind of -- what I call kind of an east-west residential collector. We have landscaping that runs adjoining it on the south side, we do have front-on housing here, but they are alley loaded right through here. So, there would not be ingress and egress to those lots. So, it could function kind of like a residential collector. What I envision when the Ward property -- oh, oh. I think I ran out of -- I ran out of juice. I think when the Ward property -- thank you. When the Ward property develops and the property to the west develops, this would be kind of like -- not like a frontage road up next to the arterial, but it would act as a main thoroughfare for interconnectivity between the subdivisions. This particular product here is about 4,200 square foot lots. The question was asked, I think by Craig, how could -- how can you accommodate the driveways or parking for these type of units when you have got say 40-foot lots. We did bring some examples. We brought some examples. I have some pictures. I got too many pictures. These are some examples of pictures where -- where they have taken that accessory structure -- it's above the garage, so as you can see, this picture, for example, here -- Canning: Mrs. McKay, for the benefit of those in the audience, are they the same as the ones that are up on the board? McKay: Yes. Yes, ma'am. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 14 of 90 Canning: Can you use those, then? McKay: Yes, I can. I didn't know you had those up on the screen. As you can see, the accessory structure would be here. This is the alley. Here is their driveway. We agreed with staff, we will expand the hard surface area to 16 feet. We will allocate a 20- foot separate lot. There will be a 20-foot setback from edge of garage to edge of travel surface. So, here would be the two-car garage for the main primary residence. The accessory use, like a mother-in-Iaw's quarters, or say a college kid, it would have the one car garage here. And so that's how it would be accommodated. What I indicated to staff is we do have some of these lots here that are say 36 feet wide. We would have to either only utilize the wider lots that we have in here that are 40 and above or widen these out to accommodate this type of accessory use. We designated 12 and my suggestion would be add a condition that when the final plat comes in, that final plat designates exactly which lots would have those 12 accessory use structures. Now, staff did criticize us of the density. Our density -- as you well know, those neighborhood centers call for a minimum of eight dwelling units per acre. Our overall gross density is 4.43 and our net density is 5.46. But as I stated in my responses to staff, when we look at this area up here where the concentration of most of that neighborhood center lies, our density is pretty high. It's above eight. I think it's 8.1 -- 8.16 dwelling units per acre and that takes into consideration the alley loaders and the patio homes and the accessory use structures. Now, one thing that we did do -- and I think staff did like it, is we did alternate through here where we would have like two attached dwellings and, then, the next lot over would be wider and it would be detached patio-type homes. So, that -- we wouldn't have everything in a row and they wouldn't be identical in width and look and bulk. When we got down in through this area here on the south, we had to, obviously, consider compatibility with the existing single family residential. We did have a neighborhood meeting, did get some -- have some discussions with the neighbors. I think a majority of them came from Meridian Park Subdivision here. There was discussions about fencing and a ditch. All in all, I was quite happy with the response that we received. We did make effort to try to match, obviously, their width and square footage to make sure that these were as compatible as possible. All of our open space is kind in the central core right here. As you come in the collector roadway, what you will see is the pool -- swimming pool facility, the clubhouse, which is restrooms, locker, changing room, and, then, we will have a -- what we call a splash pad, like you're seeing -- like a lot of the cities have now where the water come up and the kids can play in it, it's very safe, and, then, it goes back down. It just kind of squirts up at about waist level. We thought that would be a nice feature to incorporate into this project. We have got central pathways coming up through here and, then, linking down into this southern portion. We also have linkage in through this area here. Now, staff and I have discussed the Creason Lateral. There is differing opinions. Staff has indicated that the Comprehensive Plan calls this the South Slough. Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District is saying that is not correct. The South Slough stops at Venable Lane. As this waterway goes westward to Venable Lane, it is the Creason Lateral. Bill Henson indicated to me on the phone that they will be writing a letter to the Council stating their objection to any pathway within their designated easement, which I think is 60 feet. Nampa-Meridian, Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 15 of 90 obviously, wants us to pipe it. It will take a 48-inch concrete pipe to pipe it. We did show on our preliminary plat that that would be piped. Staff has asked that it be open. We did take a look at it. I did bring some pictures today to submit to the -- to the Commission, so they can kind of judge on their own. There are some areas of the facility where it is about knee deep, a little over 20 feet wide, does have some esthetic value. There are others where it's narrower and it is deeper, so we do have to, obviously, take into consideration ditch safety and other issues when we are leaving these facilities open. This is the facilities -- I'll submit that for the record. Now, Waterbury Subdivision has improved a portion of it. They do have an area that is eastward where they have installed some grass along the Creason Lateral. You can see the Creason there. It weaves next to the manicured grass. But, then, as we go looking west, they just left it in weeds, not improved. So, it's kind of -- it's kind of a difficult call. We -- in Bridgetower we had the Creason Lateral traverse through our project there. We piped it. We piped it for two reasons. Ditch safety and we pipe it for ground water purposes. We found that we had. to accelerate our plan to pipe that facility due to the fact that as soon as we installed a phase next to it, we could see that we were getting seepage from that canal and that we wanted to make sure prior to those homes being -- any homes being constructed, that we got that facility in pipe, we piped it, and we didn't have any problems adjoining it thereafter. If you would at look at my responses, staff and I do have some things that, obviously, we don't see eye to eye on. We do not want to have to do the grading and drainage plan on each lot. I have consulted with the project engineer. She indicates based on the city and ACHD's requirements, we have to have a three-foot separation from the roadway to the groundwater. Also, if you utilize the drainage swales, we got to have 4.7 feet. So, she feels that, obviously, that is overkill from a technical perspective. Do you have any questions? Zaremba: Commissioners? Rohm: That's a lot to digest. McKay: I know. Sorry. Zaremba: It's been very enlightening so far. Moe: Mr. Chairman, not at this time. I will have -- Commissioner Rohm said it best. There is a lot to digest here with your answers to -- Zaremba: I would suggest that we go on with public testimony and, then, we will ask you our questions after that, if that's okay. Rohm: Works for me. Zaremba: Okay. McKay: Thanks. Meridian Planning /3. Zoning July 21,2005 Page 16 of 90 Zaremba: The first person signed up is Alisha Lopez. From the audience she says she's just signed in. She's marked as being for and didn't care to actually speak, so she's had the opportunity. The next name is Christopher Brower and while he's coming forward I will comment that we have received a very well reasoned and thorough letter and that is in the public record and we have all read it. Thank you. Brower: Chris Brower, 387 West Woodbury Drive in Meridian. I live in Waterbury Park and am here on behalf of the residents of Waterbury Park and just wanted to -- Zaremba: Are you speaking as a spokesman for several people? Borup: Yes, I am. Zaremba: The whole group? Or most of it or -- Borup: After speaking with the board I believe I was the only person that -- Zaremba: Are there people here that -- just raise your hand -- that he's speaking for? Okay. We will let you be a spokesman. Brower: The reason I came as a spokes person is on the Valen Court Subdivision, if you remember, Mark Snodgrass was the representative, because there was many of us, so we endeavored to just have one person come. To summarize, Waterbury Park, after it was built, the then existing Comprehensive Plan did not envision any neighborhood center and when the neighborhood center idea of high density was introduced, we did cite that the other 13 were all semi circles around Meridian, but this one was a full circle and thought to see if just the northern half of Ustick Road could be a semi circle to be consistent with the others, but that was turned down. And, then, when Valen Court was proposed, which is immediately to our north, we in Salisbury one were concerned about two things, the fact that the lot sizes next to us were actually smaller than our homes and the traffic was being routed through the existing subdivision. So, it was worked out -- was to have the traffic, instead, come through Indian Rocks Road, kind of a buyer beware, those people moving in after the neighborhood center idea came forth and to adjust the lot sizes that were next to our two subdivisions, so that they would be compatible. Our concern with this project is that seven acre parcel there -- you'll see a stub street on the northwest part of our subdivision that we are the primary direction of travel and from that stub street all the way to Meridian Road there is no stop sign or anything and we believe that the high density traffic will, essentially, come through our lower density existing subdivision that existed before the neighborhood center idea was proposed. We are fine with the stub street on the bottom and if this had been a similar or lesser density, we wouldn't be here. We are only here because we are concerned that being the primary direction of travel, the high density traffic is going to come through in the morning and, then, as a shortcut to Meridian Road, that they would not want to drive all the way up to Ustick Road, go to Ustick Road and, then, come down Meridian Road. So, what we are asking Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 17 of 90 for is that although this parcel is not -- the seven acres is not being discussed per se tonight, we are asking if, as a condition to development of this 59 acres, that that northwest stub street -- it could be agreed it won't be developed in the future, because our concern is that if we wait until this seven acres is developed, with all the stub streets from the high density leading to it, that the proposal will, then, be to connect into that stub street, because it's already there and all that traffic will flow through. So, like I -- the other concern we have is that -- if you notice directly to our west there is eight lots where we have seven lots. So, it's, again, not -- you would think that if you're interior that you would be the same or less density driving through on the way to Meridian Road. And so those are our concerns that we discussed at our neighborhood association meeting and I just wanted to make myself available to answer questions and to share our concerns, that we have tried to work first when the neighborhood center idea was proposed and, then, tried to work when Valen Court was established and given the precedent that Salisbury One was accommodated with the similar lot sizes and the redirected travel, that's all we are asking for is similar protection of that northwest stub street and that the lot sizes directly to our west between the two existing subdivisions kind of match the lot size. I agree they are also R-4, but they are still smaller than ours, even though they are interior of our location. And that's really all I had in trying to summarize in my written testimony. Zaremba: Thank you. Questions from the Commissioners? Brower: Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Let's see. I'm guessing it's Joe Simunich. We also have a letter from you about Venable Lane. Thank you for that. Simunich: I'm Joe Simunich and I reside at 955 West Ustick. My wife and I sold this property to Crossfield Subdivision and not until today did I get a copy of the staff report or the responses from Engineering Solutions. We still own seven acres adjacent to the Crossfield Subdivision and I tried to analyze the staff report and Engineering Solutions' responses in a couple hours, I find there is some questions that need to be asked and maybe get some answers. I will start with covering or leaving open the Creason Lateral. In 1995, 1996, before this very same body, the plat was approved after considerable discussion to not cover the Creason Lateral. It was not required to be piped. The Creason Lateral upstream or the Finch Lateral clear up to Meridian Road or farther, it has lawn on one side, bike path or a pathway on the other side, and it's a real good feature for the neighborhood. The lots back right up to the pathway. Also, it was mentioned that the Creason Lateral will prevent seepage to the adjacent lots. I have been there for many many years. The Creason Lateral through our property or the property we had, through the seven acres, to the Kellogg property, is a swale, it's like a creek. The water does not go from the Creason Lateral to the adjacent ground. As a matter of fact, an analysis during the wintertime, water flows into the Creason Lateral from springs. So, I really think the Creason Lateral should be left open and let that water establish a good pathway and, apparently, Nampa-Meridian wants all these ditches piped, but a nice flowing stream -- people go to the mountains to see those Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 18 of 90 things, now you have got them right in town and you want to cover it up. And the Creason is not used for irrigation until it gets about two miles downstream. The Finch Lateral has pathways, lawn, trees, and it's good for the area and there is a final -- as a financial situation, if the Creason Lateral is piped on the Crossfield Subdivision, they have got 700 feet. So, I'm sure if that's required to be piped, then, when I develop my seven acres, I'll have 660 feet that we will need to pipe and it will not fit within the Finch Lateral that's upstream or the bike path that I donated on the -- for the Five Mile Creek pathway. So, I think we have got a good thing going there and I hate to see it changed for this subdivision. Now, on page 19 we go to stub streets. After reading the staff report, I see a lot of work that has to be done and mistakes are human, but I need to bring this paragraph to your attention. It states that the street from Waterbury Subdivision to the north would cross Five Mile Creek and may not be extended. This is the Creason Lateral -- or am I mistaken? I'd like for someone to answer this question for me. Hood: That's the Creason. You're correct. Simunich: Is it the Creason or the Five Mile? Hood: The Creason Lateral has a stub street to itself. Zaremba: I think the one you're talking about does cross the Creason. You're talking about this area right here? Simunich: Yes. In the staff report it says that may not be extended in the future. Is that right? Zaremba: The director may have some input on that. Hood: I can tell you what the staff report and analysis was, is, basically, if that road were to be extended it would be on your dime and you would have to pay for a bridge crossing of that. So, the reason I put it may not be extended is because I can envision you coming in and requesting from this body a variance to not have to extend that stub street. Simunich: That's very nice of you, but that -- that pipe or bridge or whatever, it should have been put in when Waterbury Five was developed, because that is on their property. Canning: Chairman, I need to remind you that his time is up and he has been notified of that and his time is up and unless you plan on giving everyone free reign tonight, you need to keep to your three minutes. Also, I would ask if anyone in the audience, if you have questions of staff, please, direct them to the chairman and the chairman will tell us if they want us to answer it, just to keep the Public Hearing running. Thank you. Zaremba: Yes. May I ask you to conclude quickly, please. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 19 of 90 Simunich: Well, Mr. Chairman, and Planning and Zoning staff, these are very important issues that need to be discussed and I guess if you cut me off, that's the way it's going to be, but there is a couple more items here and I think they are very important. Zaremba: If you would mention what those are and not discuss them at length, please. Simunich: Well, they need to be discussed at length. One of them is the stub street that I was just beginning to talk about and the Venable Lane issue. You have got facts in here or information that is not all there. There is -- I own 20 feet of Venable Lane and the county owns 20 feet. Nobody mentions that 20 feet. When Cedar Springs was being developed, that was before this very same body, and they said there would be no problem connecting Venable Lane south to Venable Lane north of Ustick Road. So, we are getting mixed information here. Ada County Highway District owns 20 feet of -- on the east side of Venable Lane. Zaremba: Okay. Next point. Simunich: You know, if you are going to put me on the spot, I can't answer this in detail in a minute, I'll do it by correspondence. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. No one else has signed up, but this would be your opportunity to speak if you need to. Seeing none, we will ask for the applicant to come back and respond to the issues that have been raised. McKay: Becky McKay. I guess I'd like to talk about the neighborhood center. The representative of Waterbury Park brought up a good point, that it makes the most sense that that circle -- or that half circle be to the north of Ustick, because that's where the public collector lies. That's where the elementary is going, that's where we are seeing a mixture of neighborhood, commercial, and office take place. That has opportunity to interconnect to Cedar Springs to flow that traffic out. I guess from my perspective -- Craig, can you put the vicinity map up real quick? If you look at this, there is really no ability of this interior to flow out to a future Venable. And if we create a little neighborhood center there at that half mile, it's going to function, at least from a planning perspective, more like a -- kind of a strip commercial with access being taken off of Ustick versus the intent of the neighborhood center capturing that traffic and keeping it within section, instead of pushing it out to the arterial. So, I tend to agree with -- I think his name is Chris, that the neighborhood center concept south of Ustick is not what I would call a good idea. The seven-acre parcel, Mr. Simunich owns that particular property. He has a 20-foot flag that goes out to Ustick where the Venable private lane portion lies. He intends to build a home on it. I think it's construction at this time or getting there. He, obviously, wants to protect his right in the future to potentially develop that property. He went before the Council I think here a few months ago. The Council granted him, I think, a hook up to sewer and water, even though he was outside the city limits, because he did not want to be annexed and staff mentioned that is an enclave, but that he chose not to be annexed. We are providing a stub street to Mr. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 20 of 90 Simunich on his north boundary. I have been coordinating with him to make sure that that stub street is where it will benefit him, because it's solely for his benefit to feed out from his property. He voiced his concerns to me that when our subdivision develops and if he develops his seven acres, he sees that all the neighbors always come out and start to complain about any interconnectivity to these stub streets, even though it has been planned for years. So, he wants, obviously, to be on the record that at some point in time that stub street through this project will connect to other lots that may develop his seven acres. I have spoken to -- to my client on the Creason Lateral. We are not opposed to leaving it open. I would like to see staff work with Nampa-Meridian to help try to get them to come around. It is on the Comprehensive Plan that that is designated a pathway. Mr. Simunich is absolutely correct. There is one on Five Mile Creek, one on Creason. We can work with it. We have designed around it in its natural alignment, so we are not moving it in any shape or form. We were going to just propose putting it in pipe, because at that particular time when we made that decision we felt that that was the best. But, obviously, it's up to the Commission and the Council, but we are not opposed to that. The stub street I think that Mr. Simunich was talking about is the one coming out of Waterbury and as Craig indicated, they stopped -- Capital Development stopped that stub street short of crossing the Creason. So, I think what staff was trying to elaborate in their report that it's highly unlikely that that stub street will make a connection to the seven acres. Staff suggested the possibility of another stub street on the western side of Mr. Simunich. I did discuss that with him a couple days ago. He wasn't too keen on that idea. But, you know, I think the fact that it's only seven acres, wa do have that one stub that should be able to, obviously, support any traffic that that seven acres could generate. With the fact that we have got this east-west street with the no front-on driveways or anything, you know, they will come up there -- if Venable were ever developed, when the Ward property develops, then, this interconnectivity could be made. We feel this is a good project on a very difficult piece of property. We monitored the ground water for a year and a half at this site and we worked diligently to try to come up with a project that meets what we believe the intent is, more of a neo- traditional residential subdivision. We are keeping that house there, I forgot to mention, and we'd like it to be a day care. We understand it takes a Conditional Use Permit and we have drawn in kind of a circle drive, we thought that would be great, people who live there could come in, drop their kids off right there, and, then, go on to work and take that direct driveway off Ustick. So, we tried to incorporate what we feel are some good ideas and complimentary to this area. Do you have any questions? Zaremba: Commissioners? Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I think you have done a marvelous job. I am serious. I think you have taken a piece of property that has a lot of issues associated with it. My comment -- I don't have a question, but I do have a comment. And the comment is there are so many issues associated with the development of this property that I can't digest all of those things as Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 21 of 90 -- over a course of 15 minutes while we are sitting here deliberating and from my personal perspective, I think that we, as a Commission, would do a better job addressing your concerns and the balance of the public, if, in fact, we -- I don't know if continue is the right word for it. I think we can actually close the Public Hearing and go back and digest this and, then, reopen it at a later date and ask the right questions, rather than close it out and not come up with the right solution. And that's -- right now that's the way I feel about this project. And that's not saying that you haven't done an excellent job, both yourself and staff. McKay: And we appreciate that, sir. And we know this is a complicated project. Baird: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Mr. Baird. Baird: If you choose to go that way, I would recommend that you actually make the motion to continue it to a date certain. That would also leave the record open and give Mr. Simunich an opportunity to put his concerns in writing, since he indicated that he just got that report today. So, then, he would be able address those specifically and get them here in time and the applicant could also review that and we could have an efficient continued hearing when we come back. Zaremba: Thank you. Rohm: And to continue that thought, any responses that we get with plenty of time to digest it, gives us an opportunity to do a better job and so if Mr. Simunich has additional concerns or wants to put his concerns in writing and submit them to the city, we get a copy of that stuff like the next day and we are -- I'm not opposed to reading that stuff on my own time and I think that we can do a much better job if we can just move forward with that commitment. Zaremba: I would say that thinking parallels Commissioner Rohm's. It is a difficult piece of property. There are many elements of what you're proposing that I think are just right in line with what would be good for Meridian. I think there are some kinks that still need to be worked out and I do appreciate that you provide a very thorough answer to the staff's comments. However, I reviewed this just as I sat down this evening and not to give anybody a short shift, I'm agreeing with Commissioner Rohm, I would like time to study it. What you have said, I think, is to continue the Public Hearing, give Mr. Simunich a chance to put his very thorough comments on all of the subjects, which I would like to hear, into writing, so that we can study those as well. And maybe, in the meantime, there is some additional agreements that you and staff or even Mr. Simunich come to, incorporate any ideas of all the speakers and so I guess my thought is I would support the idea of continuing this and August 4th is very full and my thinking would be August 18th. Commissioner Moe, you're nodding your head. Do you have further comment? Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 22 of 90 Moe: Well, I guess I would just -- I would just reiterate the same that the other two Commissioners have. When I read the staff report I anticipated that I would see comments from you, which, of course, I did get when I sat down also tonight. You have done a thorough job going through this, through the public hearing so far there have been issues come up and I am, as well, am not ready to make a decision tonight and I think these things need to be worked out and I think the 18th would be perfect. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. McKay: Mr. Chairman, we do apologize. We received the staff report at noon on Friday and it takes a few days to, obviously, get with our client, talk with the highway district, talk with staff -- I talked with Mr. Simunich on the phone, but I had to talk to so many parties -- and I realize you just received that today. Zaremba: And it was also a very lengthy and thorough staff report. McKay: Yes, sir. So, it took us awhile, so we do appreciate you taking the effort this evening and I agree that the 18th would probably most appropriate. Zaremba: This is not a ding for having just received it today, but just we are trying to give it thorough thought and not jump to conclusions. So, a lot of issues have been raised, so I don't think we have any more questions that we need to ask. Hood: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Where did that voice come from? Mr. Hood. Hood: May I just -- based on the discussions you just had, a couple of things. I am not going to be here on the 18th, so I just wanted to point out a couple things. I'm, actually, getting married that weekend, so I won't be here on the 18th, so -- I did just want to -- I can prepare the staff report for that meeting, however, and I just wanted to see if there is any things that you would like me to change between now and the next hearing or if you want just basically the same staff report with no changes and digest all of that or if there is one or two glaring things that we can clean this up now, I can make those changes. Again, if you have thought about that, fine. I just thought if there were some things to lessen the amount of time we have to spend on it next time, we can get those cleaned up and if there is anything now, I can do that in the next three weeks, so -- and, then, finally, what I'd like to do is just get -- since I'm not going to be here, is maybe explain just a little bit more about what's going on on Venable south of Ustick. I did talk with Christy Richardson at ACHD as well and she -- she made a couple of different statements and I will -- some of the pertinent ones, I guess, to this are, basically, the alignment of Venable north requires the parcel -- and as I said before, that that parcel to develop, even though Mr. Simunich has been discussing with ACHD the possibility of dedicating that as a right of way for Venable, the offsets -- it just doesn't work to have them line up. So, that's -- I don't know what all his concerns were and I'm not going to try to address all those, it's just -- I know that was one of the things that he has talked Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21,2005 Page 23 of 90 with Christy about at ACHD is how does -- how to get Venable down south, anyways, or what to do with that 20 foot flag that he owns now just to ACHD and ACHD can't accept a 20 foot right of way that's not improved, so -- they accept right of ways that's fully improved with curb, gutter, and sidewalk and a drivable surface. So, that's kind of the long and short of that. So, just for what I know about Venable, I just thought I'd pass that along as well, so -- Zaremba: Well, I understand that the majority of the -- the centerline of the roadway has to be farther east for this to align with the other portion of Venable. Is any portion of his 20 feet going to be involved? Hood: I believe that probably the curb, gutter, and sidewalk can be constructed within the 20 feet, but, basically, the whole pavement and the other curb, gutter, sidewalk on the other side of the street is going to be in the new right of way. Zaremba: Okay. I'm sorry. Can I ask you to explain that in the letter that you're going to submit? Simunich: Well, you have given him an opportunity; you should give me an opportunity. Baird: Sir, you've had your time tonight. The hearing is about to be continued. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I have a question of Craig. Zaremba: Okay. Rohm: In your staff report you have brought up the mixed-use neighborhood center as kind of an issue on this development and from testimony heard tonight and the comments, it appears as if there is some question about maybe that's not the right or appropriate place for that type of development. Is there room for you to move off of that or are you pretty stuck with that? Hood: I mean that analysis is based on the Comprehensive Plan and, like I said at the beginning, I like the design of the subdivision. I think it's very innovative. We don't see a lot of short blocks, alley-loaded units -- pretty nice. But I do think the site specific condition number two of the preliminary plat does have an out. It doesn't say you have to put in these units, it just says -- can you give us, you know, a couple of years or until a market analysis is done or until the other property develops to further analyze whether residential uses are appropriate here or non-residential uses are appropriate. But at your -- you know, if that's -- if you say, no, residential works, then, I'll do whatever -- whatever you -- however you tell me to change the staff report, so -- Rohm: And I question, from my perspective, having not digested this whole proposal, the residential doesn't look out of line to me. But I'm only one of five and so that would just be my comment. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21,2005 Page 24 of 90 Zaremba: I don't so much have an issue with the residential as I think that we need to give the original neighborhood center concept a chance to work. We keep finding reasons not to really implement it the way it was intended and, I don't know, like I say, there are things -- if you just handed me this plan, I would like this plan, but since it overlays -- and we don't have that many neighborhood centers laid out, it overlays the neighborhood center, and, like I say, we keep undercutting that idea and it needs a chance to actually happen somewhere. So, now, I'm not giving an answer, the jury is still out, in my opinion. Rohm: Well, I think that there is room for continued discussion between the developer and staff and maybe there is some compromise there that can be arrived at over the next three weeks. But with that being said, I think that it's time to make a motion and -- Moe: Well, before you do that, I do have one other comment for Craig and it's just a fairly minimal item, but I do believe we do need another notation on the preliminary plat that they do identify the locations for those accessory structure uses. At least that for sure. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I think I will go ahead and make the changes that the applicant has agreed to, if you feel that's appropriate as well. I won't -- anything that's bold I won't -- I won't change or alter, but anything that appears that we are on the same page, I will reflect that in the staff report. Zaremba: Reflect the agreements. Rohm: All right. Zaremba: Okay. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we continue items AZ 05-015, PP 05-017, and CUP 05-022 to the regularly scheduled meeting of August 18th. End of motion. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Item 9: Continued Public Hearing from July 7, 2005: AZ 05-026 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 15.32 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for