The URL can be used to link to this page

05Oct06 P & Z MinutesMeridian Planning & Zoning Commission pctober 6, 2005 Page 20 of 85 Moe: I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number PP 05-042, as presented in the staff report, dated October 6th, 2005, and the preliminary plat dated August 3rd, 2005, with the conditions as noted. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 11: Public Hearing: AZ 05-040 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 312.67 acres from RUT to C-G, L-O and R-4 zones for Volterra Subdivision by Primeland Development, LLP -southwest and northwest corners of North Ten Mile Road and McMillan Road: Item 12. Public Hearing: PP 05-039 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 613 building lots (540 detached single-family residential, 9 commercial, 11 office) and 53 common area lots on 232.32 acres in proposed R-4, C-G and L-O zones for Volterra Subdivision by Primeland Development, LLP -- southwest and northwest corners of North Ten Mile Road and McMillan Road: Item 13: Public Hearing: PP 05-040 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 205 building lots (134 detached single-family residential, 54 attached single- family residential (patio homes), 13 commercial, 4 office) and 22 common area lots on 80.36 acres in proposed C-G, L-0 and R-4 zones for Volterra Subdivision South by Primeland Development, LLP -southwest and northwest corners of North Ten Mile Road and McMillan Road: Item 14: Public Hearing: CUP 05-041 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for a mixed use development that includes reductions to the minimum requirements for lot size, street frontage, house size, setbacks and increased block lengths for Volterra Subdivision by Primeland Development, LLP -southwest and northwest corners of North Ten Mile Road and McMillan Road: Zaremba: Thank you. We will now open the public hearings for AZ 05-040, PP 05-039, PP 05-040 and CUP 05-041, all relating to Volterra Subdivision by Primeland Development. And, once again, we will begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. This is just your standard 300 lot -- or 900 lot, 300 acre subdivision. I'm going to try to go ahead and touch on most of the points. If I miss something, I will try to catch up at the end. I have got some notes here, but it is a large site, so I'm going to try. This is a 312.67-acre annexation Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 20D5 Page 21 of 85 request. Approximately 35 acres is for a general retail and service commercial zone, C- G. You can see across Ten Mile Road there is some C-G that was zoned also in Bridgetower and Volterra. .This was actually a use exception, but they -- I mean in Verona and Bridgetower. So, they are, basically, mirroring the same development with commercial at the intersection of McMillan and Ten Mile. And, then, 19.27 acres is for office zone kind of around the commercial zoning. And, then, the remainder 258-acres is proposed for the R-4 low-density residential district. This site is located on both sides of McMillan Road between Ten Mile and Black Cat. It actually spans the whale section in that location. It is designated medium density residential for three quarters of it and approximately this 80 acres over here is designated for low density residential. Just to orient you even further, the city's wastewater treatment plant is in this location and that designation of properties on the Comp Plan encompasses all of these properties here. The surrounding vicinity is pretty agricultural in nature and rural still to this day, although there are quite a few residential subdivisions on the east side of Ten Mile Road and recently approved Bainbridge Subdivision that goes up to Chinden Boulevard just north of the subject site. There are some existing acreage homes just to the south and west of Volterra Subdivision and also there is an R-3 city subdivision to the southeast -- an the southeast corner along Ten Mile Road, with a stub street and stafF has included a comment to extend that stub street into the property with the staff report. Mast all of the properties, as I mentioned, are zoned RUT in Ada County around this site. I think I'm going to ga ahead and just jump to the site plan and we can get into some of the particulars with this development. I apologize, the subdivision was so big, the preliminary plat was on about five or six pages. It makes it kind of messy when you try to do that on a slide, so I just kind of grabbed this overall and we will try to touch on same of the features with this development. The applicant is proposing to construct a multi-use pathway along their residential collector that runs through approximately to the half mile. It intersects Ten Mile and Black Cat at approximately the half-mile location. There is no front-on housing along this entire mile stretch and there is a ten-foot wide multi-use pathway. There is a 10.2-acre park that they are proposing here. It is proposed to be a private park with same amenities near that road, a tot lot area, swimming pool, restrooms, those types of things. This is your commercial area here with office around it and, then, the residential pods an the outer part. The applicant did submit two preliminary plats just primarily for tracking purposes for the city. They are in two different sections. It is one development and does really complete this whole intersection, but we request that they have a Volterra and a Volterra South, which would be south of McMillan Road. Same of the other developments on -- or amenities an the south, there is a smaller neighborhood park in the southern subdivision. The applicant is proposing to leave the slough open, relocate a portion of it, and leave this slough open, as well as the Lemp Canal or Settler's Canal along McMillan Road. That's a pretty large lateral and they are also proposing to leave that open. The particulars of the plats -- Volterra, which, again, is north of McMillan, includes 540 detached single family lots, nine commercial lots, 11 office lots and 53 common lots and there are 232 acres on that northern portion. Volterra South contains 134 detached single-family lots and 54 attached lots. Let me point those out real quick. The detached lots are in this block here and I just wanted to kind of show you, because the lot sizes, to tell you the truth, aren't much different than the detached lot sizes that you see throughout the rests Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2005 Page 22 of 85 of the subdivision. Now, there are some larger lots around the perimeter, some pretty good size lots adjacent to the county subdivision that takes up this area here. There are also 13 commercial lots and four office lots and there is just aver 80 acres there on the south side. The applicant did also submit a Conditional Use Permit. They are asking for some reductions to the R-4 standards, including lot size, street frontage, minimum house size, and the side setback far the attached units. There is also a request for a maximum block length variance, if you will -- or modification to our standard. Staff did in the staff report -- and I want to talk on this now, although the applicant did address it in their rebuttal letter that we got this afternoon from the applicant. Staff did make a comment that we felt it was appropriate to have amicro-path connection in this location here -- in this general location here that would generally align with the sidewalk to the undeveloped property to the north. This block is about 1,500 feet in length and the ordinance that this development was reviewed under allows a thousand fact block length maximum. So, we thought it was appropriate to break up that black a little bit with amicro-path. So, staff would ask that you make that a condition as well. The CUP does request these properties be approved for office and commercial zoning as a use exception. That will be going away -- or, actually, has gone away with the UDC, but approximately 17 percent of the 312 acres are requested for zones that would not otherwise be approved, because the Comprehensive Plan, again, does designate this as medium density and low density residential. Staff is supportive of that, again, because it mirrors this intersection and I think will complete that whole -- that area there. The density proposed with this development is 2.3 dwelling units per acre. That's if you take all 312 acres. If you exclude the areas proposed for office and commercial zoning, the zoning is 2.8 dwelling units per acre. So, still in that low density category, if you will, and only this portion is really designated as low density. The amenities -- I have talked about the park and the some of the tot lots. They do have tot lots an both the north and the south park areas. Multiple pathways and micro-paths. As you can kind of see, there are connections between the pods with some of the micro-paths throughout the development. And the open space and the clubhouse and swimming pool area. I think I'm going to jump to the conditions of approval now and at the same time talk about the applicant's letter that was submitted today. So, this is -- Moe: Mr. Chairman? If you don't mind? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I don't think we gat copies of that letter. No. That was number 18. Borup: That's for Bridgetower. Moe: That's for Bridgetower. That was not for this hearing. Newton-Huckabay: Oh, yeah. Hood: Commissioner Moe, Mr. Chairman, I do apologize, I just got this at lunch today, so I can understand if the clerk didn't have a chance to get it to you. It was quite a Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2005 Page 23 of 85 lengthy staff report. There is 60 some pages, so -- but I did just get this this afternoon myself. So, we can -- I don't know what the Commission wishes to do, but -- Zaremba: I assume we all got them, but it was very last minute. It was sitting on the table here when I arrived and sat down. Mae: No. That's for 18. Zaremba: Oh, that's the wrong one. You're so right. Sorry. So, it wasn't sitting here. All right. The applicant's written responses are always appreciated, always thorough, and in the past when we have gotten them at the last minute, not through the applicant's fault, it's just the process takes long enough that when the staff report is put out, if the applicant takes a day or two to assimilate it and respond, we get it at the last minute. Not really anybody's fault, it's just a matter of trying to do everything in quick timing. But we have -- the other times that this has happened, we have gone ahead with the Public Hearing and heard the testimony and, then, given ourselves a time to understand the notes back and forth. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make it known that none of us up here have that letter and, therefore, he's somewhat reluctant to do that, I just want to make sure that everyone knows that we don't have it and when the applicant does came up, I'm sure she will be mare than happy to address all those issues. Newton-Huckabay: Why can't we get a copy? Mae: Well, I agree there, too. Zaremba: The clerk just left and I believe she may be making copies. Moe: Okay. Great. Borup: So, it makes sense to proceed ahead to me. Moe: Oh, absolutely. Hood: Yeah. Mr. Chair, Ithink -- Zaremba: I don't think that stops us from proceeding. It may stop us from making a final decision tonight, but -- Hood: And I will go ahead and touch on the points of that letter and thank you for letting me know that, because I probably would have assumed that you were following along with me, so I appreciate that. But I will go ahead and touch on, basically, the bold that the applicant has addressed in the letter and Becky can supplement or disagree or whatever she wants to do with the rest of it, but I did just want to touch --and you can -- I'm on B, conditions of approval in the staff report. The planning department are the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2005 Page 24 of 85 ones I'm going to focus on, since those are the ones that I wrote. But 1.1.2 is also the same as 1.1.2.8, which also applies to Volterra South. So, it's the same comment by the applicant in both locations, it's just that site specific one applies to the north subdivision and one applies to the subdivision on the south side. Moe: What page would that be? Hood: The new staff reports do not have page numbers, so it's Exhibit B, it's right after the landscape plan, the last page of the landscape plan. If I had to guess, I would say probably page -- Newton-Huckabay: Why don't they have page numbers, I'm sorry, anymore? Hood: Technically these are exhibits with the new staff report. The staff report ends kind of where your proposed motion is and, then, we attach all these as exhibits. Zaremba: Could they be given a substitute page number, like A, B, C or D or something? Newton-Huckabay: A reference number. Hood: I think we probably could work something out -- some numbering system to help, especially when they get to be this big. Zaremba: It would be quicker to find a page that you're on if we can index it same way. Hood: And, generally, they do have faaters as well and I had to take those out, because it -- there was sa many pages it was messing up the footer. So, I apologize there is really no reference, it's just -- it's right after your landscape plan, last exhibit, is where I'm starting. Zaremba: Tell me again where we are headed. I missed that in the -- Hood: So, this is -- this is, basically, the second site-specific condition in both -- both the preliminary plats for Volterra and Volterra South. 1.1.2 and 1.1.2.6, which is on a subsequent page, but I'm just calling that out, so we don't have to go through it again on the subsequent page. Zaremba: Thank you. Hood: And this will also go hand-in-hand with one of the other comments in the Public Works section having to do with their joint trench utility easement that they like to see on the backside of the right of way and I guess to paraphrase the condition, it basically requires -- requests that the applicant reverse -- they have got the trees planted on the outside of the sidewalk, rather than between the curb and the sidewalk. They have placed the trees on the other side of the sidewalk. So, basically, you have got a planter Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2005 Page 25 of 85 strip with nothing but grass in it and they are proposing -- kind of proposing -- it's not real clear either -- if they are actually doing swales or not. But this comment makes it seem like they are doing swales along the roadside and the trees are placed in there, that they have had problems having to water in those areas and, then, overwatering the trees and so the trees are dying. Staff would still like to see the trees between the curb and the face of the walk in the planter strip and maybe come up with a variety of -- a species of trees that can handle a little bit more water than usual and also that will give the utility companies areas on the backside of the sidewalk to put all of the cable lines, the telephone lines, whoever else goes in those utility areas there. So, staff would just request that that condition stay as is, actually. 1.1.4, jumping down a couple, and this has do to with that micro-path I already touched on. Staff would also ask that that one stay in place. If, in fact, it does stay in place, then, we will get the property to the north, whether it be a school -- that's also what's been talked about. Just so you are aware, we did apre-ap with some folks on that property. We have not -- the city has not accepted an application on that property, so that is un-platted, undeveloped property at this point in time. So, any stub or micro-path that we put there can be extended in the future. We have not lost that opportunity. Sa, I'm going to next jump to 1.1.9 and fencing. This is probably the biggest change -- or I guess -- that I -- you know, for a subdivision of 900 plus lots, this is probably the biggest issue that we are going to have and that's -- and fencing is the issue and I think that's a good thing, that just revolves around fencing. But with the new ordinance we have adopted city code that requires fencing adjacent to common areas to be restricted either four feet in height if it's going to be solid, or six feet in height if it's going to be open vision. So, wrought iron or chain link even or something that you can see through. And this has to do with the police department being able to see into these areas, them being hidden, and them not having eyes on those areas and, then, becoming problematic, safety hazards and different kinds of unlawful activities going on back there. So, staff would recommend that -- the applicant is proposing, just so you know, asix-foot high semi-privacy fence along the open space lots and, then, a four foot high semi-privacy fence with two foot of lattice on top, which, again, the ordinance no longer allows. It's either open vision or solid at four foot or six feet for the open vision or four-foot solid. There is no two-foot lattice on top anymore. Staff understands that this is what they did in Bridgetower. It would match what has been constructed there. However, for safety reasons we just think that it would be best to have the fencing standards comply with current code and current code being the code that was adopted last month, so that a condition that 1.1.9 be revised to read that along all micro-paths and open spaces, that the fencing be restricted to those heights and that -- and I just want to let you know, too, and the applicant know, that those are not restricted to the landscape buffers or alang street buffers. So it's not intended that along streets a six foot high solid fencing cannot go up, it's really those areas that are that -- that are the park here, we'd like to see either the four foot or the six foot around these lots here. It's not saying that you can't put up a six foot high fence along this collector boulevard or any of the collector streets or any of the local streets, for that matter, but it's in these areas here where the city would like to have eyes on those areas and would like to put those fencing requirements or restrictions on this development. I'm going to jump now to -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2005 Page 26 of 85 Zaremba: Craig, before you move on, just to clarify, that would not apply to a little -- that's probably -- it's open space, but it's probably a drainage purpose -- Hood: Correct. Zaremba: --asix-fast solid fence could go around something like that -- Hood: Correct. Zaremba: -- because it's clearly visible from the street. Hood: If it's visible from the street, yes. And that would be -- we don't have a distance. I mean you could maybe stop a patrol car here and this would still be visible from the street, but you're getting a long ways away from these neighbors that can't see over their fence and it's a long way away from the street. Sa, that one -- there is a lot of those little pop out drainage areas that that would not apply. You could place asix-foot fence to within ten feet of the right of way, you know, comply with those other ordinances for the location of fence. But, yeah, back in those areas asix-foot fence could happen. Again, it's acommon -- defined as the common open spaces, so not drainage areas, necessarily. And speaking of open spaces, 1.2.2, the applicant would like to reserve the right to install sand at the bottom of some of the drainage ponds. Code does not allow developers to count drainage areas that do contain sand in the bottom of them towards their open space requirement calculation. So, that's what this condition said was exclusive of all wet ponds provide, you know, your open space. I do not believe -- there is like 8.5 percent open space. Five percent is required by ordinance for a subdivision. If you exclude those drainage areas, if, in fact, they do place sand in the bottom of those and they are not green anymore and we don't calculate those, I think they will still be above the five percent minimum that's required. So, I would ask that if that's the case, if they want to have those -- you know, sand in the bottom, that's fine, if they need them for drainage, but they exclude those from their calcs and give the city what is really the usable open space, then. So -~ and I think they will be fine, but it will change that 8.5 percent open space to a lesser percentage and I just don't know what that would be. Zaremba: Again, may I interrupt. This is a long one, so maybe we should ask our questions when they come up. It is permissible to do sand at the base of a drainage. I see a lot of them that have some decorative rocks added to that. Is that something we are allowed to ask the applicant to do as well? Hood: You can and, actually, we have -- I don't remember the exact language we were kind of getting away from this code, and one of the last subdivisions I'll review with this code, but there are stream bed type looks that we can use and they can still count that towards that calculation. It's alittle -- this is a Conditional Use Permit, so, really, in fact, any conditions that you needed to put on this applicant towards the CUP you could condition them that way and say you want to see a stream bed type look through those sand infiltrations or whatever if you think that's more attractive. That is certainly your Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2005 Page 27 of 85 discretion. I was getting to the point that we sometimes along those streets we do allow those and we still count that towards the open space in commercial projects, sa that's the difference. Zaremba: Thank you. Hood: I'm going to jump over 1.2.5. The applicant did bold that one, but that applies to the northern portion and both the Settler's Canal and the White Drain are both on the south subdivisions. So, that comment is not in the right place. 1.1.2.6 -- now we are getting to the Volterra South Subdivision conditions. This is the one that I referred to earlier with the roadside swales. We would just ask that that stay the same. And fencing along the Settler's in 1.1.8.6 -- 1.1.8.6, this is along the same lines as fencing -- I'm sorry I didn't touch on it earlier, but it's the same premise that the other code -- and, in fact, it would be open space. The applicant is requesting to put up a six-foot high fence along both sides of the White Drain. That, in effect, makes this a tunnel that really no one can see down or through and so for the same reason staff would recommend that either it be a six foot clear vision along this entire length or a four foot solid along that entire way. If you put up a six foot with one inch in between, you just can't see back there and that becomes very problematic, especially with a live ditch there. Along the backside of the 5ettler's Canal -- we are okay with that. The same premise as Commissioner Zaremba brought up before. You can see the backside of that from the street. So, these homes should be allowed to have asix-foot tall fence on the backside, as long as they don't fence off both sides with a solid, which that's not what they are proposing to do. And we are okay with the six-foot solid on the south side of the common lot or north side of the build-able lots, whichever you prefer. Same property line. 1.2.2.6 is the same comment as the other one previous, with the sand in the bottom of the drainage lots. I may stop here for a moment, just so we will go in order and you all can follow along and jump to Public Works. There were some bold in the Public Works section. I am going to -- wait. Maybe before I do, I'm going to just make one comment on another agency's comments and that has to do with the parks department's standard comment that the multi-use pathway needs to be constructed according to their Comprehensive Plan. That cross-section is -- it's crazy. It's -- they want a bunch of sub base and three-quarter crush and it, you know, could hold a couple fire trucks that -- it's not necessary. So, we would agree with the applicant on condition 5.1, that that language just be changed, it says that the multi-use pathway be constructed in coordination with the parks department, because Doug Strong and his staff recognize that, in effect, too, and just work with the applicant on that. And with that I think I'll let -- Zaremba: Okay. I think the statement has been made that their current requirement would be sufficient to land airplanes an. Hood: Yeah. Zaremba: Is there a move either to have them changed or defend that requirement? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2005 Page 28 of 85 Hood: I think what -- I'll make a note here, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. I think what I'll do is I'll make a note to get with Doug and we will change our standard comments -- we will change the language in there, so it says something more to the fact of what the applicant's proposing for language, rather than having to go through this every time. So, sorry that has fallen through the cracks, but we will try to get that cleaned up here in the near future. Zaremba: Thank you. Mr. Cole. Cole: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'm just going to hit an the bold comments that the applicant had issues with. The first one is the first comment Public Works made. Most of this site is master planned to drain to the future North Black Cat lift station, which is under design now and has a scheduled finishing of roughly early'08. So, a majority of this site -- mare than amajority -- most of this site is not sewer-able at this time. The applicant has asked that she be allowed to sewer a portion of it that she could gravity back to the Ten Mile trunk in Ten Mile Road. Public Works would support them gravitying that portion of the project which actually lies in the Ten Mile trunk shed that is master planned to go that way and that any additional that they could reach with gravity. They would have to fund a study to determine the flows to make sure that trunk could handle the capacity to be run by the Public Works Department. And they could -- if the capacity existed in that trunk main in Ten Mile, they could at that time gravity it, as long as they used no substandard slopes or artificial fill that would bring the grade up sufficient to sewer mare than the natural topography would allow. I have talked that over with the applicant. She was in agreement with it, I believe. The second comment that she had issue with was 2.9. The comment reads that any sewer or water main not placed in the public right of way be centered in 20 foot wide easements. Her comment back was that services and hydrants would be in the public utility irrigation and drainage easement that is dedicated next to the right of way on the plat. However, the comment reads: Any of those mains not in the public right of way and if they are not in the right of way, the prescribed easement isn't there to cover the hydrants and the water meters. I discussed this with her earlier. She -- I believe she's in agreement to comply completely with that comment. Zaremba: So, mast of them are within a right of way and this only applies to -- Cale: Garrett. Zaremba: -- a few feet here and there that are not? Cole: Most commercial developments have public roads -- or private roads or easements that function as roads and they are not actually ACRD right of way, so there is no utility easements for them. All ACRD right of way has a blanket easement for our facilities and are thus covered. The entire residential sub would be covered by that easement, unless they route it through a common lot through amicro-path, which is commonly done. That would have to be covered by an additional easement. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October fi, 2005 Page 29 of 85 Zaremba: Good. Cole: The next one is the roadside swale that Craig talked about earlier. Along right of ways, as I just was mentioning, they -- the plats dedicate ten feet of easement an the outside of the right of way for public utilities. These are phone, power, gas, communications, cable TV -- I believe I have hit all of them. There is facilities of that nature. They are not owned by Public Works, we don't operate them, maintain them, but it's a standard practice to put that easement dedicated on the plat far these utilities. The comment was to add extra easement because of the road -- the roadside swale design or the eight-foot mow strip. The sidewalk is actually outside of the easement -- or outside of the right of way, would encroach into that ten-foot easement, so those utilities would not have aten-foot free and clear easement. The applicant has indicated to me that she wants to place trees -- the landscaping in that easement on those corridors coming in. She would have to get the approval of those entities that run in the common trench. Public Works would feel uncomfortable allowing something of that nature in somebody else's easement. We don't allow it in ours. And I believe with that she has agreed to all of our conditions outside of that. So, I would stand for any questions you may have of me. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Zaremba: Seems pretty clear. Mr. Hood. Hood: Almost done here. Just a couple mare things I wanted to point out. There was a traffic impact study that was submitted with this, took up a couple of pages in the staff report. Just probably the biggest highlight, I guess, is that this development is anticipated to generate 9,711 vehicle trips per day. So, I just wanted to throw that out there at you, just -- that's at full build out and that does include the commercial aspect and everything. Staff is recommending that the applicant owner enter into a development agreement with the city primarily to insure that this project is developed in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning ordinance and that it doesn't negatively affect other property owners. We are in that DA requesting language that requires each and every building within the office and commercial area to come back in for a Conditional Use Permit, so it will be subject to staff review and the Commission review with the new ordinance, as well as notification to property owners in the vicinity and posting the site and things of that nature. So, with that staff is recommending approval of this application with the conditions noted in the staff report and I will stand for any questions you may have. Zaremba: Commissioners? Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Mr. Moe. Commissioner Moe. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2005 Page 30 of 85 Moe: Yeah. Craig, a couple things I did read I just wanted to verify. As far as the park properties and whatnot in there, those are private, so they will manage those parks, maintenance and whatnot the city will not have that to deal with? Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Moe, that is my understanding. Becky may clarify. I did talk with her on the phone as well, because Doug Strong also had those very same concerns, if they -- if they want this to be a city park, they need to construct it to our standards now or else we are not going to take it over for them. So, that is the intent, I believe, that this is a private park and they understand that if they want to turn it over in the future, it needs to be constructed to meet the parks department standards, so -- Moe: Okay. Then, the other thing I was kind of curious, if you can just touch on a little bit and I noted that the applicant is requesting as far as phasing for this project, to do commercial to start with and, then, go beyond at that point. I mean -- I guess the applicant could probably answer this as well. I just kind of want to get an idea of what kind of percentages of the residential, along with commercial, we are going to be doing at any given time. I'm concerned about having all the commercial built out first in a residential area and, then, we go beyond that. So, I just kind of want to get a feel for that. Hood: You're right, Commissioner Moe, I think that is a better question, probably, for the applicant. I can let you know the phasing lines and that was something that was brought up in the staff report as well. They did have their phases being in this general location, then, phasing back and eventually over to Black Cat. But, at the same time, they did ask for leniency in phasing, so if the market says, you know, commercial is really slow and housing is booming, then, they are going to do the residential portion first, is my understanding, but -- but you may want to ask the applicant that question, so Moe: Thank you. Zaremba: Any other Commissioners? We are ready for the applicant, please. McKay: Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, 150 East Aikens, Suite B, Eagle. I'm representing Primeland Development on this particular application. As Craig indicated, this is a continuation of the Bridgetower project. The Bridgetower project is located in this area here, everything east of Ten Mile. This is McMillan. And it goes clear down to Ustick and over to Linder. So, it runs a mile in both directions. The Bridgetower project also included Verona, which is this 80 acre parcel right here. So, we had -- I don't know, there was probably around a thousand lots in there, residential lots. We are currently finishing up our last phase of -- as far as design is concerned, which is phase 14. So, we have been out here for five years now working on this project. My clients, when they purchased this portion, also purchased the James farm west of Ten Mile that went out to Black Cat, up to the half mile, down to McMillan, and, then, this 80 acres that you see south of McMillan and west of Ten Mile. So, we master planned this area Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2005 Page 31 of 85 here. We tried some different things in there. We had patio home components, single- family dwellings. We had lots that range from 7,500 square feet all the way up to like 15, 20 thousand square feet. We had a mixture of office along the arterials and, then, a commercial core right here at the Ten Mile and McMillan intersection. We incorporated an elementary site, which is the Hunter Elementary, which came on line this fall. We had aseven-acre open space private park down here next to Ustick and, then, we had some office down here. So, we have learned a lot as we went through the Bridgetower project on what worked and what didn't and where we went wrong and when we came to the time where we needed to start master planning this, because we anticipate being built out in there probably in the next year and a half to two years, we needed to, obviously, to get this area master planned and approved. So, what's before you this evening is the Volterra Subdivision, Volterra here and Volterra South, but will be marketed as Bridgetower West. We continued the same theme, the commercial corner here. We have gat what we call commercial collectors that come around. They do line up right here and wrap down and, then, wrap back down into Ten Mile Road and these are -- exceed the 440 foot offset, so they are full approach. We also continued our -- the continuous collector concept. Right here the half-mile, so we matched up with what we did here. This is the Lochsa Community Park and here is the four acres that we donated to the city to bring that Lochsa Park closer to 30 acres in size. So, we matched up with that approach. We bring a continuous collector, drop it all the way down to McMillan and, then, match upwith anon-continuous collector drop in here into the south portion. We come off here with another continuous collector and that goes all the way out to Black Cat. That system has worked well. We have got a lot of accolades from the residents that live there that they like these little pods, they call them, that it creates a nice little neighborhood within an overall community. So, it's been quite successful. Our core here is around ten, eleven acres and that is a private park, called James Park. It is the intent of the developers to keep that private, because they will have a clubhouse, pool, and waterfall area, tot lot, and they believe that it will function just as the seven-acre private park we have down in Bridgetower. The pictures you see here are what's out at Bridgetower right now. This is the pool. This is the clubhouse right here. We have got a lot of these -- these little sitting areas with pots and we have got a large waterfall and a large pond with a fountain and we have tried to kind of have a more Italian -- northern Italian type theme. So, they want to continue that. We have also, I'd like to note, have donated all right of way to Ada County Highway District. And this is the only project of any significant size that I'm aware of that the developers have done that, made sure that ACRD gat their right of way to build these arterials out to their five lane build out and that was all donated. This particular 80 acres here, we have got a little park right in here with a little plaza and tot lot area. That will be the focal point as you drive into this area. These lots in here, they are around 7,000 square feet. We have got some patio homes -- attached patio homes right here that kind of ring this collector and would kind of buffer the detached single family from the commercial area here. The White Drain runs through Bridgetower here, comes across and diagonals across this 80 acres at this point and, then, dumps into the Settler's Canal. Settler's Irrigation District board made the determination that they wanted to leave that open, so we will have to relocate that and leave that facility open and bring it here and, then, discharge it into the Settler's main canal. The Settler's Canal is a large facility. it's a 72 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2005 Page 32 of 85 inch pipe, so the cost is astronomical to put that in pipe and it exceeds, obviously, the 48 inch that the city requires that we pipe. We have the Beach Lateral, the Scrivner Lateral that runs through this and, then, a ditch coming down from the north. I will be working with the Black Cat Estates residents to make sure that the facilities that are piped that accommodate any of their surface drainage will continue to do so and there are a couple of parcels that are serviced by a ditch that traverses through this portion of the property, so I will work with them to either provide them an alternative source, such as pressure irrigation or change a point of delivery or we will continue to pipe that through to them at their historical location. As Craig indicated, this is a large project, it's about 312 acres as far as combined. We have got about six percent office in there, 82 percent of it I think is residential and, then, we have got some commercial also in the project. We have 728 single-family dwellings, 22 commercial lots, 15 office lots, and 72 common lots. Our overall open space is roughly around 12 and a half percent and that would include all the buffers also. As far as our density, in looking at this we are about three dwelling units per acre dawn here in the southern portion. Excludes commercial and office. Up here I think we are considerably less, like about 2.5 or so. I think as Craig indicated, it averages out to about 2.7. So, really, we are pretty low density. Our lot sizes up in this northern area range from 7,500 all the way up to 40,000 square feet. If you want to know like what your average lot size is up in this northern portion, it's 10,532 square feet. In the southern portion that average lot size is about 8,000 square feet. My clients build larger homes, so we try to provide little bigger lots. We have got a variety of sizes, 60 feet wide, down in this southern portion. Up in here they are in the mid 70s and, then, they go all the way up to 90. We took great care to try to provide same buffering to the Black Cat Estates people. Put this down. This is -- the Black Cat Estates is located right in this area. So, I tried to make these lots that ring them deeper and wider in order to give them a little bit better setback from the existing home. So, to kind of give you an idea, you can see the Black Cat Estate five-acre lots. These down in through here are 16 -- 15, 16, 20 thousand, 40,000, 21,000 square feet. Through here they are 15,000. Sa, I really -- I tried to make those considerably larger and when we met with the residents at the neighborhood meeting they seemed to be quite pleased with how we had tried to transition our lot sizes and keep those bigger. This kind of gives you a little better idea -- you can see the commercial buildings here and interconnectivity. With this type of concept we try to capture the traffic as much as possible within the interior of the project, versus sending them out onto the arterials. Over here I have got this long skinny parcel here that adjoins me. I tried to make these lots bigger. These are in the 14, 15, 12, thousand, 19,000 square feet here. I provided a stub street to this parcel, so it potentially could be redeveloped. As Craig indicated, they have asked for an additional ped path up here. The only reason we objected to it, because we got a cagy electronically of the proposed project north of us and the micro- path did not match up with any logical connection. But it sounds like that the use may become a school, so, therefore, we would not object to the micro-path. I have also stubbed a street here and when Wendell Bigham with the Meridian School District was looking at this parcel, this is the half-mile. They talked about putting like a middle school, elementary joint site on this parcel. So, since this is the half mile, this could potentially be signalized and I gave them a stub here that was directly onto the collector roadway, so they could -- and I set it back far enough that they wouldn't disrupt the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2005 Page 33 of 85 intersection and they could flow a majority of their traffic out to this signal. Over here that's the half-mile. That could potentially be signalized also. One thing I'd like to mention that we are working with is we are working with Ada County Highway District on the Ten Mile McMillan intersection. We are trying to convince them to allow us to build that intersection out to its full build out with all the necessary lanes and put a signal in and, then, in the future get some type of reimbursement. Based on our traffic study, this project will generate almost two million dollars in ACHD impact fees, just the Volterra project alone. So, we are working with the highway district. Their current five year plan, the way it's written, because a lot of the arterials in north Meridian are not in that plan and a priority, it makes it difficult for them to allow us for any reimbursement for the improvements that we do at this intersection. However, Mr. Inselman indicates to me that they are going to take a real hard look at that plan here shortly and they are going to adjust their priorities, because the growth has been astronomical in this area and they need to make some of these arterials priorities. So, he believes that we may be able to come up with some type of a reimbursement agreement. One of the things that we are -- we had an landscape architect work on at this intersection was to landscape and kind of came in and create a nice plaza that would be on all for corners. It's the only opportunity we will probably ever have to do that and have all those corners match and there would be trellises and there would be -- we intend to have like little clay pots, planter pots, a lot like you see, except an a larger scale, in this particular picture right up here. Be similar to that, but on a larger scale. And have pavers, a nice little sitting area, so that it Ioaks -- even though it may be a large five lane -- or seven lane intersection, it will look inviting to pedestrians and have a nice warm community type feel. We did comment to the staff report. I do want to apologize to the Commission; we received staffs report on Friday. I was fully aware that they were working on it. They told me that it was going to be coming to us on Friday, which is later than they like it to be, but it was just the size of the project, complexity of the project, and so it took us two days to go through 64 pages of staff report and, then, a third day to have our client review our comments and make sure he was in agreement with our responses. So, I da apologize that you're seeing this today, but when we get them on Friday, there is no way we can get them back by noon on Monday for your packet. I'd like to address -- okay. I'd like to address the responses that I made. My client just wanted me to indicate the only reason he showed the trees on the outside of the sidewalk was because of their past experience with some of the trees dying. When we water the turf in the landscaped areas, they tend to drown the trees, because the grass takes more water than the trees. He did indicate that if it is the wish of the Commission that trees be within the landscape -- standard landscape buffer area in front of the sidewalk, he is in agreement -- he just wanted to pass on his past experience with the Bridgetower project. As far as fencing, we -- in Bridgetower we came up with a style of fencing, a light baize vinyl. We used six foot privacy fencing. We used afour-foot semi-private fence with atwo-foot lattice on tap. They also put in their CC&Rs, after we did phase one, that all lots had to have the same type of fencing. So, if you drive through there you will notice that all the lots are consistent in their fencing and it gave the subdivision a lot warmer feel, because we didn't have all kinds of different colors and materials for the individual lots. I did bring a drawing to you to kind of look at this evening of what we have out there at Bridgetower. This is a detail that goes on our landscape plan. As you can see, this is a six-foot semi- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2005 Page 34 of 85 private fencing and so the slats are one-inch gaps between them. This is the four-foot semi-private with a two-foot lattice. This particular one is a solid private fence with a two-foot lattice. It was my client's wishes that we be able to continue with the same type of fencing and I do want to note that when this project was submitted it was prior to the adoption of the new ordinance. So, the new ordinance is nat applicable to this project, it's under the ald ordinance. We would like to continue with the same type of fencing. If the one-inch gaps aren't acceptable, then, maybe, you know, we'd like to get with the staff and see what they'd feel more comfortable with. We have also used like some three foot fencing that we put along the outside of the Settler's Canal to give a barrier next to the sidewalk where the Settler's Canal is open. We kind of determined in watching the kids out there that the big kids are going to get over any type of fencing. If they want to get there, the big kids are going to get there. It's the little kids that we have to be concerned with. So, when we have the Settler's Canal open here, what we proposed to Settler's and their board and staff really liked, we have an open canal and, then, we go with athree-foot vinyl fence and, then, we had our sidewalk on the inside landscaping and, then, our sidewalk on the inside and, then, we had asix-foot fence beyond that. If the Commission defers us tonight to kind of look through the responses, because I know this is a big project and it is complex, I would like the opportunity to take some pictures out there and bring those back to kind of give you an idea, because I think that would kind of help you guys visualize a picture of what that fencing looks like. As far as the ponds, we had some groundwater issues at Bridgetower. We had grass in the bottom of the ponds, we had some spikes in our groundwater out there that were caused due to agricultural use out there and we have seen a substantial change in the groundwater -- this kind of gives you an idea. This is in Bridgetower 13 and 14. This was the 'Q4 season and as you can see it spiked, definite spike. Then, the one that appears to be pretty constant, that's the '05 season when we had na agricultural activities within our project. So, you see that there is a big difference. But we do want the option of being able to put some sand in there. We have tried the cobblestones, we have tried that, we ended up tearing those out. They get black with the street silt sediment, we have to go in, pressure wash them, and, then, that silt gets down there and, then, it would start sealing up underneath the rock and we ended up removing them. So, we have tried different things when we have seen a spike in groundwater. Right now we are utilizing the swales, the eight-foot grassy swales. Instead of concentrating our drainage in specific areas, we are trying to distribute the drainage in small amounts throughout the project. Our phase ten through 14 in Bridgetower, we are trying that method and we are going to see how successful that is, how easy it is to maintain, how the homeowners like it. We would like to continue that in Volterra if it is -- if it works out well. Moe: Becky, I do have a question on that. Basically, staff said that if you'd just recalculate your open space, deleting those ponds, you would have -- probably still be within the requirement. So, is that something that you can do and, then, we don't worry so much about the sand in the ponds? McKay: Yes, sir, we could do that. And I think they had me do that when we went to some sand bottoms in the original Bridgetower, haw did that impact our open space. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2p05 Page 35 of 85 Moe: And one of -- Mr. Chairman, we had a bell. I would assume because of the size of this project we are not going to worry about that as of yet? Zaremba: She appears to near conclusion anyhow. We can continue. Moe: Yes. McKay: I think we have already addressed the sewer issue. We are in agreement. The Council approved Bainbridge just north of us that Brighton came in with. The sewer will be coming down Black Cat and, then, my understanding an the map it appears that the sewer goes through us and up to Bainbridge. So, we are just getting the project approved. Obviously, cognizant of the fact that we have to wait for that sewer trunk to get to us. Zaremba: Would your phasing -- McKay: Phasing. Zaremba: That may be two years from naw before the sewer is actually available to hook up to. McKay: Correct. Zaremba: Does that work with your phasing? McKay: Yes, sir, it does. And to answer the phasing question, I think one of the Commissioners was concerned about the commercial coming online in advance of the residential. What we have seen is we have seen a little bit of office use. We have got an assisted living care facility out here. We have got an office building here. A dental clinic here. I think there is doctor's office or --there is some type of medical office -- Newton-Huckabay: An orthodontist. McKay: Orthodontist. Yep. And we have not seen any major commercial users. Fred Meyer has looked out here at this site for a potential large store, but at this time just not enough roof tops. It takes a lot of roof-tops to get the big guys aut there. So, you know, I think we are going to have to -- you know, our phasing, we want flexibility. We have got about 14 phases. We are going to have to put substantially more roof-tops out there to get the commercial to develop. And, like I said, we have seen that with Bridgetower, that that's the last thing that appears to be developing is the bigger box cammercial. Along the collector the staff brought up the issue of the easement. I just want to make sure that we have the ability to put landscaping. We cluster trees and shrubs and sa forth along our collectors, I don't want to have the trees on the far outside of that 20-foot landscaped area. The ten-foot easement common trench is on the local streets. I know that that doesn't preclude the homeowners from going in and planting trees and putting Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2005 Page 36 of 85 rocks and shrubs, so I just want to make sure that on the collectors we are not getting a requirement from your staff that's not necessary. We want to make sure these collectors look good. Other than that, I think the staff and ourselves are in agreement. I did disagree with the fire department wanting us to paint red curbs in our residential areas. I know that's appropriate in the commercial as far as the fire lanes, but we do not want that in our residential subdivision. And I think that was one of the comments from the fire department. Other than that Ithink -- Zaremba: Would a no parking this side of the street sign be acceptable? McKay: Yes. We do that all along the collector. ACRD requires all the collectors have no parking signs on both sides. So, that keeps people from parking. All of our streets are public, full street sections, so we don't have any reduced roadways or anything. I just don't want to put any red -- oh, that would be terrible -- on the curbing. Other than that, I think I have probably covered most everything. Do you have any questions? Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? McKay: And I did bring some pictures. The staff did ask me to bring pictures to the Commission of some of the structures that we are building in the subdivision at Bridgetower. These did come out of Bridgetower. And I think the staffs got them up there, too. Most of the homes are pretty large. Prices out there are high 200x, going all the way up to 500,000. Square footages, I think they are 20 some hundred square feet and the largest house I know of that's in there is about 6,000 square feet. So, we have got a good variety. We do have our patio homes up here in Verona. Those are 210,000 dollars for the patio homes. So, with the escalating price of lots and materials, even when we try to do affordable housing, we are having problems. Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, any other questions at the moment? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Borup: One on your landscaping and the concern about the trees and the water. Do you know whether they have looked into any water tolerable trees? Have they checked with the -- have they checked with the landscape architect or a landscape person on that? I don't know if there is that many available, but -- McKay: Commissioner Borup, to answer your question, they did have some soils experts come out and look at the soil. They had their landscape architect come out and I think when they -- when they had the problems, they swapped out some different varieties to see if that would help. But they did have to replace quite a few trees. Getting the turf established I think is what really causes the problem, because they just water the turf excessively to make sure it's nice and green and gets established and the trees suffer. So, it is a landscape architect problem and they do have somebody working on it, yes, sir. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2005 Page 37 of 85 Borup: They probably just need to cut the watering down ance it's established and that's the problem. McKay: I recommended that multiple times, that I thought they were watering too much. Moe: Just one other question in regard to the fencing at the Settler's Canal. You said you were going to put a three foot at the canal and, then, you would have your six foot beyond that to the south; is that correct? McKay: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Consistent with what's out there right now. It looks a lot better than what the Meridian School District put next to the canal with the chain link with the slats. That just looks too industrial. Moe: Okay. Zaremba: All right. Thank you. McKay: Thank you. Zaremba: We do have a few people signed up to add testimony and this will be the opportunity. Let me first ask if there is anybody who is a spokesman and will be speaking for other people who will not speak? Doesn't look like it. Okay. Let's begin with Paul Poorman. Poorman: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Paul Poorman and I have live at 6230 North Black Cat Road. That's south of the proposed subdivision. I'm in the skinny little lot out there on Black Cat that was referenced. If you haven't realized it, western Ada County has a lot of problems. Traffic congestion leads to long commutes, time wasted sitting in lines at intersections, air pollution from automobiles, wood stoves, and the Amalgamated Sugar clouds the air in the winter. Car collisions kill and maim innocent drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists. Drunk drivers, aggressive drivers, and impatient drivers, and stop light runners are creating chaos on the highways. Our schools are overcrowded and the Meridian School District can't build the schools fast enough to keep up with the influx of the new students. Our utility companies can't build the power plants, the gas lines, the sewer connections and the water wells fast enough to keep up with the new families moving in. ACHD can't build the roads fast enough to alleviate the congestion. Our residential areas are so spread out that stacking a public transit system on top of the existing patchwork of homes is virtually impossible. Our property taxes are rising an overage of ten percent a year. And, lastly, we face an obesity epidemic that threatens to overwhelm our hospitals and doctors with heart disease, diabetes, stroke, cancer, and arthritis. And this subdivision is going to exacerbate all of these problems and I feel that it should be denied for the following reasons: It adds to the overcrowded schools in the area and would require Meridian School District to build more schools to accommodate the new students, while schools in Boise are losing students. It will add to traffic and urban sprawl, forcing the ACHD and ITD, the transportation department, to build more roads. It's diametrically opposed Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission pctober 6, 2005 Page 38 of 85 to the Compass community choice alternative that encourages public transportation, car pools, walking, and cycling as alternatives to single occupant vehicles as a primary means of transport. It will further tax city services, such as police, fire, building department, sewer and animal control. It will force people to drive elsewhere for everything, as there are no grocery stores, restaurants, employers or services nearby. It will increase air pollution. It will drain the groundwater aquifers and the lot sizes are incompatible with the existing lot sizes. Putting a 10 to 15 thousand square foot lot next to a 200 to 350 thousand square foot lot is not equivalent. It will force the traffic out onto the connector road and prevent traffic from flowing through it. And the proposed streets do not line up with the existing streets. It's less desirable for cycling and running and walking, the very activities to counter obesity and help people control their weight. And so I don't have a whole lot of hope that our voice is going to be heard, so if the subdivision is approved, I'd like the following comments entered into the public record. The first is that the drain ditch which flows to the -- along the southern border of the proposed subdivision -- Zaremba: Sir, you need to pick up the other microphone. Poorman: Sorry. Zaremba: And it's time for you to conclude as well. Poorman: Okay. So, it's right here. That's their responsibility, it's their property, and they need to dredge it out every spring as it silts in and floods the property to the south. And the fences need to be placed several feel back to the ditch to allow access for the equipment needed to clean the ditch. This ditch needs to stay open, because it collects our runoff, and the wells' needs are going to be subservient to existing water rights. No more street lights than necessary should be installed and they should not be pointed at the sky. And I feel that the developer should be required to pay the city and county governments for additional cost of services this incurs. They should be placed on the back of property owners. And so I'd like to close with a quote, the source I'm not sure of, but which is particularly applicable here. If you find yourself in a hole, the first you should stop do -- you should do is to stop digging and this subdivision is just going to sink us deeper into that hole of urban sprawl and it needs to be turned down. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you, sir. Any questions from the Commissioners? Okay. Thank you. Gale Poorman. G.Poorman: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Gale Poorman and I have lived at 5230 North Black Cat Road, south and bordering the proposed Volterra Subdivision for 21 years. I find it ironic that I have been given just three minutes to talk about the last 20 same years of my life and why .the rampant, uncontrolled growth we are experiencing in our area will ultimately drive my family and my neighbors away from our rural way of life. I find it ironic that Meridian's Mayor Tammy de Weerd recently spoke of the assets of our community, the Boise River and Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2005 Page 39 of 85 open spaces. Yet she failed to recognize how cookie cutter subdivisions like this proposed Volterra subdivision are eating away at those very assets. But, alas, I cannot stop the onslaught of humanity. What I do know is that we should embrace some smart growth ideas, like those proposed by Compass, Communities in Motion, an organization I have been working with. First of all, sirs and madam, the infrastructure to suppork the subdivision growth in our area just isn't there. This past year there have been five fatalities at the intersection west of us, McMillan and McDermott Road. Also this past year there have been enough accidents at the crossroads nearest to us, Black Cat and McMillan, to warrant a long needed four-way stop. My neighbors will attest that drivers use Black Cat Road as a speedway and often accelerating to 80 miles per hour plus passed our house, yet I have yet to see one arrest for speeding in all the years we have lived on Black Cat. And here is something to give you an idea of the traffic congestion in our area today. I have a commute of roughly 16 miles to my job in Boise. If I leave my house between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. driving my car, it takes me about an hour to reach my destination, because of the backed up traffic on Chinden Boulevard. Alternatively, if I ride my bicycle, as I often do, it takes me an hour and 15 minutes. And this is provided I'm not run off the shoulderless McMillan Road by angry drivers. What are your plans to alleviate this traffic nightmare? Will you embrace the ideas of a bus service or of a light rail system for commuters? How about bicycle lanes? I know that the Ada County Highway District has plans to widen our roads, including a plan to widen Black Cat Road that will ultimately run through my front porch. But this is not smart growth. With increasing gas prices and oil shortages, we need to have a vision that embraces alternative transporkatian. New subject. Water. I hope I have enough time. Not the infinite resource we think it is. I have a hydrologist friend who plans water systems for subdivisions. I told him our well is about 180 feet deep and asked him how long it will be -- it will last given all the growth in the Treasure Valley. His prediction -- he had none. It's okay for the time being he said. The time being. For now. Until we have wall-to-wall houses watering lawns with water features from Boise to Caldwell. Need I remind you we live in a desert. How long before we become like those communities in Arizona with water wars and rationing? Again, a smart growth plan would include terra scaping which incorporates plants and landscape features suitable to our environment. The plans in Volterra include waterfalls, fountains, and swimming pools. Highly evaporative features that waste precious water. Schools and services. An afterthought to this Volterra Subdivision construction, but they will come and they will increase traffic congestion, air pollution, noise pollution, and light up our night sky so that we, like so many other big city inhabitants across the country, will not be able to see the stars of our night sky. Our rural way of life and open spaces will be gone, but we will have more money in our tax collector coffers. A sad future, but not one we have to have. Not if we plan now for transportation systems, water conservation landscapes, and provision for alternative to driving single occupant automobiles that would make our community unique and thoughtfully planned. So, I ask you to consider my comments as you approve these new subdivisions. Scrutinize the developers and the timeline needed for improvements to accommodate Meridian's incredulous growth. Compare Meridian with her sister communities like Eagle where larger lots enable people to preserve a semblance of country life and do this nat for me, I whine too much, but for our children and far our grandchildren. Thank you. Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission October 6, 2005 Page 40 of 85 Zaremba: Thank you. Any questions? Thank you. Ken Arendse. From the audience he says he's been spoken for and his questions have been addressed. Those are the only people who have signed up, although there is an opportunity, if anybody else would care to add something that has not been said. Sir, come forward and start with your name and address, please. Stevenson: Jerry Stevenson, 6040 North Ten Mile Road. I just want to stress the north -- just south of Chinden and just the amount of traffic, I hope that everybody does take into consideration the amount of traffic that goes on the main arteries and Chinden is only a two lane road and I have not been able to get any confirmation from anybody from the transportation department on any plans upcoming to widen that road. So, I think that does created some -- you know, me, myself, I can look out my window and see the traffic backed all the way up to Linder at the light and everything, so that's my biggest concern that I personally have. I'm not a neighboring person of this subdivision, but that is something I hope that you take in consideration with all future developments that you're doing, the whole infrastructure, whether the transportation department is incompetent to really adjust their plans to accommodate all the outlying growth that's going on, I think we need to take a look at the railroads, the interstate, building up the residential areas higher in those areas before we start moving out, you know, much at the speed that we are doing right now. So, those are the only considerations I hope that everybody takes in plan. And if you have any comments on the -- any growth, the traffic plans of Chinden, of them building that out, and, then, also what the time period is -- I keep hearing a five lane -- five lane road on Ten Mile, what kind of time period we are looking at before any of that happens, I'd appreciate that, too. Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions? Anybody else care to add any? Okay. We will try and answer some of the questions that have been raised and we will begin with the applicant again. McKay: I'll try to address the questions as quick as possible. As far as the traffic is concerned, we did do -- we had a study done by Washington Group, who was also the same entity that ACHD retained for the north Meridian traffic planning study and the City of Meridian, I guess, asked them to update their north Meridian study. We use that same entity. They determined that at Black Cat and McMillan the level of service, even at our build out, is still going to be level of service B. At Ten Mile and McMillan it will be level of service C. With the additional lanes that we are providing with the half mile mid section collectors, we are going above and beyond what normal projects do. Not very many projects do these continuous collectors and they really do work to capture the traffic within the interior to try to also allow options for people versus going down through the intersection here, they can come through and maybe go out this direction or come out and make a free right in that direction. So, it provides the drivers more options, not just within the subdivision, but also in that general vicinity. As far as the schools are concerned, we worked with the school district on that Hunter Elementary for the Bridgetower project. That particular site we put in a drop-off lane within the Bridgetower project far the parents to drop kids off and to park and wait for them. We Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Qctober 6, 2005 Page 41 of 85 also made sure that we sold that to the school district at cost, at the cost that they got the property. This is a -- I know for the fact the cheapest elementary site Meridian School District bought in north Meridian, because they told me. And that"s why Hunter Elementary was the first school built in north Meridian, because our site was the most affordable. And we wanted to make sure that we got an elementary out here to serve these kids. So, it's not like we are just ignoring the situation with the school district, we worked closely with Wendell, we even added a collector road to accommodate them when they were denied direct lot access to McMillan Road. As far as compatibility, we always struggle when we have five-acre lots that adjoin us. How do we bridge that compatibility? Like I said many times before, residential is compatible with residential and we da our best from a planning perspective to try to da a transition of lot sizes next to the larger lots, provide stub streets, so that they at some time could redevelop, but you can't match five acre to five acre ar acre to acre, I'm just not -- it just doesn't work. I have tried it before and it's just -- it's just not what I call good planning. As far as like they brought up Smart Growth. Smart Growth would have me putting eight dwelling units per acre up against five acre lots, because they don't care about compatibility issues, they are trying to get as dense as possible, which they believe will promote mass transit in the future. Now, there is different arguments about that, whether that's appropriate or nat. The way we have designed, if mass transit -- van pooling, we have parking lots at the clubhouses, we have these collector roadways where bus service, if it were ever to become available out in this area, could came off the arterials, come into like a central location here at the clubhouse, pick up people, take them to work. So, we do look at those issues. As far as walking, we have provided aten-foot multi-use pathway that starts here at Ten Mile, right across from the Meridian community park. It will run all the way to Black Cat. We have interconnections of micro-paths here, here, through here, everywhere outside of these pods to make interconnectivity and promote walking within the section, so people are not getting in their cars. Urban sprawl, the most -- the classic example of urban sprawl in this valley right now is Eagle, where you have central sewer, central water, state highways, they are in the city limits, and they are coming in with one unit per acre. That is classic urban sprawl. In some places out there they are even making them go two acre lots. From a planning perspective, land is a finite recourse and we need to utilize it and manage it well. There are places where high density is appropriate, there are places where medium density and low density is appropriate. When central services are available I don't think acre and two acre lots are appropriate. This is not a cookie cutter subdivision. A cookie cutter subdivision is when we came in and we chop these things up into 40 acre lots. My clients bought this -- I think there was 800 acres total to make sure that they could do a large planned development that could be a community standing on its own, provide necessary neighborhood services, such as office, commercial, schools, pathways, parks. When we come in with a large project, that's the only way we can provide all those amenities is by having a project that obviously can pay for those amenities, those little 40 acre subdivisions, that's what -- the ones that have problems. Or smaller than that. As far as water, we will be hooking to Meridian municipal water system. There are two large irrigation wells on this property, one on the north and one an the east. They are IDWR approved irrigation wells that have supplemented the irrigation on this property. They are great big and deep for years. We are going to be using the gravity surface Meridian Planning & Zoning Gommission October 6, 205 Page 42 of 85 irrigation. Pressurized irrigation. We are not going to be putting down any new wells. Those would be only a secondary source, only utilized in the event that we had no option ar a severe drought season. The water features, we build those, we work with the people to make sure that we minimize the amount of evaporation -- in fact, we worked on our system out there, we have a large irrigation pond at Bridgetower, it had like a thing that shot straight up in the air, a water feature, we found that the evaporation for that was considerable, so we went to just the small kind of a little cone type, like a fireworks, system out there. This is an excellent project and I cherish the times that I have the opportunity to plan a project of this size and put the amenities and the diversity of the homes and the lots like we have done here and add commercial and office and so forth. We don't get that opportunity very often in our planning world and these parcels are going so quickly and people are buying so fast that I don't know how many more of these we will see. So, I think we -- we have worked on this for two years. It's not something we put together in two months and drop into the city. It takes a long time. Do you have any questions? Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Okay. Hood: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Mr. Hood. Hood: If I may, while Becky is up there, there was one issue that was brought up by Poormans that I'd like to see what Becky knows about the ditch that traverses the southwest quarter of the northwest portion of the site there that kind of -- I was not aware, I guess, of that -- yeah. The ditch there and what -- is it on your property, in fact, and -- McKay: Yes. It's delineated as the Scrivner. It's coming across -- I think it tames -- it comes through here, cuts like this, and, then, comes up. Hood: So, is that going to be tiled? Is that your intent? McKay: It is our intent to pipe the Scrivner, but I told the people at the neighborhood meeting I would be working with them to, obviously, coordinate the piping of that, because I do know that there is drainage water that goes into that. And sa I got some phone numbers and names and I told them we would walk it and get Mr. James out there, who has farmed this forever, and make sure that we have accommodated everyone. Hood: Does Settler's have any comment on that? Because I know that was one of the reasons that they wanted the White Drain to remain open is because that is, in fact, a drain and it will help the groundwater in there. McKay: The Beach Lateral, the Scrivner Lateral, are both user laterals. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2005 Pag® 43 of 85 Hood: Okay. McKay: The only facilities under Settler's is the Settler's Canal, the White Drain, and the Coleman Lateral. Hood: So, just for the Commission and the applicant -- McKay: And McMullen. Sorry. Hood: If, in fact, that determined what -- all parties would prefer be left open, then, you would need to come in and get that condition changed, because as worded it does need to be covered, just so everyone knows that is a condition right now. McKay: Yes. Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, just -- would you like just a quick update on what we know on the transportation corridors or -- I think there was a comment about the state highway -- Zaremba: There was a question about state highways. Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. We don't know a lot. It would be good to have ITD or somebody here, but what I do know is that the Idaho Transportation Department has hired Parametrics Engineering -- transportation engineering firm to conduct a right of way preservation corridor study from Eagle Road clear to I-84 in Caldwell. I believe they are four or five months into that corridor study. The goal of that study is to identify the ultimate right of way, the type of roadway, split median, the number of lanes, key access points. It's not a construction project, it is a right of way and design concept study. But, anyway, I think that that's about an 18 month contract. And, like I say, I think they are like four or five months into it. So, as far as 20-26, that -- the ACRD does have in their five-year work program a widening of Ten Mile Road from Franklin to Ustick I believe in '07. So, it would not extend into this area. I think as Becky may have noted earlier, ACHD has no north Meridian projects in their five year work program right now and that's being looked at very carefully aver the next few months. And there is a -- there is a very detailed traffic study that was done just last year as the Commission -- or just two months ago, as the Commission knows, as part of the north Meridian Comp Plan amendment and that's a study that's available and the public is welcome to come to our office and look at that. Zaremba: Thank you. Okay. Commissioners, discussion? Borup: I have got one question for staff, Mr. Chairman. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2005 Page 44 of 85 Zaremba: Commissioner Borup. Borup: Any comment on the -- I'm talking about fences on the semi-private -- so-called semi-private fences, any comments on that? Does that allow the visibility that's -- that the police department is comfortable with? Hood: It does not. And, in fact, there is a comment made by the police department in the staff report in section four or five, I can't remember what their comments are, that actually want a four foot solid adjacent to all common areas as well, because they have learned those -- the semi-private fences, it does not offer the visibility that they would like to have and that's why we did adopt the new ordinance, understanding that this is grandfathered, if you will, with the ald ordinance. But for safety purposes we would like this Commission to go with that requirement, that all open spaces and micro-paths comply with the four-foot solid or the six foot open vision, and not allow that lattice and not allow a solid fence. I mean that's the way they still look at it. Three-quarter of an inch, an inch, inch and a half, they still don't believe that that is an open vision fence and gives them that visibility that they need to patrol those areas. So, I know Bridgetower has been one of the ones that was used as -- they had some semi-private fencing there and that just has not worked out well for them. Borup: It hasn't? Hood: No. Borup: My experience driving by there is just the opposite. When you're driving by in a car you can see everything in there. Hood: That's what the police department -- Bob Stowe attends our meetings when we have our agency meetings and they are pretty adamant about the fencing and were instrumental in getting that approved in the new UDC, so -- Borup: But the semi-private is not even mentioned in that, is it? Hood: Well, we had a problem with defining semi-private. I mean that was the problem is it is half an inch -- Borup: That was why I brought it up. Hood: -- three-quarters, an inch, what -- you know, what is semi-private fencing. Zaremba: Let me, if I can, clarify the scope of any disagreement that we may be trying to resolve. We are really only discussing what fence would go around the two private parks and along the canal that they are going to leave open. Everything else can be six feet private -- or six feet; am I correct? Hood: Yeah. The micro-paths would also be restricted to four foot. Meridian Planning & honing Commission October 6, 2005 Page 45 of 85 Zaremba: Oh, I'm sorry. And the micro-paths. Hood: Yeah. But, yes, that's, essentially, the only areas are the park areas and the micro-paths. There aren't any, really, other open space areas that this fencing requirement would apply to, other than if they were to put up fences on either side of the Settler's Canal that -- the three foot that they are proposing, if that would go to a six foot, that would not be supportive of that, necessarily. But they are proposing a lower fence and, then, a higher one on the backside of that or adjacent to the build-able lots, so -- yeah. Moe: You're saying the higher one would have to be the open type fencing? Hood: No. That one along -- along McMillan, because it's adjacent to the roadway, you can still see in there. Moe: I got you. Borup: So, what's the definition of an open vinyl fence? Hood: There is no definition of an open vinyl fence. Zaremba: Probably have to be all latticework or something like that. Hood: Wrought iron I think is called out. Chain link. Which wrought iron is what we are looking for, but that would be another -- Borup: Around the park. Hood: But chain link with slats is not acceptable. Borup: We are mainly talking around the park. Hood: Correct. The two park areas. Zaremba: My instinct would be to stick with the four feet in those selected areas and allow the developer to -- I mean they would still be of matching color and materials and allow the six feet all the other places. Commissioner Rohm, you appear to be mulling that over or -- Rohm: I just think that there was a lot of work put into the writing of the new code and that's one of the areas that was specifically addressed and any new developments, whether applied for prior to the acceptance of that, we should do everything we can to follow the discussion of the people that helped write it, so -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2005 Page 46 of 85 Zaremba: Well -- and even the projects that came before us recently before the new ordinance was adopted, we put that requirement in by a development agreement attached to the annexation. I mean it isn't -- it isn't that we haven't been putting this requirement on until it became the new code, we had been asking -- this is consistent with what we have been asking for probably a year or so. Rohm: Right. Zaremba: I'm for that. Rohm: I think we are all in agreement on that. Zaremba: I would comment on the intersection of McMillan and Ten Mile that you're going to make a whole lot of other people very jealous about what's happening at that intersection. ACHD in their budget constraints is not moving as fast as anybody would like them to move. They understand that these things need to be done, but we end up having to prioritize them, because of their restrictive budget and any help that you can give to the community in that, assuming you will get paid back eventually, is definitely appreciated. Borup: But is there anything we can do to encourage ACHD to accept that proposal? From what I understand right now, they haven't. Zaremba: The one thing that I would do -- I know that the Meridian Transportation Task Force, which is headed by Steve Siddoway, is in the process of making recommendations to the City Council that they will make to ACHD and I would contact Steve and make sure that this is on that list and the issue is unless it is on ACHD's capital improvements plan, it is not reimbursement eligible and we have discussed this issue with Pine Avenue and the developer that wants to build there, it's not on ACHD's list either, and it's the thinking of the City of Meridian that they should be an that list and be reimbursement eligible. It's in the best interest of Meridian to have these things accomplished and anything that boosts the timeline is in our best interest. So, I think this is an excellent proposal and, actually, all around I think this is an excellent proposal. I have to comment that when we read some proposals, the thought occurs to me that the applicant must have stayed up late trying to figure out what they could put by the Commission and the staff. When I see proposals from this applicant, I think she stays up trying to figure out what she can offer the city that was better than her last project and, you know, that's very much appreciated. As far as growth, this is not only the kind of thing that the Comprehensive Plan does envision for this area, which was worked on by a lot of people in very public meetings, but I think it goes beyond it and offers more and Iwould -- I can imagine the applicant probably has discussions with clients that ask her to do things and she pushes back and says, no, this is not good for Meridian and I wouldn't even be surprised if she's last some clients because of that, which is a brave thing to do. It doesn't mean the clients don't show up with somebody else -- one of your competitors who is trying to put something over an us, but I just want to say, as staff pointed out, if what we are discussing is the fences, that is an issue that can be Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 20D5 Page 47 of 85 resolved. I just want to say I appreciate the projects and the designs that this applicant brings and I see nothing in here that would not benefit Meridian. I think it's a good project. Borup: I agree. This is probably the most non-cookie cutter subdivision we have had before us. Zaremba: And I would even comment -- again, this doesn't mean we are going to stop inspecting all of your applications closely, but I have seen a new initiative in this packet, we even have the letter -- a copy of the letter that the applicant sent out to hold a neighborhood meeting. I mean these are -- that may seem like a small thing, but she takes the initiative to help us do our job and that's appreciated. Moe: Well, I guess the only comments I would like to make -- I hate to make you feel so good tonight, but, quite frankly, I was very pleased with this -- with this application. There is a -- quite frankly, in the Comp Plan this area is basically noted as an R-8. Basically, I have seen projects that have come through here that are R-8 that are, quite frankly, every bit of the land that is available they are putting anywhere from a 4,500 square foot lots all the way to maybe 6,000 and they are still not meeting the 8,500 square foot that I want to see in the R-8s. This development is very well laid out, there is a lot of amenities, there is a great mix and, quite frankly, I think comments from the public tonight, as far as for shopping and whatnot, I think that will came. I think the applicant brought that up earlier, that some of the roof-tops do need to be in place in order for same of this commercial to happen. I do believe this is going to be a definite benefit to this area, I really do, and I think you do need to be commended, you have done a great job on this. Zaremba: I would comment for the record that we have each received a copy of the Engineering Solutions' letter in response to the staff report. My question would be do we want to contemplate continuing this so we can study it? Clearly staff has had time to study it. Would we just like staff to walk us through what we would need to change in their report to make a motion tonight? Borup: I feel comfortable with what staff as done and what Becky has done that we could do that. We could go through and -- Zaremba: We would ask staff to walk us through what we need to say. Borup: That would be my preference. Rohm: Before we do that, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to comment on the testimony just for a moment. Some of the testimony was that this contributes to urban sprawl and there is not the infrastructure to handle the additional traffic that this development will generate. That's as it is with all developments within the state of Idaho. We don't have the same vehicles that other states have that build infrastructure first and, then, development comes second. And if that were the case, we would have Ten Mile, we would have Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2005 Page 48 of 85 McDermott, we would have all of the infrastructure all already in place and that's just not going to happen until we have the development like this that is well planned out and once this has built out you will see the infrastructure improvements to the roadways to accommodate the very things that you addressed and that's all I have to say about that. Zaremba: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I did notice there was one comment on the stub street. I think it's Drawbridge right to the south -- the little cul-de-sac and, Craig, you had mentioned that we should stub that and it looks to me like, Becky, you would like to not stub that. Was it -- oh, the neighbors of Drawbridge were not interested in having the stub street. Zaremba: That is often the case. ACHD and the City of Meridian's attitude usually is we need to provide for connectivity and, you know, when we are under growth pressure, we need to make sure that it happens in an orderly manner and that the transportation issues of the future are served, even if a person is intending not to develop their property right this minute -- Borup: Well, they have got to cross the canal. Zaremba: -- past history and even other places show that within their next generation or so that could change. Newton-Huckabay: Now you understand that is across the canal, too. Zaremba: I missed that. Say that again. Newton-Huckabay: It goes across the drain. Borup: So, the Drawbridge stub stubs to a canal? Newton-Huckabay: To the canal. Hood: And, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, that's correct, and I did contact ACRD as well to see if they had half of the monies for a culvert or a bridge and they did not have any money and neither does -- the city is not holding any money as well. I did talk with Becky about this, because in ACHD's staff report initially it did not have the requirement to extend it, so I thought maybe that's why they weren't requiring it. I don't know if that staff report --just an oversight, I guess, on their part, but it is a requirement of the highway district and they are going to have to, out of their pocket, figure out how to cross that drain, so -- but the stub was put there for a reason and that's Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2005 Page 49 of 85 interconnectivity of the development. So, I just wanted to give you some background on that, I guess. Zaremba: Thank you. Rohm: With that being said, Mr. Chairman, I move that we take a short break for about ten minutes -- Zaremba: Traditionally, we do that about 9:00 o'clock. Let me get a sense of how fast we are likely to wrap this one up. Rohm: I think we are going to have to go through the whole packet with staff providing feedback on the differences between the Engineering Solutions and their original proposal -- staff repork. Hood: Mr. Chair, I have about three comments, the only ones that I think that we aren't in agreement on, and I guess Becky can stand up and holler and shout if that's not the case, but I think the fencing -- I mean three changes that I see. I mean I went through already with their -- everything that they bolded as far as the Planning and the Public Works Department are concerned. And even one from the Parks Department. So, I anticipate it to be pretty quick. Becky's pretty close, sa if I misstate something -- Zaremba: Think we can wrap this up in five or ten minutes and, then, take a break? Borup: So, fencing and -- Moe: So, Craig, 1.1.9, basically, we just want to make sure that we note that the micro- path and the open space are four foot solid and, then, we --and, then, the six foot open vision -- I'll let you -- Hood: Yeah. That's the first one. Four foot -- maximum of four foot adjacent to micro- paths and, then, interior common open spaces, which that should clear it up, that adjacent to streets and things they can do a six foot solid, but adjacent to interior open spaces, they can either do a foot four solid or a six foot open vision. Moe: Okay. Zaremba: On the subject of fences, which leads to micro-paths, I did hear agreement to put amicro-path somewhere in this area on that northeast -- Hood: And that is already a condition. Zaremba: -- northwest block I mean. Okay. Hood: And that condition -- so it's not a change. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2005 Page 50 of 85 Zaremba: Okay. Hood: The applicant was originally not in agreement, but I think they are okay now. Zaremba: Uh-huh. Hood: 1.2.2 is the next one I have here and that was just new calculations based on whatever areas they need for sand at the bottom of those need to be excluded from their open space calculations. So, prior to City Council submit new open space calculations for those areas. Something to that effect. 1.1.8.6 -- this is in south -- Volterra South, that, again, is the fencing condition, but it's specific to -- well, I guess remove the first sentence, which states that the applicant shall clarify what type of fencing, because they have done that. And I think we just need to add -- I would like to keep the open vision. I think that's the same as what the other condition was -- on both sides of the White Drain and, then, on the south side of the Settler's Canal -- I guess that one needs to be modified, the last sentence. I'm sorry. Allow asix-foot solid on the south side of the Settler's, but it's only athree-foot maximum height on the north side of the sidewalk. Does that make sense? I'm sorry. I wish I would have brought across- section of it. Borup: Six foot by the drain, three foot by the sidewalk. Moe: Six foot solid. Borup: Both solid. Moe: Three foot solid. Borup: Clarification. Does that apply to both the Settler's and the White Drain? Hood: No. The White Drain should be either the four-foot solid or the six-foot open vision, like any other open space. Just along the Settler's. Borup: So, it was the Settler's that had the six-foot -- Hood: solid. Borup: -- against the property lots -- Hood: Correct. Borup: --and three foot between the sidewalk and the ditch. Hood: Correct. And, then, the final change that I have in the planning is 1.2.2.6 and it's the same comment that was in one -- whatever the other one was, to supply new Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2005 Page 51 of 85 open space calcs for whatever areas are going to be sand in the bottom of the -- and that number was -- Mae: 1.2.2. 1.2.2. Hood: 1.2.2.8. Yeah. Correct. Yeah. And I guess the only other comment that I had was in the Parks Department, that was the -- their 5.1 and if you want to just use the applicant's verbiage that they have proposed in their letter, that would probably be -- Moe: I just noted that to be constructed in accordance with the Parks and Recreation system plan. Hood: You probably don't want to reference their plan, because that's the one that wants it to be an HS20 or whatever it is. Moe: Okay. Hood: So, just coordinate the construction with the Public Works Department or something to that effect. Moe: With the Parks Department you mean? Haad: Yeah. That's fine. Moe: Then, the only other thing I would question would be the fire department. Can we just leave it as the signage only and just get rid of the painting of the curb? Hood: I'm not prepared to put words in their -- I don't know what their requirements are. If you want to change that, I guess that's your prerogative, but I'm not familiar enough with their code to know if that's something for just commercial areas or if it applies in residential and commercial or what. Borup: That was the only question I had, if they meant for it to apply in the commercial. Hood: That's a question that I have, I just don't know -- Borup: So, maybe we could say that it does not apply in the residential and leave it at that. Zaremba: Or phrase it so that we ask the fire department to reconsider that part of it. Newton-Huckabay: There you go. That's my preference. Borup: Mr. Cole had a comment. Zaremba: Mr. Cole. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2005 Page 52 of 85 Cole: Mr. Chairman, I believe that, generally -- I don't want to speak for Mr. Silva who made these comments with the fire department, but it is my understanding that generally he means these only in commercial sections. It's not general practice anywhere in the city of Meridian to paint 20 feet red curbing along residential streets where the majority of our hydrants are located on 400-foot intervals. I don't want to change Mr. Silva's conditions, but in the residential areas it's generally not done. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Always. Moe: I guess I would just maybe add to the end sentence -- as directed by the fire department. I think, basically, it talks about all fire lanes painted red -- curb red and provide signage and no parking lane -- fire lane. I just think as directed -- I would assume the applicant can get with the fire department to verify where they do have to do it. Zaremba: Or as coordinated with the fire department, maybe. Borup: That's assuming the fire department doesn't have a policy change here. Newton-Huckabay: Well, would this not cover that? Zaremba: I think that's why we need to phrase it in a way that they will be asked, but we certainly support not having it in residential. Borup: Right. Zaremba: And to just -- I don't know how to put it, but what we are asking is for the fire department to clarify their wording. Moe: As coordinated by the fire department. Newton-Huckabay: Why can't we just put it that way? Zaremba: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Get clarification on the fire department's intentions prior to City Council. Zaremba: That works for me. Commissioner Moe, did you hear that? Moe: No, I -- it sounds like I'm making this motion. Rohm: You're the man. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2005 Page 53 of 85 Zaremba: We are leaning on your tonight. Moe: Coordinated -- as coordinated by the fire department doesn't work? Newton-Huckabay: Well, if you want the fire department to clarify their statement, why not just ask the fire department to clarify their statement. Zaremba: As to whether it applies to residential. Moe: Okay. Borup: Or could we add another sentence saying that the -- that the painted fire lanes apply in the commercial and the signage would apply in both? Moe: No, because, then, you're, basically, telling the fire department what we want and I think they are the ones that need to clarify what they want. Okay. Zaremba: But I think from the minutes it will be understood that we are certainly agreeable to not having it -- Moe: I'm sure we can talk about this about another five minutes or so and we will get this one figured out. Okay. Zaremba: Okay. Next? Cole: I believe Craig's done. These would be Public Work comments. Zaremba: Okay. It's working. Cale: Number one -- 2.1. This one is going to be rather wordy. At the end of that comment the applicant shall be able to gravity the portion of land -- Moe: Oh, wait a minute. Newton-Huckabay: Shall be able to gravitate -- Cole: Would you like me just to state it and you can reference it? Moe: Yes. Cale: At the end of 2.1, the applicant shall be able to gravity the portion of land shown to be sewered by the master sewer plan from the Ten Mile Trunk. Any land that can gravity passed that line shall be modeled at the developer's expense and, then, may be sewered only at the Public Work's director's discretion. No substandard grades shall be allowed, nor artificial fill designed to increase sewer expansion. End of sentence. 2.9, I Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October fi, 2005 Page 54 of 85 believe the applicant has changed to comply completely with the comment, so she withdraws her complaint to that comment. 2.13, if I can just add after vacate any, add the word recorded drainage or irrigation easement. If they are proscriptive, they need not be vacated. However, if they are a recorded easement, the applicant will agree to vacate them. Moe: Just the word recorded after any? Cole: Yes. Moe: Okay. Cole: 2.15. Public Works is not telling her she can or cannot landscape in that easement, we are just asking that she dedicate it for the public utilities and so I would recommend that she agrees to comply with that -- that condition and, then, coordinate with the public utilities in question for what they do ar do not allow in their easement. So, I believe she will just agree to that condition as well and I see her shaking her head. One additional condition that I would like to bring up is 2.13 in relation to the gentleman that's located just south of this development. 2.13 states vacate -- oh. 2.14. I'm sorry. Verify that unnamed ditches that are shown as being abandoned do not serve any downstream users. If these ditches are still being used, the applicant shall pipe these facilities. I would add there -- or maintain them in a manner approved by said user after the facility is there. Becky? Zaremba: Do we want to go so far as approve it by the users or just in coordination with the other users? Cole: I would prefer to have written approval by the end users, but she appears not to want to agree to that. Zaremba: The Public Hearing is still open, if you have another suggestion. Borup: Don't they just need to provide the water? Cole: Before Mrs. McKay gets up and speaks, the same conditions are in south -- Volterra South, so the rewording in Volterra South would be the same as the ones in Volterra North, in relation to -- 2.1 would be 2.6.1. 2.6.12 -- Moe: Wait a minute. Oh, 2.6.12. Cole: Would be the same as 2.13. And 2.6.13 would be the same as 2.15. And I will stand for questions. Moe: You just said 2.8.13 would be the same as which one? 2.6.13 -- Cole: Would be the same as 2.15. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2005 Page 55 of 85 Moe: 2.15? Cole: Yes, sir. Moe: I thought -- well -- and 2.15 I thought was okay. Cole: Correct. She's agreeing -- 2.B -- she had -- Moe: So, it doesn't change? Cole: It doesn't change, but she has changed her mind to agree to comply with that. Moe: Okay. Can we ga back to 2.14, then, and get some clarification. Number one, as you were discussing it you said: Or maintain as per -- I didn't catch the rest of that and I know she's not in agreement, so we will get to that, but -- shall pipe these facilities or maintain as -- Cole: Or maintain them as approved by downstream user. Baird: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Mr. Baird. Baird: I have a suggestion that might get us through the difficulty here. It's state law that they can't change the use, so rather than having it be as approved by the downstream user, just as required by applicable law and it's between the developer and the private party to make sure that that happens, but it's really not a fight that we want to get in the middle of. Zaremba: I think that's an excellent -- Borup: So, they just need to have the water delivered at the same historical location. Cole: That's the state statute, yes. Zaremba: Well -- and does that apply to drainage as well? Do we have to pick up drainage? Cole: Yes, I believe so. Zaremba: I like the applicable law wording. Borup: And all that does -- it says you can change the location of the ditch within their property, as long as it's delivered at the same place as it has been historically, doesn't it? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission october 6, 2005 Page 56 of 85 Zaremba: They have to end up with the same essential -- Borup: Same flow, same location. Zaremba: Yeah. How it gets to them is flexible. It may be appropriate to close the Public Hearing. Borup: Did we need -- I thought I understood Mrs. McKay had some clarification on -- Moe: He just cleared that one up. Borup: That was it on that ditch thing? That was the only thing? Zaremba: And I agree with her -- Borup: I thought you said something about that easement. Did I misunderstand that? Cole: The easement -- Borup: You were referring to the ditch was the only thing? Cole: Ditches in this development that are being rerouted or piped. Borup: Right. Cole: The condition reads, vacate the easements. Mrs. McKay said that they were proscriptive in nature and, therefore, not vacatable. Borup: Okay. Cole: So, I just added the word recorded, which she agreed with. Borup: Okay. Very good. Yeah. Let's move on. Zaremba: In that case, I believe closing the public hearings on these four items would be an appropriate motion. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the public hearings on AZ 05-040, PP 05-039, and PP 05-040, and CUP 05-041, Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Meridian Planning F. Zoning Commisslon October 6, 2005 Page 57 of 85 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Commissioner Moe, we have all been depending on you to be prepared for this one. Moe: Yeah. Me, too. Zaremba: It's a shame we can't just make a oration to include all minutes of the meeting. Moe: Yeah. Really. Okay. Well, we will start out, then -- Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Let's see here. I move that we forward to City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-040, to include all staff comments of the hearing date -- as soon as I can find that. Newton-Huckabay: October 6th. Moe: Of the hearing date of October the 6th, 2005, received by the Clerk's Office October 3rd, 2005. End of motion. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Mae: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I move that we forward on to City Council recommending approval of PP 05-039, to include all staff comments for the hearing date of October 6, 2005, received by the city clerk's office October 3rd, 2005, with the following changes: Under the site specific requirements under -- for the planning department, the first item being 1.1.9, I'd like to add a sentence ~- or basically just clarify that, that the fencing requirements will be for micro-paths and open spaces to be either four foot solid or six-foot open vision fencing at the interior open space. Borup: Do we need to -- I don't know if we need to clarify interior open space, as opposed to linear open space along roadways or does that make any difference? Moe: I think this motion -- we were there are fine. Meridian Planning ~ Zoning Commission October 6, 2005 Page 58 of 85 Borup: Okay. Moe: Next item, under 1.2.2, like to add an additional sentence to read: Provide new calculations for open space before the City Council meetings on this project. Next item would be under 1.1.8.8, to include a sentence that would read that the fencing would be a three foot solid fencing at the Settler's Canal and a six foot solid fencing at the property line at the south side. Next item would be 1.1.1.2.8 and that would be to add an additional sentence to also provide new calculations far open space before the City Council meeting. Borup: Are you going to combine both file numbers? Zaremba: I was going to suggest that we combine them both -- Borup: Okay. Zaremba: -- of the PPs in this motion. Moe: Yes. Borup: Okay. That's -- good. Moe: Okay. Zaremba: So, all of the things that you're relating apply to PP 05-039 and PP 05-040? Moe: That is correct. Zaremba: Okay. Good. Moe: Do I need to restate one or did we get that one? Newton-Huckabay: We got it. Zaremba: We got it. Moe: Okay. The next one. The next item would be under 2.1 of the Public Works Department comments and that would be a sentence at the end that would refer to Michael Cole's statements in regards to that item. The next item would be under 2.13, in the first sentence after vacate any -- please put recorded existing drainage or irrigation easements. Next item would be under 2.8.12, would be the same as that would be vacate any and, then, include the word recorded existing drainage or irrigation easements. Next item would be under the fire department comments under 3.7, to add just at the end of that sentence to -- for all fire lane -- for all fire lanes paint the curbs red and provided signage no parking fire lanes, as clarified by the fire department. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2005 Page 59 of 85 Cole: Commissioner Moe? Moe: Yes. Cole: On comment 2.6.1 would you like to add my comment at the end of that, similar to condition 2.1? Mae: I'm sorry, two point -- Cale: 2.B.1. It's the sewer condition. Moe: I sure will. Cole: Thank you, sir. Mae: I'll just state that now. Under 2.B.1, under the site-specific comments for the south subdivision, last sentence, please refer to Michael Cole's statements in that location. And, let's see here, I'm back to -- the fire department's done. Under the Parks Department's comments under 5.1 -- basically, what I think I would like to do is just strike that entire comment out and just basically redo it and note it to be pathways and trails to be constructed in accordance -- or as directed by the Parks Department. End of -- yes. Cole: Under Public Works 2.14, would you like to add Mr. Baird's addition of complying with -- Moe: I'm sorry. Thank you. You're right. Didn't mark that. That's why I didn't get that. Under 2.14, in the second sentence, after: If these ditches are still being used, the applicant shall pipe these facilities or maintain them as per -- as per law. As per state law. End of motion. Borup: Second. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Thank you. CUP. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward onto City Council recommending approval of CUP 05-041, to include all staff comments of the hearing date October 6, 2005, received by the city clerk's office October 3rd, 2005. End of motion. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2005 Page 60 of 85 Barup: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Thank you all very much. And as earlier requested, we have gone well past our 9:00 o'clock traditional break and we will take a break at this point and reconvene -- let's make it 15 minutes. (Recess.) Item 15: Public Hearing: AZ 05-042 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.63 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Medford Place Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC - 3335 South Eagle Road: Item 16: Public Hearing: PP 05-043 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 29 single-family residential building lots and 8 common area lots on 8.57 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Medford Place Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC - 3335 South Eagle Road: Item 17: Public Hearing: CUP 05-044 Request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for Medford Place Subdivision that includes reductions to the minimum requirements for lot size and street frontage by Dyver Development, LLC - 3335 South Eagle Road: Zaremba: All right. We will reconvene our meeting this evening and let the record show that all Commissioners are again present and I will open the public hearings for AZ 05- 042, PP 05-043, and CUP 05-044, all relating to Medford Place Subdivision and we will begin as usual with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The subject applications are for annexation and zoning, preliminary plat, and Conditional Use Permit for a planned development consisting of 29 build-able lots and eight common other lots on 8.57 acres. The site is located, as you can see, on the overhead on the southwest corner of Eagle and Victory. The adjacent properties are pretty much rural residential as you can see around. Across the -- across Eagle Road the city did recently approve a two-lot subdivision. The existing single-family house is going to stay and, then, they are proposing some assisted living. They are capable of self-preservation, a retirement community there on the south side of Falcon Drive. There is a future elementary school planned in this location. Messina Hills Subdivision -- this aerial is a little bit old. You can see the overlay of the actual lots in Messina. Some of those homes are there today. That was Maxfield Subdivision. I'm sorry, I forgot the name of that, but Maxfield Subdivision there. Pretty much everything else around it is still rural residential, zoned