Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 18, 2005 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning August18,2005 Page 79 of 98 Rohm: I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of CUP 05- 022, to include all staff comments for the hearing date August 18th, 2005, received August 10th, 2005, with supplement on August 12th, 2005, with all changes as noted on the preliminary plat application. End of motion. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Zaremba: Anticipating that we will finish the agenda tonight, we will take about a five- minute break. (Recess. ) Item 16: Continued Public Hearing from July 21 2005: AZ 05-029 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 11.75 acres to R-2 zone for Sunstone Subdivision by Benchmark Construction - 1155 and 1123 North Black Cat Road: Itèm 17: Continued Public Hearing from July 21 2005: PP 05-029 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 17 single-family residential building lots and 3 common area lots on 11.75 acres in a proposed R-2 zone for Sunstone Subdivision by Benchmark Construction - 1155 and 1123 North Black Cat Road: Zaremba: Okay. We will reconvene and let the record show that all Commissioners that were present before are again present. And I will open the continued Public Hearing AZ 05-029 and PP 05-029, both relating to Sunstone Subdivision and entertain a motion to accept the application -- the applicant's request to withdraw these. Borup: I'd just like to say I'm disappointed with withdrawing that. I liked the idea of half- acre subdivisions. But that being said, I move that we accept the applicant's withdrawal. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 18: Continued Public Hearing from July 21 2005: AZ 05-028 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 2.06 acres from RUT to R-40 zone for Arnke Subdivision by Michael Arnke - 2070 West Pine Avenue: Meridian Planning & Zoning August 18,2005 Page 80 of 98 Item 19: Continued Public Hearing from July 21 2005: PP 05-028 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 18 building lots and 3 common lots on 2.06 acres in a proposed R-40 zone for Arnke Subdivision by Michael Arnke - 2070 West Pine Avenue: Item 20: Public Hearing: CUP 05-037 Request for Conditional Use Permit for 18 townhouses in a proposed R-40 zone for Arnke Subdivision by Michael Arnke - 2070 West Pine Avenue: Zaremba: And I agree. I think it could have been worked out somehow, but I guess they are redesigning it, so -- okay. Let us now open the continued Public Hearing for AZ 05-028 and the continued Public Hearing for PP 05-028, and the new Public Hearing for CUP 05-037, all relating to Arnke Subdivision. And we will begin with the staff report. Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Commissioner, Members of the Commission. The application before you is for Arnke Subdivision, for 18 dwelling units and three common lots on 2.06 acres off of East Pine Avenue, west of Linder Road. The site is located to the west of Meridian High School and, then, is surrounded on the north and west by Ada County property and, then, on the east by the LDS seminary. The applicant has requested approval through the Conditional Use Permit process of six three-plex buildings, which are considered townhouses under city code and in the R-40 zone. They have requested those as a conditional use. In discussions with staff, the applicant did choose the R-40 zone for the lack of required street frontage, because of the proposed service drive and not dedicating a public road on the property. The R-40 zone, while they are nowhere near the density that you would see in an R-40 zone, that the dimensional standards and the lack of required frontage did work to their advantage in that respect. The applicant has proposed to construct a 24-foot driveway off of East Pine Avenue that would be a private drive, enter the site and, then, in a T configuration moves east and west, with guest parking off of that drive. In working with the applicant about some issues that the application did have -- unfortunately, some were worked out kind of late, so I did get a memo to you today. I don't expect you to read or be able to -- it's mostly for a reference for making your motion. I'll go through each of the items there and talk about what came to those conclusions. I do apologize for that being late. First, staff did recommend -- and I think you can kind of see it here on the landscape plan at best, is that on the eastern end of the site, as the property narrows, there was some concern about access to those units, to the eastern most units. The applicant had proposed to stop the service drive and, then, serve six units off of a common driveway. Staff did recommend that service drive be continued. We initially -- initially recommended that it be continued over to the landscape Lot 15. In discussions with Joe Silva of the fire department, because that service drive was extended, that changed his requirements in terms of fire access. So, he did want to see a secondary access. We did ask the applicant to punch that service drive through to the LDS property and connect to their drive as a secondary emergency access. The applicant was okay with that and, apparently, has already had discussions with the LDS church about getting that done. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 18,2005 Page 81 of 98 That access would, then, be blocked with bollards and a chain with a knocks box lock that the fire department has access to. And that would only be used for a secondary fire access. The other issue -- another issue is the drive. Staff recognizes that as the site narrows it is possible to continue the sidewalk all the way to the eastern edge of the -- and to the six lots that are on the eastern portion of the property. Staff would like to see the sidewalk continued as far as is feasible. That was a little bit hard of a condition to come up with, so I did come up with a -- that it should be continued to the western edge of Lot 17. That seemed like the farthest that it could, obviously, be fit in. It could possibly be fit farther than that, but it becomes a little bit difficult to word the condition that, you know, the applicant will continue the sidewalk as far as possible on the south side drive, so I did tie that to a physical location, to the western side of Lot 17. And the applicant can address if that works for them, if they feel like that's feasible. As part of insuring access to those eastern units, we did request that the applicant reduce their proposed landscape buffer along Pine. While it's not something we would normally do is recommend that the landscape buffer be reduced, this is a high -- this is designated high density residential on the Comprehensive Plan and as such we would like to see it utilized to the extent that that's possible. By reducing that landscape buffer to the -- to require 20 feet, they were able to shift some buildings, meet their setbacks in the rear of the property and keep a distance between the garages that we felt like functioned better as a common drive, that would insure that there wasn't too much interference and there is the ability to access those very most two eastern units. So, that was a condition that was in the staff report. The fire department has required, because of the 24-foot width, that the entire service drive be signed no parking. The only parking would be -- would be the guest spots in the garages of the units and on the landscape plan here, the -- and they are delineated from the mass of the dwelling structure, but these front most portions of the units are garages. So, the only parking that would not be parking lot on the service drive, the only parking would be in the guest spaces, in the garages, and on the units where they are providing the full driveway depth, which, I believe, is only those three -- that building up there. Let's see. Staff did recommend on esthetic grounds that the applicant flip flop the buildings located in the center on the north of the service drive with the open space lot. In other words, move this open space drainage lot and associated parking to line up with the end of the entry drive and move that building to be adjacent to this building. Staff did feel that even with those parking spaces in front of the open space, that open space with some landscaping and trees, would provide a better view from Pine Avenue and entering into the unit and also immediately identify where the guest parking was, because it would be immediately apparent upon entering the development. The applicant did represent that there is some site constraints that does not make that possible or preferable. I think staff is okay with that. I'll let the applicant make his case on that. But that was more of a -- trying to make this development as pleasing as possible. If there is some things on site that don't work, I think that's still okay and staff is okay with that. The applicant did also request in the application letter to gate the project with a -- with a remote control -- I assume a remote control gate that would be, then, accessible by residents and their guests. Staff has actually recommended denial of that request and that is because you end up with one of two things. We do need to see the vehicles be able to move off of the roadway in order to access that gate. So, the gate cannot be placed at edge of right of way, because a Meridian Planning & Zoning August18,2005 Page 82 of 98 vehicle would be waiting in East Pine Avenue for that gate to open up. If we move the gate in -- and Brad represented that 60 feet is a number that we would like to see. Then, you have the problem of vehicles pulling off of Pine into this 24-foot drive and upon coming to the locked gate, the option is to back out onto East Pine, which is something we don't want to see. So, without facilities for an exit or a turnaround right there before the gate, we are recommending denial of that request. Any sort of turnaround right there for vehicles would impact buildings adjacent to the drive and it's my assumption that the applicant -- that's not -- would not be their preference. As a CUP they were required to submit elevations. The units are attached three-plexes or what we would consider townhouses. They do have a -- what staff felt was a positive appearance than maybe your standard four-plex box -- these aren't four-plexes, these are three-plexes, but they have an appearance that's residential in character and staff felt like was a good product and consistent with these other properties. And those are the elevations there. I will kind of touch real quick on the memo and make sure I hit all changes here. Number one was to delete condition 1.1.3 and that was the requirement that the applicant flip flop the open space drainage lot with those buildings and line them up with the service drive entrance. We have recommended that they modify condition 1.1.4 to extend that service drive to the eastern property line and provide that second emergency access the fire department would like to see. We have modified condition 1.1.5 to read that the applicant shall extend the sidewalk on the south side of the service drive to the western edge of Lot 17. Did add condition 1.1.12, which reads that the request for installation of a security gate at the entrance to the service drive from East Pine Avenue is denied. And, then, also recommended that condition 1.1.13 be added that because of site constraints the applicant has proposed to place the service drive -- the eastern extension of the service drive in an easement and we recommend that, then, be placed in a cross-access easement to benefit those lots in the subdivision that it does access. I think that that's the only thing I wanted to -- and at this point I will stand for questions. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Josh, as far as any fencing, they haven't submitted anything as of yet? Wilson: No, I don't believe they have. Moe: But it is a requirement for them to fence the perimeter? Wilson: If permanent perimeter fencing is not proposed, then, they would have to put up temporary fencing before release of building permits. But there is not a requirement to fence the perimeter. Moe: Even with the high school right there? Meridian Planning & Zoning August18,2005 Page 83 of 98 Wilson: As far as ordinance, no, but it's -- it being a Conditional Use Permit, you can impose conditions above and beyond the ordinance that you feel are necessary. Moe: Well, we will see what the applicant's planning to do there and we will go from there. I've got a real concern about that. Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: The emergency access, which in your new memo is referred to in paragraph two, to make that operative, does there need to be a cross-access agreement with the LDS property or -- it would only be used for emergency purposes, but do we need their agreement that -- Wilson: I think we probably do. I think you're correct. I think that should be added. Zaremba: Okay. To paragraph two on your memo. Wilson: Yeah. I think it could be handled within the same condition as the sentence in there. Zaremba: Okay. All right. Any other questions for staff? Would the applicant care to come forward? Nickel: Good late evening to you all. I'm going to be very brief. Shawn Nickel. 52 North 2nd Street in Eagle. I'm as tired as you are, as you saw from my nap back there, so I'm just going to address the questions that Josh brought up and, then, a couple of your comments. The modified conditions of approval we are fine with. We did -- I did meet with Joe Silva this morning and to kind of lock in that -- what he wanted for that emergency access. My client has met with the LDS church and does have approval from them to access that as an emergency access. I think a cross-access agreement would be appropriate. Or some sort of commitment from the seminary and we will provide that. Zaremba: I guess my thinking on that is they could someday sell their property and the new owner might say, no, I don't want a fire truck coming in this way or something, so it -- Nickel: And I think they realize that. It also provides them another access into theirs as well, so that would go both ways. Borup: Is there any redesign on that property? I assume there is a fence there. And no landscape, though? Zaremba: Shawn, if you would repeat what was said. Nickel: Yeah. My client did state that, yes, there is a chain link fence along the eastern boundary of the property and we will work with the seminary on providing that access. Meridian Planning & Zoning August18,2005 Page 84 of 98 Borup: So, I assume all the redesign work would be done as part of this project? Nickel: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. As staff stated, we did have a concern about relocating that common area over to this section right here and the reason we placed this common area right here was two fold. One was the sewer easement -- that sewer line will be coming from the north through the school district and that's the -- where the school board -- we will bring the sewer main over in this area and it will have to come down to service our site. The school had plans for building on this property right here and so that sewer line would coincide with their future plan. Secondly, this is the best place for us to put our drainage. That will be -- although it will be landscaped, it will be a drainage area and this was the best location for that. So, we would like to keep that in that location and so we would -- we appreciate staff's recommendation to delete that condition. With regard to the sidewalk, we just want the flexibility that as this area narrows down here -- we do have to keep a certain distance between the buildings and an appropriate width for that service drive, that we can work with staff on exactly how far to the east that that sidewalk would come and still fit in that spot as it narrows down. Zaremba: Let me ask a question on that. Is the sidewalk and the actual driveway different material, the sidewalk going to be concrete and the driveway asphalt and there is a curb? Nickel: Right. That is correct. Zaremba: But what I was wondering is if you could visually continue that farther than you really intend to by just striping something that looks like a crosswalk. Nickel: That's a good -- Zaremba: Where the cement has to end and the curb has to end, maybe -- that puts drivers on alert to look for pedestrians. Nickel: I think that would be a good idea. Borup: Or the sidewalk could continue and just delete the curb in that area, too. Zaremba: Bring it down to level with the asphalt. Borup: Then you don't have the drainage you need. Nickel: The drainage and also cars driving over the sidewalk as it narrows down. But, again, if we have the flexibility to work, once we design it, with staff, I think we can come up with -- Zaremba: I'm just thinking it could literally look like it goes a lot longer than it really does with a paint stripe or something. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 18. 2005 Page 85 of 98 Nickel: Okay. So, the only -- I guess the only real issue we have -- and I guess before we talk about that, your question, Commissioner Mae, was regarding fencing? Moe: Uh-huh. Nickel: The school is going to have a six-foot high chain link fence with slats along the north boundary. We are proposing a six-foot high either cedar or vinyl around the perimeter of our development and that brings me to the need for the security gate, was to kind of establish a secure -- because of the location to the school, to kind of provide a secure -- I won't say lock down, but a community, and that's why we were requesting that security gate is to have that a secure community, enclosed community. I do understand staff's concerns. I just do want to point out that we did get the approval from the fire department to do -- that if we do a security gate, that they would have access to that. Again, I guess I'll leave that up to you to make your recommendation to City Council. I know where staff is going with it. We would like to see that remain. I don't -- staff is correct, we do not have an appropriate turnaround if someone was to pull in there and they need to pull back out -- I don't know how many times that would happen. We would provide enough area to staff for when residents do come in that they would be off of Pine Street. So, again, I'll leave that for your recommendation. We did have a neighborhood meeting and the issues that came up were specifically in regards to irrigation and drainage and we have agreed with the farmer, the property owner to the -- I guess to the east -- or to the west that during design we will coordinate drainage and irrigation as it comes through our property and service his property to the west. That was it for the concerns from the neighborhood meeting. Very briefly -- as staff stated, these are three units -- they are not really tri-plexes in the sense that they are going to be rentals or actually individually owned. Each of the three units within the building are in a separate lot and so the intent is individual ownership. I just want to kind of show you the -- you can pass that around. I believe this design is something that's going to be unique to the City of Meridian. I know the developer is very proud of the design and I just wanted to show you his drawings that he had. And that's a picture of the entrance. If you have anymore-specific questions, Mr. Arnke is here and he would be more than happy to address those. Moe: I guess the only thing that I would -- the only other question I would have, then, you take no exception to anything of the staff, other than item number four in his memo? Nickel: That is correct. And I'd like to thank Josh for working with us and trying to get everything taken care of before we came this evening. We were working up to kind of the last minute getting everything ironed out and that's why his memo was the last minute, but we do agree with everything. And, again, we'd like the consideration on the security gate. Rohm: Does this have to stay here now? Borup: Yes. Once it's presented -- Meridian Planning & Zoning August18,2005 Page 86 of 98 Rohm: I wasn't sure if they intended that or not. Nickel: Well, we'd like to -- if we can use it for City Council. Zaremba: It will be available. Nickel: Okay. I'm not going to show you this one. Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Arnke, you're signed up to speak, so I would give him the next opportunity. Arnke: Chairman, Commissioners, staff, thank you for your interest in our project. We hope that everything is approved. I would, again, like to address -- Zaremba: For the record, sir, would you state your name, please. Arnke: Oh. I'm sorry. Zaremba: We may know, but please -- thank you. Arnke: Mike Arnke. And I would like to address the issue of the security gate. The particular project that we have developed is kind of in our -- I have done it in several other locations around the country and it's been very popular, because of the design, it's -- and we have been -- because of the types of materials used here it's a little different, but it lends itself to almost -- I won't say a complete adult community, but because they are -- this unit here is 1,500 square foot. This one is 2,000, and this one is 1,700. And they are all on one level, all the master -- you know, except for this one has two large bedrooms that are 14 by 20 upstairs, but typically, we find empty nesters without children are predominant buyers for this. Every once in awhile we will have a young family, but predominately a more adult community. So, that's why we prefer to use a gated community, because there is a sense of security there. And statistically we know that in and around high schools 90 percent of the burglaries occur before 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon and that's nationwide. It doesn't care what city you're in and that's just status quo. And we are that close to a high school and you have a lot of youth around there that, let's face it, they are -- you know, they aren't where they should be and we just feel that that gated security would afford the homeowners there a little extra -- keeping people out who don't belong there. And that's only because it's just a real isolated pocket. If you go up and down Pine in either direction it's a long ways away before you can pull into another residential area there. So, that's why we were concerned about that. Unless you can guarantee me that -- Zaremba: The gate is a logical request and certainly make sense. The difficulty is there needs to be some form of escape for people who are not authorized to go through the gate that makes that corner, not aware there is going to be a gate there. In the other places where we have approved gates, it has included some form of escape that didn't require -- I mean Pine today doesn't look like it, but it's going to be an arterial, Meridian Planning & Zoning August 18,2005 Page 87 of 98 particularly when it connects farther west and at certain times even now when the high school is letting out, it's a busy street. And I agree with staff, we don't want a situation where somebody needs to escape by backing onto Pine Street. Arnke: Sure. And I understand that. Zaremba: Is there a way to give a turnaround? Arnke: Well, typically, in most of the multi-units that we have built in the past, typically our gates remain open during your peak times. Not only is it logical, it's sensible, because you're not putting wear and tear on your gate and people need to get in and get out and we don't need to stack -- nobody wants a stacking problem and a back up out onto the main artery. So, between given hours in the morning and in the afternoon or say around 5:00 o'clock -- normally between 4:00 and 6:30 and between 7:00 in the morning and 9:00 o'clock the gates remain open. That's your heaviest traffic hours. So this way you alleviate your stacking. And if everybody has -- and if you set up your gates -- with the exception of those people who aren't residents, but if you set up your homeowners with transmitters, they can push the transmitter well before they get around that corner or as they come around the corner and the gate will open. So, that doesn't necessarily present itself as a problem. You know, if there is a way that I could do it, I certainly would do a turn out, if I had the room, but that's logical. If I had the room I certainly would do that, but I don't -- I don't -- Zaremba: It doesn't look like there is the room. Arnke: That's the problem. Zaremba: Great. Thank you. Arnke: Any other questions? Borup: Yeah. I'd like to pursue -- Zaremba: Commissioner Borup. Borup: -- pursue the same thing, Mr. Commissioner. And it sounds like you have done the research and such. You talked about incidents of burglary around high schools and stuff. So, it sounds like you have got -- are most of those with cars? Are they coming in with cars and loading up cars? Arnke: Well, it's the age of mobility -- Borup: Okay. Arnke: And I speak from experience. I'm a retired police officer. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 18. 2005 Page 88 of 98 Borup: Well -- and I wasn't sure, but I mean if I was going to break in, I certainly wouldn't go through the gate, I'd jump over a side fence where all the landscaping is, but -- Arnke: Well, yeah, but -- Borup: And so the gate is not going to keep that type of-- Arnke: It's going to keep people from just meandering in and out and, let's face it, burglars are opportunists and in the event of fleeing they are going to jump a fence, sure. But they are not going to jump into an area they don't know what's on the other side. And so you're -- if you go up the way the hill is and you're going over a six-foot high fence, you can't see over to the other side. So, for all they know they could be jumping into the backyard with a pit bull and they don't know that. But with the age of mobility, most of them you will find burglars in the daytime, you know, they are going to be driving cars. I mean we are not talking about toddlers in there, we are talking about 15,16 and 17 year old kids that, you know, for whatever reason they are what they are. Borup: And you said the gates would be open most of the time. So, that's on a timer? Arnke: Yes. Borup: But you said most of the burglaries are before 5:00? Arnke: Before 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon. So, if you set up your -- but, typically, burglars are not going to be ingressing when the guy's in the garage getting ready to go to work, I mean they are going to be basically in there after hours at 9:00 o'clock in the morning -- they are lazy people. They are not going to get out of bed at 7:00 and -- Borup: Basically you mean -- Arnke: Well, I'm talking about between 7:00 and 9:00 in the morning your gates would open and, then, between 4:00 and 6:00 in the afternoon they would open again, so that the majority of your traffic can ingress and egress without a problem. Borup: So, any solution on how the individual that pulls in that doesn't intend to go in there? Arnke: It's possible, because right -- Borup: What's their situation, then, other than backing out? Arnke: Yeah. The only thing I can think of is right in this area here is an open stall area for several parking places -- Borup: No. I mean when the gate is closed. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 18,2005 Page 89 of 98 Arnke: Oh, when the gate's closed? How would he get in if the gate were closed? Borup: No. How would he get back out onto Pine besides backing out? Arnke: It would have an automatic opener as you come up to it from the inside. Borup: No. I'm talking about the individual that does not intend -- that pulls in accidentally, as staff discussed. Arnke: If he -- okay. If he pulls in accidentally, then, the gates would be open, then, he could come in, turn around, and, then, go back out, because the gate would be open. Borup: Then why have a gate if it's open all the time? Arnke: Well, no, it wouldn't be open. I'm saying if he drove into it during -- you said if he drove into it and the gate was open. Borup: No. No. He dove in there, the gate's closed -- Arnke: Yes. How would he get out? That's a good question. Borup: I mean that was the concern that staff raised and I just wondered if you had the -- Arnke: I think if there is -- if there is -- if we design the project so that there is enough visibility -- and, obviously, there would be, because this area right there is of great concern, if the normal prudent person were driving down this way and made a right turn into there -- and if the gates were somewhere right in this area right -- Borup: That's what I was going to ask. So, you're proposing the gate at the end of the site triangle? Arnke: We would have to -- we would configure something to make it readily visible and distinguishable as a gated community, you know, and that would be something that, you know, as we develop that and certainly with some -- it would be subject to critique as we further designed it with that in mind. Mainly, the visibility for ingress and egress. Borup: Thank you. Does staff have any further comments on that? If the gate's at the end of the sight triangle, so you would see it before you pulled in there -- we are not stopping those accidental pull ins. Wilson: Probably would most. Meridian Planning & Zoning August18,2005 Page 90 of 98 Borup: But if one car is stacked, but if they have got -- and most people -- like a garage door opener, they hit it -- they are not going to pull in the driveway and park and, then, hit their opener; right? They hit it so they don't have to slow down. Wilson: And I think without a turnaround or an exit, I don't think staff can support the gate. You know, you could eliminate most people going in there by making it visible, but, you know, there is people that -- I think without that -- Borup: And only one car could -- because it's only -- what is that setback, 35 feet? Wilson: Twenty. Borup: Okay. So, that's one car length. Same as anybody -- same as any house along Pine that's pulling out of their driveway. So, I'm wondering how bad of a thing it is. I was just throwing that out. Zaremba: Okay. All right. We also have signed up to speak Paul Geile. Geile: My name is Paul Geile. I live at 4717 Willow Lane in Boise. My father owns the 20 acre parcel directly west adjacent to this property and my function is just to kind of keep an eye on the project and make sure that the changes that occur aren't detrimental to our interests and in looking at all of the proposed changes, gate or no gate, I haven't seen anything that materially affects our position to the west. Just a real quick note about -- maybe this is why Meridian's a great place to live. My parents have lived right next to Meridian High School since it was built in '76. I was in the first class out of there. They have had numerous minor -- minor minor things, but never have had a single burglary or serious trespass on their property. It's been amazing. But, anyway, as far as I'm concerned, I don't see anything that really concerns me and that's my comment. Zaremba: Thank you. Moe: Thank you. Zaremba: To make sure it's on the record, we have also received a letter from Mr. and Carmack, who live east of this property on Pine Street and they have mentioned that sometimes teenagers from the high school are around the neighborhood at times when they shouldn't be doing things that they shouldn't be, so that does add concern for wanting to have a gate. They had some other issues as well, but I think most of them have been addressed. I just wanted to note that we have seen their letter. Rohm: I think one of the things that allowing the developer to put a gated community in here, it lends itself to clientele that they are going after, the retired people, and/or the empty nesters and if it were not a gated, maybe there would be young families moving in and, then, there would be cars all over the place. And so there is -- there is possibly some advantages internal to the project by allowing it to be a gated community, just to minimize the cars on the roadway. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 18, 2005 Page 91 of 98 Zaremba: If we are thinking of going that direction, Mr. Arnke mentioned things that would emphasize the gate. Would we want to make suggestions that there be extra lighting focused on the gate or anything that would help people notice that there is a gate there? I mean certainly the residents are prepared for the gate, but I'm still thinking of the guy that wanders down the street thinking he can look through this subdivision to see whether maybe he even wants to buy a house in there and pulls in and here is this gate. If -- do we want to make suggestions about ways to highlight the gate, so that it can be noticed by anybody that's not asleep while they are driving or -- Borup: If he goes fast enough he can probably make it in anyway. Zaremba: Following somebody else. I mean I -- my biggest concern is somebody having to back out onto Pine and I certainly can understand the reasons for having a gate. If there were a turnaround or an escape I would be fully supportive, but -- Wilson: Chairman Zaremba? Zaremba: Yes. Wilson: Before you close the Public Hearing, staff does have a question about -- the applicant did indicate in their letter that Joe Silva has seen the gate and is okay with it. I would ask the applicant where they showed that -- where they had shown that gate, how far off of Pine. Brad's recollection that they do like to get their fire trucks off of the roadway, which they are 40 feet long. If the gate was 40 feet or more off, then, it becomes very much less visible from Pine. So, maybe if the applicant could address where they did show that gate when Joe was okay with it. Borup: The fire department wants it 40 feet in? Zaremba: So, they can get their truck off -- Wilson: They get their truck off of Pine when they pull in there. Borup: See, I have never seen the -- when they are on an emergency, I've never seen them too concerned about anybody else. I think that they figure they own everything on the road. Zaremba: Well -- and there may be an ACHD requirement as well. I have heard 60 feet, but I'm not sure it -- where that came from. Nickel: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 18. 2005 Page 92 of 98 Nickel: Shawn Nickel again. It wasn't discussed with Mr. Silva, the distance. When we met with him it was early on and it was more would you accept a security gate and he said, yeah, as long as we have the access. But we didn't really get into distance about how much -- you know, what he wanted for a fire truck. If they want to get in, they will get in. Borup: I mean they'll just stop out there. I mean they will just stop in the road and block traffic, is what I would say. Nickel: They will do whatever. Borup: So, what would the access do? Would they also have a remote or a key? Nickel: It would be a key to override the system to get in. Borup: So, they would have to get out of their vehicle? Nickel: Yeah. It just wasn't discussed as to how -- if he wanted to actually have access to pull in before they got out. I would image they would just stop in Pine. Zaremba: Do you have suggestions for highlighting the gate? Nickel: I don't. It doesn't come up too often in my developments. Zaremba: Thank you. Rohm: Let me ask you how are you going to highlight your -- your entrances -- isn't there a -- kind of a little brick wall right here with the name of the subdivision? Right here? I thought I saw on one of the elevations -- Zaremba: Something indicated as a sign. Rohm: My question was, is could this be eliminated? Nickel: Sure. That's our intent. Rohm: Okay. Because that should provide some indication of -- Nickel: We will have illumination shining up onto the signage -- Arnke: And can I make one other comment relative to the issue on the sidewalk? It's my intent that in the areas where I have roadway, this will be asphalt, and then -- at a certain point, then, everything beyond that will be gutters and -- Borup: Concrete? Meridian Planning & Zoning August 18,2005 Page 93 of 98 Arnke: -- concrete. So, there will be a third distinction between what is considered roadway and/or a walk area. Moe: I assume most of these you have said earlier all have security gates? Arnke: Yes. Moe: But I don't see one in your rendering here. Arnke: Well, subject to discussion. And certainly we would be glad to get with staff in our design and I certainly would, if it's acceptable, we could design that issue for further approval, for your evaluation. Certainly don't want to do anything that's going to create a problem and I think everybody looks at it from their own perspective, I think we are better off coming up with a resolution, either for it against it, which ever works. Borup: One last question for staff. Is there any merit to having a partial turnaround into the buffer? I don't know if that makes sense. If you pull into the right side, you have got 26 feet of -- 26 feet to the curb -- outside of curb to outside of curb it looks like. You know, another five or ten feet with a turnaround, I mean it's going across traffic -- well, the only traffic that would be blocked would be the outward bound traffic. It kind of -- you know, that's where they have got their sign also and it's going to eliminate some landscaping. I don't know. Ten feet of -- ten feet makes a lot of difference. Is that a solution at all or is that just -- Wilson: I guess I would have to see how it functions and there is also the concern of eliminating landscape in that landscape buffer. Borup: So, you have got 20 feet -- you need a ten-foot -- I'm thinking a ten foot back up area. Probably on the other side is what I'm thinking, to give a little bit more room to back up. I mean right in the middle of the area, you know. If it's ten feet wide and you have got -- that would still give you five feet on each side for landscaping. Moe: You're speaking perpendicular to Pine, then? Borup: Yes. Moe: Okay. Yeah. I was wondering the same thing. Wilson: I mean I think -- I think it creates the possibility for conflict with traffic, you know, to say that somebody could fairly recently negotiate that, you know, is one thing, but there is always the possibility for traffic conflict that could be eliminated, you know, where we have that -- Borup: We have a conflict with somebody else turning in by mistake when that guy is trying to get out. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 18. 2005 Page 94 of 98 Wilson: Right. Or somebody exiting or a resident entering or you know -- but they would be performing some sort of turning maneuver across the entrance as somebody either wanting to enter and exit. So, there is that possibility for conflict there. Borup: I don't see that much of a conflict coming from the inside of the gate's closed. I don't know. That was just another idea. Moe: I thought it was a good idea. Zaremba: Well, let me make a suggestion. I'm getting the sense that we are 90 percent in favor of the project, the sticking point may be the gate. If we are thinking of recommending approval, do so as the staff has requested without a gate, but allow the applicant the opportunity to come up with some solution and present that part of the public hearing before the City Council. I mean we are -- Borup: Could we do that? Zaremba: I realize we don't like to send things undecided to the City Council. Borup: Can we do that without -- with making no recommendation on the gate either way? No? You don't want that? Zaremba: I'd want the applicant to make a strong case and have a solution to the backing out problem. Borup: If we need to, because right now -- Zaremba: Is that a workable solution? Rohm: I think we should approach it the other way, say they have to work out with staff a way -- Zaremba: An escape. Rohm: -- an escape which would include the gate. And that way they still -- we don't object to the gate, but they have to work something out that could be acceptable to staff. And I don't know if staff is willing to meet them halfway on this. 1-- Zaremba: Well -- and I'd probably want to run it by the police department and the fire department again as well. Wilson: Yeah. I'd like the fire department to comment on it. From my perspective as staff, I don't have much in the way of criteria to judge any solution they present against -- I certainly don't have any expertise in traffic movement to driveways, so -- I mean I can try and evaluate it, but I'm not sure that we have a mechanism to. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 18,2005 Page 95 of 98 Rohm: Well, I think like Commissioner Borup's comments on the fire department, they pretty well take whatever they want whenever they want it and -- and, you know, as they should -- I mean as they are approaching the scene of a fire, they are -- they are going to park their vehicles the way they are best able to serve at that moment in time and so I don't see that as a significant issue and if the entrance is properly illuminated, I don't personally think that there is going to be that many people that are going to pull in and, then, have to back out onto Pine. I don't see it as a huge issue, but I'm not the one that has to enforce issues that arise from it. Moe: So, if I get this correctly, you're saying to -- basically, if we are all in agreement with the project, that we would approve it as presented by staff, along with the -- the additional memo, which does deny the gate, but that in between this hearing and Council that the applicant be allowed to work with staff to possibly come up with a solution to the gate is what you're saying? Zaremba: That includes an escape. Unless the other -- that's what I originally said, actually. Yes. The new thinking is the other way around. We approve the gate with an escape. If they are not able to come up with an escape, then, the gate is not approved. Moe: Well, I guess I would ask staff -- because what I have heard tonight on the possible solutions -- I'm getting answers of that won't work. And so I'm not getting a real good feel that there is a solution going that route. Especially after, you know, they still need to talk to fire and whatnot. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, I guess I would just say we are taking our direction from you on these issues that are really not clear in code. That's part of the reason these are conditional use permits and so I guess I would just say, yeah, we -- we are telling you we don't really have much experience with this and we don't have much criteria to evaluate these, as Josh mentioned, but at the same time, you know, this is your area. Your direction to us on the area that -- if you, actually, prefer a gate, as long as public safety issues can be addressed. Rohm: Bingo. Hawkins-Clark: And, you know, if that's the direction to us, then, we are fine with that. You know, I think there is -- and that may be an option to just kind of create a little bit wider entrance to not have it choke down so quick. I mean right now the way it's drawn, then, yeah, it might make the turning radius off Pine, but you might actually create almost a -- you know, a moon shaped asphalt area -- maybe you could make it look a little better with a little planter or something there, but so that -- you don't have a lot of visibility and even a small car might be able to be parked on the curve, so that if it was a moon shape -- Borup: You're talking about, basically, a small turnaround? Meridian Planning & Zoning August18,2005 Page 96 of 98 Hawkins-Clark: A small turnaround, but it's all basically where the landscape buffer is current. That depth. It's just wider. Rohm: That sounds like the solution. With that being said .- Borup: Well, there is a lot of solutions and I don't know that I'm saying I prefer the gate, I'm just saying I'm not objecting to it if a solution can be worked out. Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-028, PP 05-028, and CUP 05-037. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-028, to include all staff comments for the hearing date August 18th, 2005, and received August 12th, 2005, including all staff comments and with the addition of a memo dated August 18th, 2005, submitted by planner Josh Wilson and changes to that memo would be on item two, a cross-access agreement will be required with the LDS church and change to item four, the request for installation of a security gate at the entrance of the service drive from East Pine Avenue is approved with an escape route provided acceptable to staff. Moe: Is that required in the annexation? Rohm: Well, I -- it's -- I will just make it as part of all of them. Moe: Okay. That will work. Rohm: End of motion. Moe: Second.