Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 20, 2005 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning October 20, 2005 Page 11 of 37 got a straightaway that -- maybe that would be the offset to allow that, is to have something else in their design that counters that. I would be in favor of that. Zaremba: Thank you very much. Appreciate that. Okay. We are enteríng our Public Hearing portion of the evening and let me just describe our procedure a little bit for anybody who doesn't come to our meetings very often. Our professional staff and the applicants have already spent quite a bit of time together on each of these projects and what we do to begin with is have our professional staff give us a presentation describing where the project is, what the project is, any issues that they believe are remaining to be resolved and in this the staff is not advocating the project, they are just letting us know how it complies or doesn't comply with the current ordinances and Comprehensive Plan. Following the staff presentation, then, it's the applicant's opportunity to actually advocate their project and to answer any íssues that the professional staff has raised. We ask the applicant to confine their testimony to 15 minutes, including any supporting cast they have, engineers and architects, and so forth. Following that it's the opportunity for the public to tell us things they think we need to know about it and, again, it may not be a problem tonight, but we often have a crowd and we do ask that your testimony be limited to three minutes. The exception to that is if we have a spokesman who is representing -- for instance, the president of a homeowners association and representing all the members who are not going to speak, then, we allow that spokesman to speak for ten minutes. Then, at the conclusion of the general public testimony we do ask the applicant to have been taking notes all that time and to come back up and respond. They have another ten minutes to clarify or fix anything that they can at that point. Then, theoretically, we close the Public Hearing, we deliberate, and we make a recommendation to the City Council, where, again, there will be another Public Hearing. We have a handy light system here. When the green light is on you have time to speak. The yellow light will come on warning you that you should begin to conclude. And when the red one comes on we ask that you do conclude. We may, in addition to that, after you have used your time, we may ask you questions, but try not to make our questions deduct from your time to make your statements. Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from October 6, 2005: AZ 05-038 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 38.5 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Irvine Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC - southeast corner of Ten Mile Road and Chinden Boulevard: Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from October 6, 2005, PP 05-037 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 200 building lots and 21 common lots on 38.5 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Irvine Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC - southeast corner of Ten Mile Road and Chinden Boulevard: Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from October 6, 2005: CUP 05-039 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for single family detached residential units and single family attached residential Meridian Planning & Zoning October 20, 2005 Page 12 of 37 units in a proposed R-8 zone for Irvine Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC - southeast corner of Ten Mile Road and Chinden Boulevard: Zaremba: That being said, we appreciate you all being here and we will open the Public Hearing -- actually, the continued Public Hearing for AZ 05-038 and PP 05-037 and CUP 05-039, all relating to Irvine Subdivision and we will begin with the staff report. Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. It looks like a slide got a little off there, but Irvine Subdivision, actually, is the portion north of what is outlined here. It is immediately east of Ten Mile and south of Chinden, and it is 38.5 acres. The applicant is requesting an R-8 zone for this. As you can see, it's currently vacant -- vacant being agricultural in Meridian. And the request is for 200 building lots and 21 common lots. The subdivision is broken into several distinct features. There is single family residential to the south, which borders the Silverleaf Subdivision. Similar lot sizes. There is also what staff is referring to as a MEW development, which is higher density attached housing there in lots -- they are in Block 3 and 6 of this design and they are attached housing -- I believe the applicant has submitted elevations of five- plexes and six-plexes. The applicant did come back and submitted a revised drawing of this one to include these parking lots for, essentially, overflow parking. These units will -- will have their own parking structure with them, but staff felt that the additional parking was required and the applicant addressed that adequately. The other issue -- the other portion would be the alley-loaded products, which are just immediately south of -- I believe that's Block 3. These lots are less than the R-8 standard, but do provide alley access. Staff has made a condition that the alleys be named in order to provide -- or not the alleys being named, but the -- I believe the alleys -- there was two or three alleys to be named, because the MEW products do not provide frontage on a public road and, therefore, for emergency services access and addressing the names of those alleys would need to be incorporated, so that the five and six-plexes actually have a number to them. With that, those alleys should be a minimum of 24 feet wide and that meets the standards of what we have set for this type of a development where the alleyways in the single-family residential product are 20 feet and not named. So, there is a little difference between the two products that are out there -- or that are being presented. The main issue for the repeated tablings of this item has been the -- determining how much right of way to outline on the major intersection of Ten Mile and Chinden, due to the fact that Ten Mile interchange will be the first major intersection to attach north Meridian to south Meridian when Ten Mile interchange goes in in the near future -- the, hopefully, nearer future, other than Eagle Road, and there is a higher demand for the turning lanes on Chinden Road and several other issues that are being determined right now by lTD. However, ITD has not established policy for this section of road at this time and staff has asked -- or had asked the applicant to work with ITD to determine that the original proposal had 70 feet of right of way on the entire lane where it -- the intersection -- it was almost apparent that they were going to need more right of way. At least due to the drawings that we have seen from lTD. The applicant did submit the revised drawing to show a 50 foot wide -- what is essentially landscape buffer to -- for future right of way access and the other portion there would make it a 70 foot -- so, it's 90 feet Meridian Planning & Zoning October 20, 2005 Page 13 of 37 within 500 feet of the intersection and 70 feet to the east of the site. This is consistent with the Silverleaf development and the Lochsa Falls development further to the east on -- currently within the City of Meridian's jurisdiction. To the west we don't have any subdivisions that have been developed and staff is hoping that ITD establishing their policy and their funding for purchasing the required right of way that they foresee west of Ten Mile Road before we see more subdivisions. Again, with this -- this is a PD for reduced lot sizes, reduced frontages, and side yard setbacks for the R-8 product until all the attached products in Blocks 3 and 6, as well as the reloaded reduction. With this, the applicant is providing the additional landscaping, the additional open space, a clubhouse and a pool in the MEW development of Block 6. These will all be attached -- there will be a nice easy walking path that will be provided to all of these amenities through this site. The landscaping plan does show a portion of the landscape lot there. I guess Barb tried to put that in twice. Getting back to ITD, this is the road section that ITD had submitted. Staff is not going with the recommendation for hundred foot of right of way, as ITD has recommended. They did not make it a condition of approval. It is a recommendation for this section, due to the fact that this is reduced. The section of road pavement will not change. They will get their full roadway that they are desiring. One issue of point is that they have listed here 35 feet for a recovery, six to one slope for drainage and such. In talking with Steve Siddoway, before the transportation coordinator prior to this meeting, this -- they still can maintain their drainage. They should have -- there is other options that they can use to get this road section in a reduced width, which has been determined in the past when they established the 70 foot of actual needed right of way for the travelways. With this, this does show two left turn lanes on Chinden to Ten Mile Road. This one does say State Highway 44, but it is the same section. With that, the applicant is proposing to do the berm, to make sure that the highest point of the fence will be ten feet higher than the paved surface of the roadway. So, half of the berm will be in the lots along Chinden Road -- or Chinden Boulevard, as well as it will be landscaped in there. The 35-foot landscape buffer will be there. However, the ten foot asphalt pathway will be placed in that 35-foot landscape buffer, in lieu of the required Meridian city code five foot concrete sidewalk that is typically along these sections. Staff gave the applicant option on that, due to the fact that the UDC does call up to the ten-foot multi-use pathway along Chinden and the applicant will be working with ITD in order to put the ten foot pathway in, as well as provide for a license agreement from maintenance of that pathway to lTD. Again, the products that the applicant is proposing are -- this is the attached housing. Planned development portions are submitted. These are larger, less blocky houses that seem to be going well with the City Council at this time. And with that I will stand for questions. Staff is recommending approval of this with the conditions as outlined in the staff report. Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions? Moe: The only thing 1'm -- are those the only two elevations that we have to look at at all? I mean -- Newton-Huckabay: Isn't there a whole bunch in our -- Meridian Planning & Zoning October 20, 2005 Page 14 of 37 Borup: Yeah. It just repeats the same thing. Newton-Huckabay: Oh, is it a repeat? My highly trained eye. Guenther: Commissioner Moe, I did ask the -- I did talk to Mr. Nickel, the applicant's representative, today to bring additional or better copies what of the elevations looked like in possible color, so I hope that Mr. Nickel brought them. Looks like they did. Zaremba: In that case, shall we proceed with the applicant's presentation? We are ready for the applicant, please. Amar: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Kevin Amar. Address is 36 East Pine here in Meridian, and I am here tonight on behalf of Irvine Subdivision and we have -- there has been a lot of thought that's gone into this project. It's been scrutinized I think from every angle, so we are pretty excited to be here and I think we have come up with a project that's been referred to as designed by committee. Everybody looked at it and we have tried to come up with something that will work for all parties involved. City. lTD. Ada County Highway District. And, of course, ourselves. The project does have 200 building units. It has 38.5 acres. On the current Comprehensive Plan I think it is designated as low density, but if we look at the north Meridian updated Comprehensive Plan it is slated for medium density residential, which is between three to eight units to the acre. This clearly falls within that just over five units to the acre. With this -- with this property and at this intersection we thought it was a good -- we have got two main arterials with 20-26 and Ten Mile -- or Chinden and Ten Mile being a future connection to the highway. We feel that this is going to be an excellent location for this type of product. I know that -- and we will get into the product briefly in a moment, but Mr. Guenther referred to them as four-plexes and six-plexes, they will really be sold as town homes. So, they will all be individual units, individually owned by separate families, and not necessarily the four-plexes, with that I think comes the connotation of rentals and some other things that may not be such a good thought by some people, so -- Newton-Huckabay: So, that's four different owners? Amar: Yes. Correct. It's set up with -- on the property -- each lot, even though there is a zero lot line, there will be four separate lots within that. So, there can be four different owners or five different owners or six different owners, depending on how many buildings are together. The concept with this -- and I think we have 12 percent open space and that is actual usable open space, not including the separated sidewalk. If we start counting what total open space could be calculated, it's well over the 12 percent, 15, 16, 17 percent of open space. The interior area of the subdivision -- this area -- will all have separated sidewalks. We tried to make it more of the -- a traditional neighborhood as we'd see downtown or downtown Boise. Tree lined streets. We will be emphasizing on the -- on the alley-loaded lots, the detached lots, porches and different architectural features to make it -- to make it feel -- I think my wife referred to it as homely. Not in the bad sense. And I said you can't call it homely. But, no, homely is Meridian Planning & Zoning October 20, 2005 Page 15 of 37 good. Oh. Okay. So -- I didn't question her. She's my wife. So, this area will be -- will be more of the traditional neighborhood and, then, on the perimeter and the exterior there, detached single-family units as we see a lot of in Meridian. We have met with the neighbors and there are two on this particular project. Mr. Stevenson lives in this location and -- if I speak for him and I say something wrong, he can correct it. And, then, Mr. Meyers lives in this location. We have met with them. We will be fencing the entire perimeter with a six-foot vinyl fence and that will include these boundaries, as well as the entire -- well, it would be all the boundaries. But it will also be the entire eastern boundary for Mr. Meyers and that was a special request that he made. There is one main lateral that runs through this project. It will be tiled in accordance with Settler's Irrigation District and in their easement. We understand that the sewer lift station is a private lift station. It has been upsized to accommodate this project and we will be working with that development in order to participate with that. The same for the irrigation pump station. It's a private irrigation pump station and that has to do with the delivery point for water. It's not on a Settler's ditch, it's, actually, on the Harold Lateral Users Association. They don't want to maintain an irrigation pump station, so it will be owned and maintained by the homeowners association, but still designed to Settler's Irrigation District specs and, actually, reviewed by them, Settler's Irrigation District, foresee sometime in the future that they may be taking those over, but have not gotten to that yet. In the center of the project as you come in -- our main entrance is off of Ten Mile. We are proposing no entrances off of Chinden. We have got a large park area. That park area will have a tot lot, it will have a clubhouse, it will have a pool, and we have also provided parking for that in the center of the project. We have also pathways throughout the project to accommodate pedestrian traffic to the center. The area that I believe staff's referring to them as MEW lots, those are the attached housing -- Guenther: That is correct. Amar: I don't know what MEW means, but -- Guenther: Anna came up with it. Amar: Okay. These are the MEW lots or the attached housing, as well as these are. Newton-Huckabay: It means middle. Amar: Middle? Newton-Huckabay: It's Greek. Amar: Oh. Thank you. They all front on the common area. So, their front yard, in effect, will be four acres, or something similar. This one will be a little less. But it is becoming very popular. People are wanting to maintain their yards less. However, they still want a big yard. And so with this concept they can have a small yard in the front of their -- in the front of their house, but still have the alley and they will have a garage in the rear of their house, so all of these will have garages attached, minimum of a two car Meridian Planning & Zoning October 20, 2005 Page 16 of 37 garage, but, then, the majority of the open space will be shared by all and can be enjoyed. Instead of a small yard, they can have a really -- a four acre yard that they can all use. All of the lots, as I stated, the alley lots, the MEW lots, the attached housing, and the detached, will all have a minimum of a two car garage. The extra parking is for neighbors or incidental visitors -- not neighbors. Visitors or other people that would come to visit. And we have tried to locate those in a central location that can be used by all people and, obviously, we have on-street parking also for the visitors. We appreciate staff's work on this. We know it's been difficult, especially with lTD. We worked hard with ITD and we worked hard with staff to come up with this section. We have looked at the right of way. This plat -- although it's a colored plat, doesn't show it. It now jogs down. But there is 90 feet of right of way for 500 feet and, then, it goes back to 70 feet of right of way, which is consistent with the balance of 20-26 back to -- I don't know. Back to Boise somewhere. And, actually, Bainbridge, which is on the West of this, was also approved and it has 70 feet of right of way also. So, we have tried to work with ITD to accommodate their future growth plans and have done that with our redesign plat. With that, I would stand for any further questions. I did give these same elevations that we saw -- I guess that's a colored one. I don't know if it helps. You can see the sky is blue. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners? Commissioner Moe. Moe: Yes, sir. I think I'm a little lost here, but can you, basically, show me on your map there basically where that -- that design is going to fit? Amar: That design would fit on these -- Moe: Okay. Amar: I think that design, actually, has four lots, but -- there is five. It would fit in this block here and there would be another unit here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Moe: Okay. All right. Amar: So, there is 47 -- and I believe it's the right number -- attached townhomes. Moe: Okay. All right. Thank you. Zaremba: I think it's those, which face the common area and, therefore, bring up the issue of the alley needing to be a private street and, therefore, have a name and address and stuff like that. Amar: And one of the requirements was that we met with Joe Silva prior to this meeting. We did do that. His concern was addressing and naming of the -- instead of calling them alleys, they will, actually, be private streets and they will be named and be Meridian Planning & Zoning October 20, 2005 Page 17 of 37 24 feet wide. We resolved those issues with him and are meeting all his requirements, so -- Zaremba: So, you're agreeable with all of that? Amar: We are agreeable with all of that. Zaremba: Then, my question -- I guess not only for your project, but for all private streets; how are they maintained? Does that become a common lot for the homeowners association? Amar: Correct. And it will be maintained by the entire homeowners association -- Zaremba: So, that will be reflected on the plat, that it's a separate lot? Amar: Yes, it will be. Zaremba: Okay. That was my question. Newton-Huckabay: I have a question, but it will wait until after -- Zaremba: Any other questions for Mr. Amar or shall we move onto public testimony? Moe: Not yet. Zaremba: Thank you. Amar: Thank you. Zaremba: This is the opportunity for the public to provide input and make comment and I would ask, first, if there is anybody that's a spokesman for a group. Not seeing that, sir, if you would come ahead. And I forgot to mention that when you do testify, please, begin with your name and address, everybody. Thank you. Stevenson: Jerry Stevenson at 6040 North Ten Mile Road, Meridian. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Some of the issues I have -- I am in the -- this lower left section of this development here. So, there is several -- you know, I'm really up to date with the latest information, but from what I have been trying to find out here, basically, I'm from -- many years here in this area. Meridian. Grew up here. And for me to have R-8 as low density, for one thing, is a new definition for me. To me that was always high density. And my previous -- the project just south of this used to be property of mine and, then, I sold that with the expectations or with the discussions that they not have any sewer access to that development at that particular point, that all of that would be coming from the Black Cat Trunk and that was consistent with what the Public Works I think original plans were for that particular area. So, basically, I felt like I was pretty well still protected in my area right there of having the nice view that I have of Shaffer Butte and Meridian Planning & Zoning October 20, 2005 Page 18 of 37 Squaw Butte and everything in there as well. So, that's kind of where my concern is and especially after just for tonight seeing the picture of that, that looks like a three story building to me and I can already see in the horizon with the existing growth it's even a half mile or farther away, that the mountain lines are starting to disappear. Now, my concern is my personal quality of life in that area right there, with especially an R-8 and the condensed houses in there, really leaves me with no visibility to the mountains that I have enjoyed all this time. Furthermore, on that same issue, with the -- with the services, such as sewer, water, and all those things, they are coming from the back side of this and everything completely bypasses my property right there, so I think in the planning of this whole process right here, I'm concerned about my property basically being discriminated against for services in the future. Should I ever be required to hook up to the city services, it's going to have to cross over the street, wait for all the development to come in from Black Cat Trunk, which it was originally designed. So, that's one of my concerns right there. The other concern I have, too -- with that is access to high speed broadband, which is, you know, important for my line of work, which the only access I have is through the antenna to antenna, which is wireless and my concern is, too, that these houses are going to block that antenna -- that line of sight from the antenna, so I will not be -- so I will be prohibitive from high speed internet. I do work out of my house. I am required to do presentations from my house and so I am concerned with that right there as well. Some other considerations I have is my boys raise sheep and -- excuse me, but, basically -- I'll try to wrap this up real quick. We have some high prized sheep that we sell to and with all these houses and that fact that they are going beyond what the minimum requirements actually were for the frontages and everything, now I have more neighbors that I will have to protect against -- protect the sheep right there and I'm concerned about some of those issues with farm versus city as well. So, I guess I'm out of time, but there are a few other things I do have to say. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Borup: Yes, Mr. Stevenson, you said you did sell the property to the south for a subdivision development? Stevenson: Correct. Yes. It was my understanding at that time was that R-4 was the maximum out there a person, you know, could put in there. And also with understanding, too, was that -- Borup: Is that what that subdivision did was R-4? Stevenson: Yes. Basically, it was sold -- or how I -- how it came about was -- basically, was that this -- that the sewer line came up there was, basically, about maxed out anyway and they were going to go, you know, beyond what was originally planned, because -- and they had to get special approval to get it to tie into the existing trunk that it's in right now, rather than waiting for the Black Cat Trunk to come in. And so the way it was explained to me was we -- they overdesigned those and that there was barely Meridian Planning & Zoning October 20, 2005 Page 19 of 37 enough capacity right there and, of course, obviously, things have changed since then, so -- Borup: Well, if they over-designed, then, there would be capacity, so -- Stevenson: Well, that's what he was saying. He was saying there was more going -- they were trying to get some special things out with the Public Works, but the understanding I had was that a project of that magnitude would not happen in that area. So, I felt like that was probably at least three to five years out before this stuff would be taking place. Borup: I was just trying to understand. It seems like -- you sold your property for development, but you were hoping your neighbor wouldn't be able to do the same thing? Stevenson: Well, yeah, I mean all -- well, the other thing is, too, is my line of sight from that particular side is -- really, there is nothing there but other houses. Borup: Right. Stevenson: And so, I said, okay, I can protect that-- Borup: How about your -- how about the other neighbors across the street with this -- you know, with the development on your property? Their line of sight was affected, too. Stevenson: There is a golf course that's over there and so it's pretty well -- I mean there is a big enough distance there, so that has no impact at all whatsoever on any of the other neighbors. Borup: Okay. I did notice they did put the larger lots around your property. Stevenson: Yeah. But I think if you take a look, they are trying to -- I don't know all the specs on what the frontage is, but I think they are trying to even shorten down what the normal specs are for frontages on these properties and I have to assume this, my concern is, too, you know, this has always been the country and now you're trying to make, you know, this like a city center with a magnitude of houses and the traffic conditions out there in that area, too, you're just compounding the traffic before the streets are there. Chinden Boulevard, you know, can be a nightmare to get out and especially if you need to turn west towards Caldwell, is very challenging at times in the day and -- Borup: Be nice to have a light there you're saying? Stevenson: Yeah, it would. And like I -- the traffic is -- we are building all the subdivisions and the subdivisions are going to be built long before the roads are there to Meridian Planning & Zoning October 20, 2005 Page 20 of 37 reach that capacity. So, there will be a time period that there will be some impact that my concern is -- Borup: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. I would ask the Public Works representative, Mike, for a clarification. The connection through Ten Mile that they are proposing is a temporary solution; is that correct? They will eventually be required to drop that and connect to the North Black Cat? Cole: Mr. Chairman -- Zaremba: Is that correct? Cole: That's correct. This was originally master planned to fall into the North Black Cat lift station, which is under design, would be done in about two years. Zaremba: Okay. Cole: They are put in a temporary lift station with their Silverleaf development of sufficient size to serve the 200 lots in this development. The lift station was preplanned to take in this -- this lift station. Zaremba: Okay. Cole: The lift station was preplanned to take in this development. Zaremba: But even so, eventually, they will disconnect from that and connect to the Black Cat? Cole: That's correct. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Okay. The Public Hearing is still open. Anybody else care to add testimony on this subject? In that case, we will go back to Mr. Amar. Amar: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I did take notes. I paid attention. The question with Mr. Stevenson -- we have -- I'll try to address a couple of his questions. The low versus medium density, this is, actually, a medium density project. It falls between that three to eight units to the acre. It's just over five units to the acre. So, this is medium density. The sewer access -- I think he was talking about sewer access to actually his property. On this map here where he lives, the sewer lift station currently is on this property -- on this lot, which, actually, was his property before, directly to the south. So, he has very good access to it. Also, this sewer -- it has already been designed to there, if you will, and when the Black Cat line is extended it will be a very easy connection for the sewer to connect to that Black Cat and the lift station be abandoned. So, that's already been planned for. Prior to us acquiring this property we were required by Public Works to Meridian Planning & Zoning October 20, 2005 Page 21 of 37 make sure that the lift station at Silverleaf was of sufficient size and capacity to service this property. So, that was contemplated prior to us acquiring -- acquiring this property. This is the -- I guess temporary solution until the Black Cat line gets there. Now, with respect to his sheep, we understand this is an agricultural area, still we are in Meridian, and we have on the face of the plat the Right To Farm Act clearly stated. We are also fencing his borders to keep that separation for his -- for his -- so he can maintain his lifestyle that he enjoys now. On the visibility and the internet access, I know this only because I have the same -- I don't know if it's the exact same access, but I have got antenna to antenna internet because at my location I did not have -- I do now, because there is a subdivision around me, but at the time I did not have access to the internet or high speed without the antenna and we have got houses all around us and we still are able to have our antenna to antenna internet. So, I don't know what style he has or what company, but it hasn't caused a problem at our house and we now surrounded by -- by homes. So, I think with that, we understand with growth comes change. When we talk about traffic, with this project and the other developments, the right of way that would be needed for the road improvements is actually -- it's being set aside currently with these projects. So, it helps all the jurisdictions to acquire the right of way and plan with the growth. I know we would like the roads. I live in north Meridian now, I'd love the roads to be completely up to speed currently. They are not. With growth comes time of improvements and we understand that, so we hope in our cooperation and coordination with ITD, Ada County Highway District, and the City of Meridian, that we are looking at that and trying to accommodate the future growth and at least a spot for that -- for those upgrades to take place. We did put the lots bordering his property, which currently meet your standards in Meridian for the R-8 standards. So, if we were to come in a month later we would not be asking for any reduced setbacks on the lots that are bordering his property, they all meet current standards, although they did not meet the standards at the time. We submitted about a month before your new ordinance took effect. So, with that I will stand for any further questions. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioners? Commissioner Moe. Moe: Based on that discussion about those lots that border his house, what -- what's the plan for those homes? Are they going to be single or double story -- two story houses? Amar: Well, the consumer will decide, I suspect, what they will be. contemplated single or double story. They have the ability to be either. We hadn't Moe: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 20, 2005 Page 22 of 37 Newton-Huckabay: I only have one question, comment, on the -- I need to get my own pointer. Right here, this isn't -- this is still agricultural property; correct? Amar: Yes, ma'am. That is Mr. Meyers' property. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Meyers' property? My only concern is where you have this long shot here, you're going to have to -- if he chooses to develop, I don't think he has a lot of options as far as the length of the block and I bet Mr. Nickel is anxious to have a chicane conversation with me again. But I was wondering maybe if the access could be -- I mean l'd like to know what the other Commissioners think, but when I opened up this plat last night, that was the first thing that struck me is that that's awfully long and the choices going right into this property, if it develops, become limited. Amar: Joe, you haven't -- do you have the -- an overall site plan that shows the area map? So, on this project the road currently as proposed comes out about this location and on Silverleaf that location is in about this location. So, our thought -- and we talked to Mike Meyers about this and I guess we came up with what we have here tonight. But our thought was -- because I know Meridian did not like cul-de-sacs, you can take this road and bring it down and, then, connect, you're still going to end up with a cul-de-sac type feature in here. But we were trying to minimize cul-de-sacs while still allowing interconnectivities from the projects. We did look at relocating it and putting the road at this location across from the current location in Silverleaf, but what that would do is create a cul-de-sac at this location and, then, another one here. So, I guess if you'd like us to redesign it or move that road we can, but that was how we got to where we are today. We were trying to minimize -- keep the interconnectivity, yet minimize the cul-de- sacs and -- I don't know if Mr. Meyers or us had a crystal ball into the future, but that's what we came up with. I hope that answered your question. Borup: I assume part of your question, Commissioner, was how much further it could go to the east, how much longer that straightaway would be. So, it looks like it's what -- Newton-Huckabay: But that's -- Borup: -- a 150 feet or so? Newton-Huckabay: I didn't remember when I looked at the map and that's my mistake. I was -- that this property was as narrow as it is. I was thinking it was this one right here. Borup: I couldn't remember either. Newton-Huckabay: And this is Silverleaf, so -- Amar: Yes, ma'am. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 20, 2005 Page 23 of 37 Amar: There is a road in Silverleaf along the same location, but it turns and, then, comes back down the property line. So, that was our thought that the road would come in and jog down and reconnect to Silverleaf. So, it can probably really -- another 200 feet of distance before the road's going to turn. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Zaremba: Well -- and the existing depiction on your road that goes across the north from east to west is not an exact straightaway either. You appear to have put one of the calming devices in, which is a little variation in direction. Amar: Is that what Mr. Oyen -- Oyen? Zaremba: Oyen. Yes. Amar: -- called it, but it was invisible calming devices -- Zaremba: Yes. Or a chicane. Amar: I learned what a chicane was tonight. Zaremba: I think that helps. Newton-Huckabay: And I saw Mr. Nickel squirm in the back of the room earlier with the conversation. Amar: I'll note that Meridian doesn't like chicanes. Newton-Huckabay: No. We did like -- it was the traffic pincher. Zaremba: To me they are the preferred option. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I'm satisfied with that. I was thinking of the property to the east and that was my mistake, was, actually, the larger piece. Borup: Well, we didn't have anything that really told us. Zaremba: Staff, anything to add or ask Mr. Amar? Guenther: Just one thing. It's a good thing Mr. Siddoway is here, because he pointed out a good fact that the applicant will need to grant a pedestrian easement for the pathway within the landscape lot along Chinden, which Mr. Amar is amenable to. ACHD calls it out in their standard conditions of approval for any pathway along theirs, but ITD does not and since we actually don't have conditions of approval from ITD, as Meridian Planning & Zoning October 20, 2005 Page 24 of 37 the way ACHD normally drafts them, we would just add that as site-specific condition 1.13. Amar: That would be fine. Zaremba: Okay. That's agreeable. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Amar: That is agreeable. Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I just had one other question. Have you guys built any of these four-plexes anywhere in town? Amar: Not yet. Newton-Huckabay: Or town-homes. Amar: We have not. In fact, I have driven the town trying to find them and I seen signs that say town-homes, but they are too wide and the garage is still up front. So, this is a new concept that I haven't found yet. I'm sure somewhere in the Treasure Valley someone has built them, I just -- I haven't found it. Borup: I don't think so. Zaremba: Well, there is plenty of them in the mid-west and New England. I have seen them. This is not an unusual concept and they are very popular. Amar: There is a project in Eagle that -- they are not town-homes, but they have the houses fronting on the common area and the one block just was finished and Mr. Nickel thought I had the pictures and I thought he had the pictures, so, consequently, no one has the pictures. But it does look really nice and it makes a nice -- a friendly neighborhood, I guess. Borup: There is some projects in Oregon like that. Amar: I will probably get on a plane this winter and go find some, because I really would like to see them. Zaremba: Bring pictures. Amar: As far as the construction, there is questions in my mind as what needs to be done with the improvements and we can figure that out. But there is always questions with every project, but I'll probably go search some out. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 20, 2005 Page 25 of 37 Zaremba: Thank you. Amar: Thank you. Zaremba: Commissioners, discussion? Newton-Huckabay: My only comment would be that I really like the look of this project and I like the diversity in this project. We don't have enough of this I don't think. Zaremba: It appears to me to be an answer to the things we have asked for. Newton-Huckabay: And I think given the -- a lot of the commercial development we are going to see coming on Chinden over the next few years, this will be a really good compliment to that, so I -- Borup: It -- excuse me. Zaremba: Commissioner Borup. Newton-Huckabay: I'm done. Borup: Okay. Thank you. This is fairly dense and I would have some hesitation, other than the location. I mean it's on -- on Highway 44 and Ten Mile, which will have freeway access, so -- I mean it's going to be a busy intersection and is probably appropriate design for that location. If it was in the middle of a mile or something, then, different occasion, I'd probably feel different. Seems to make sense for there. Zaremba: Considering Chinden to be a major transportation corridor and some day if we ever have public transportation, it probably would have -- Newton-Huckabay: When. Zaremba: When it's funded. That's the issue for everything. But it would very likely be a major transit route. It just occurs to me at the moment might it not be a bad idea to have somewhere a pedestrian access out to that sidewalk, without having to walk all the way around to -- maybe Mr. Amar would comment on whether that's a possibility or whether that means poking a hole in the fence that would eliminate security or -- Guenther: Mr. Chairman, that's also that large berm that's going to be along that property line. Zaremba: That's true. Maybe it's not practical. Amar: Well, the pedestrian access was in one design and, then, out of the next one, and, then, in another one and, then, back out of it and it ended up being out largely for Meridian Planning & Zoning October 20, 2005 Page 26 of 37 the reason. We did think it was a good idea to get access out there, but we didn't know how to build the -- the berm and the fence is not only for esthetics, but to reduce the noise and -- Zaremba: And once you poke a hole in it, you lose the sound deadening. Amar: You lose that sound deadening, so -- Zaremba: I withdraw my comment. Thank you. Commissioners, are we ready to close the Public Hearing? Moe: Commissioner Zaremba? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I move that we close the public hearings on AZ 05-038, PP 05-037, and CUP 05- 039. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: My only question -- I have a question of staff in regards to site specific that we discussed just before. Zaremba: There was one sentence that you wanted to -- Moe: I'm having a heck of a time trying to find site specifics in this report. Guenther: The new report format, yeah. Zaremba: Exhibit B, I think. Guenther: It's Exhibit B -- Moe: Hang on. Where would that be? Guenther: Which would come right after your -- Moe: I have got -- okay. What page on Exhibit B? Meridian Planning & Zoning October 20, 2005 Page 27 of 37 Guenther: It would be page two. It starts with site-specific requirements for the preliminary plat from the planning department. And on page two of Exhìbit 8, it would be 1.1.13. Moe: Okay. 1.1.13. No. Wait. Let's start that over. One more time. Guenther: The applicant shall grant -- Moe: No. No. No. Give me the number one more time. Guenther: Oh. I'm sorry. 1.1.13. Moe: One three. It was that. Okay. I'm sorry. Zaremba: Three ones and one three. Moe: Got it. And, then, you want it to say what? Guenther: That the applicant shall grant a pedestrian easement -- Moe: Hold on. Grant an -- Guenther: Grant a pedestrian easement. Moe: Okay. Guenther: For the pathway. Moe: For the -- Guenther: Within the landscape lot. Moe: Landscape. Guenther: Within the landscape lot along Chinden. Moe: Okay. All right. Thank you. Appreciate that. Okay. Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Okay. I move to recommend approval to City Council of file numbers AZ 05-038, PP 05-037, and CUP 05-039 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 20th, 2005, and preliminary plat dated July 5th, 2005, received September 30th, 2005, and the site plan dated July 5th, 2005, with the following modifications to the preliminary plat. On Exhibit 8, page two, please, add an additional item 1.1.13 to read: Meridian Planning & Zoning October 20, 2005 Page 28 of 37 Applicant shall grant a pedestrian easement for the pathway within the landscape lot on Chinden Boulevard. End of motion. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: Mr. Chairman, could we take a -- Zaremba: Let's do one thing and, then, we will take a break. Moe: All right. Oh. Okay. I know what you want to do. Okay. Item 8: Item 9: Item 10: Item 11: Public Hearing: AZ 05-044 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 142.19 acres for RUT to R-8 and C-N zones for Durango Springs Subdivision by Providence Development, LLC - West Ustick Road west of North Black Cat Road: Public Hearing: PP 05-047 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 510 building lots and 25 other lots on 102.2 acres in proposed R-8 and C-N zones for Durango Springs South Subdivision by Providence Development, LLC - West Ustick Road west of North Black Cat Road: Public Hearing: PP 05-046 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 151 building lots and 14 other lots on 39.87 acres in proposed R-8 and C-N zones for Durango Springs North Subdivision by Providence Development, LLC - West Ustick Road west of North Black Cat Road: Public Hearing: CUP 05-045 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for 631 single-family detached and attached residential dwelling units and approximately 149,084 square feet of office/commercial buildings, with reductions to minimum lot sizes, frontage and setbacks in proposed R-8 and C-N zones for Durango Springs Subdivision by Providence Development, LLC - West Ustick Road west of North Black Cat Road: Zaremba: I will open the Public Hearing for AZ 05-044, PP 05-047, and PP 05-046, and CUP 05-045, all relating to Durango Springs Subdivision and entertain a motion to continue all four hearings to our regularly scheduled meeting of December 15, 2005. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.