Loading...
February 2, 2006 P&Z Minutes ... -- \ " Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 28 of 113 Zaremba: Okay. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: And so this will be continued to the regularly scheduled meeting of March 2nd, 2006, and for the sole purpose of discussion of the school site and the associated stub streets and pathway. Borup: And, Mr. Chairman, yeah, I think it would help if we -- and a preliminary plat showing the stub street and how that would affect the school site and such would be helpful. Rohm: Yes, it would. Thank you. Due to the length of that application discussion, we typically wait until 9:00 o'clock to take a break, but we are going to take a short break right now for about ten minutes. So, we are adjourned until 20 minutes until 9:00. (Recess. ) Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from January 5, 2006: AZ 05-057 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 17.25 acres from RUT and R1 to R-8, R-15 and C-G zones for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, LLC - 2935 North Eagle Road: Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from January 5, 2006: RZ 05-019 Request for a Rezone of 10.05 acres from C-G to R-8, R-15 and C-G zones for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, LLC - 2935 North Eagle Road Item 8: Continued Public Hearing from January 5, 2006: PP 05-059 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 54 single family residential lots, 22 multi- family residential lots, 14 common lots and 7 commercial lots for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, LLC - 2935 North Eagle Road: Item 9: Continued Public Hearing from January 5, 2006: CUP 05-052 Request for Conditional Use Permit for Mixed Use Regional project within 300 feet of a residence for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, LLC - 2935 North Eagle Road: Rohm: Okay. I'd like to reopen the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission for February 2nd, 2006, and begin with opening the continued Public Hearing for AZ 05-057, RZ 05-019, PP 05-059, and CUP 05-052. All of these relating to Bienville Square Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission. Bienville Square Subdivision is an annexation. This portion up here. The annexation is for this Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 29 of 113 portion listed in purple on the screen. The annexation is for 18.43 acres and I will go into the zoning here in a second. The second portion is a rezone of this portion that's listed in red here. These two parcels are the Bienville Square Subdivision annexation and rezone. With that, the annexation will require a development agreement and this portion listed in red -- or shown in red has an existing development agreement tied to it at this time that I'll try and go into a little bit further here in a second. With this, the site is located on the southeast corner of Ustick and Eagle. It is approximately 600 feet south of that intersection and mostly in a southwesterly direction. There is one major feature, which is the Finch Lateral, which runs around the perimeter of this site. The Finch Lateral has a 40 foot irrigation easement on it for Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. The Finch Lateral will be tiled on this site, as well as there is a user's lateral that comes in approximately where I'm slowing off of Eagle Road and would continue through this site, which also will be piped and Public Works will certify that the ins and outs of that tile pipe will be maintained. With this we have a plat. The plat for 54 single family residential lots, 24 -- 22 multi-family residential lots, 14 common lots, seven commercial lots for the entire site of 27.3 acres and the Conditional Use Permit is a conditional use permit that is issued due to the fact that this is a mixed use regional district, which is within 300 feet of a residential district. Tried to have Barb include a slide. This is a slide that I created tonight. It's very rough, but it shows a little better definition of what the three zoning designations would be for the site. Closest to Eagle Road the applicant is proposing a general commercial district. The general commercial district is approximately -- I believe it's 68 acres. The transitional district between the commercial and single family residential is an R-15 district and, then, the R-8 district would be to the furthest to the west. This is, actually, tilted a little bit odd ball. This is facing to the east. North would be to the left of this slide. This has three distinct portions -- three distinct portions, but there is, actually, four portions of it that I would like to define. Closest to Eagle there is five building pad sites that are listed for office or retail use, as well as two larger retail buildings approximately in the 12,000 square foot range. This is in general commercial. These would be general commercial uses that would be proposed at this site. The applicant has brought in an amended portion -- an amended design for this general commercial area. Obviously, within the general commercial area certain things can shift around slightly. The amended design, staff would actually support better than this design, due to the fact that the applicant has an ACHD condition that this portion must terminate and no access shall be directed to Eagle Road. I should have pointed this out already. This is Sadie Creek Avenue, which is a -- will be a public road. The public road will loop around the residential district. This is a commercial cross-access point and there is private streets that have been applied for in order to provide frontage and access to the multi-family. Now, with that there is a commercial access point to Eagle being proposed with this site. The applicant has taken this commercial access point and shifted it approximately to between the southerly two most buildings. So, the access point to Eagle would be in this location and that commercial access would continue down to what is referred as Cajun Boulevard, which would be the private street. This access point here would facilitate that commercial traffic between the Sadie Creek Promenade application, which was recently approved to the north of this site, and it would facilitate a better commercial cross-access to the private street system and, then, out to Eagle Road, as well as to Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 30 of 113 satisfy ACHDs' conditions that the public street shall terminate and not provide a direct access to Eagle Road. Staff would support that design. I will show you that here in a second. The applicant does not have a hard copy of that I can show you at this time. It's on his presentation. With this application staff has reviewed it in compliance with the existing development agreement. This is the conceptual site plan that was brought before the City Council for the annexation of the ten acres that lied originally within 2003. This site that was to the south of us did pull out of the annexation request, which was the 18 acres. This site does indicate multi-family residential, as well as commercial and office, with a transitional use to the residential uses west of this site. The transitional use in this area is appropriately planned for. The applicant is providing the multi-use pathway, as well as to landscape the Finch Lateral, according to the Unified Development Code. The multi-family residential portion, obviously, is within the R-15, which would be a condominium project, as well as the commercial operation. So, the plan that is before you is consistent with what the development conceptual plan was presented to the City Council in 2000 -- in 2003 and signed in 2004. With this we have several elevations. These would be the alley loaded products and the condominium projects. I'll let the applicant better define that area. One last thing. There are three products residential. The condominium projects would be in the R-15 district. In the R- 8 district there is two areas of distinction. These are the front loaded single family residential products. These lots do approximate in the eight to ten thousand square foot range. There is some of them are actually larger, which provides a good transition to the R-2 district to the south of this site. These products in the middle are an alley- loaded product. They are, obviously, smaller lots and I don't have the lot size, but I believe those were around 4,500 square foot lots. The amenities to the site are provided to -- there is a basketball court and tennis court, as well as significant open space design. There is a minimum of 50 feet between these condominium units in the center. There is a clubhouse with an on-site post office, so each one of these -- this entire condominium unit would receive their mail at one central location. The applicant is also proposing to provide the multi-use pathway that would -- that would connect Eagle Road at this location and continue through to Ustick Road along the perimeter of the site, which would be off that Finch Lateral. Probably forgetting a couple of things, but I will stand for questions at this time. Staff is recommending approval of this application. The dates of the design may change due to the applicant making up the amendments to their site plan. Staff would support an approval of that, if the applicant - - or if the applicant's design is satisfactory to this Commission tonight. And at that, before I guess I'll stop, I'd like to show you the applicant's amended design. This would be the revised design, which would show one large box retail unit. I believe the applicant has indicated this would be something of an athletic club, as well as this would shift that to the -- to the south. Staff would support this better, because this is approximately the quarter mile location, which does better facilitate limited access to Eagle than it would at the other alternate location. And I guess at that I will stand for questions. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff? Moe: Mr. Chairman? Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 31 of 113 Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Joe, I just had one. I was going through the -- as far as the requirements and noting in the R-17 -- or, excuse me, R-15, under the lot size, you had it noted as required as a 8,424 and proposed a 2,400. Is that a type there, I assume? That would be page six. Guenther: Yep. That, actually, should be -- 8,424 is the propose lots, 2,400 is the required lot. Moe: Okay. Guenther: Yeah. Moe: I wanted to make sure. Thank you. Borup: Oh. Just reversed. Moe: Yeah. Borup: Just -- Commissioner Moe, that was it? Just one clarification. Did you say the pathway was going through to Ustick? I couldn't remember. The project would also be doing a pathway there? Guenther: Yes. They have 35-foot landscaping in here that would continue that pathway to the Ustick corridor. Borup: Okay. Moe: You said there were -- you do have a copy of the -- the new plat? Guenther: This is the only -- the only revised layout that the applicant has delivered. This would be the one that we would amend the staff report in order to approve tonight, if you so chose. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Any other questions of staff? At this time I'd like to have the applicant come forward, please. Unger: Good evening, Mr. Chair and Commission Members. My name is Bob Unger, I'm with Red Cliff Development. Our address is 787 East State Street, Suite 125, Eagle, Idaho. 83616. And appreciate the excellent job staff has done in reviewing the project, particularly with this revised plan, and we can just go ahead and start with this plan, so I don't have to explain to you that we are changing it. And we also appreciate staff's Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 32 of 113 recommendation for approval. If you remember, about a month ago we were on the agenda to be heard. You did open up a hearing and we did ask for a postponement. At that time we thought that we might be getting a commitment from a big box, which that did not happen, so staff has recommended that we proceed with our application as originally submitted. So, that's where we are now and I did want to explain to you what has transpired in this past month. As staff has explained, Ada County Highway District in their requirements specifically stated that they did not want us to have a public road that connected from Ustick out to Eagle Road and as such that's part of what necessitated this -- turning this into a cul-de-sac. So, the public road stops here and we come back out to Ustick over here. This particular revision and relocating our access over here is something that we did show to the neighbors. We had a neighborhood meeting this past Saturday and they seemed to appreciate this revision over our original access here and, if I remember correctly, I believe the Commission even said something about that a month ago, that it would rather see something over here. So, we have tried to do something here that works for everyone and for us. And as staff has kind of discussed, we do have this public street access here over to Ustick. We also have our private street here, which will come out and access to Ustick at a location right in through here. There was a provision for the Sadie Creek Promenade folks to provide us a cross-access for that and we were to coordinate with them to make that location happen, which we are working with them to accomplish that. The access on Eagle Road, we have actually moved that down to the quarter mile mark, which turns out to have been a location that was identified during the original annexation of the Rewe property, which is this portion of our property, which staff had shown you earlier. That was one of the two locations. This location and another location right here for access to Ustick Road -- or Eagle Road. So, we are trying to follow along with that also. We have in our -- our ITD application for this access is pending at this time. Our traffic engineer has been in contact with them and they are kind of holding off on ours and also the Sadie Creek Promenade accesses. The indication we are getting is that they are waiting to see what the City Council decides. So, we are hoping to get an answer one of these days from them. As far as utilities, utilities are available to the site or close enough that we can extend them into the site, sewer, water, through the city. All other services are available and, of course, will be installed when we construct the project. If we could go to the next one, Joe? I'm going to kind of run through these as best as possible. This is our -- basically our retail area. And I know you have seen these two pictures before, because these are the same pictures that the Sadie Creek Promenade folks showed you and the only reason I really wanted to use these -- and forget the palm trees, because that's not going to happen here. But what we want to convey here is that we are going to work with the Sadie Creek Promenade folks to -- in our design, in our architectural design, et cetera, so that we have two projects that work together well, instead of conflicting architectural structures throughout the project. So, we want to show that -- we are going to work with them and try to, you know, kind of work our architecture so that we work as a unified design, instead of two separate designs. Joe, could we go to the next one, please? All right. And this is in the middle portion of the project, condominium portion of the project. These are the structures that we are proposing. And, actually, we are -- we are modifying these structures slightly, so that all three of these will be two car garages, instead of one. It makes it much more desirable Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 33 of 113 when everybody has a two car garage and it also helps out with the parking situation. And if you will notice, we have drive alleyways -- or not really alleyway -- well, accesses -- common accesses to access the garage areas. We have asked that fire review. These we have met with fire and our accesses and, then, our drives are in compliance with the fire requirements. Moe: Could you note the south elevation? I'm interested in the -- Unger: Over here? Moe: Yes. That's correct. Unger: Okay. Well, you will see either this end or this end. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Unger: And also these structures are very unique. There is a full front porch, covered front porch on these. You can kind of see it there from side angles. And they really do take on a single family residential look in the design, although they are, you know, 4,000 square feet total. In fact, each of the units -- we have three bedroom, two bath units and two bedroom, two bath units in there, and square footage ranges from 1,200 to 1,500 square feet. So, they are fairly nice condominiums. In the next portion of the project we have alley-loaded or rear-loaded lots. We have a common drive that runs down through here and, actually, it is going to be designated as a private road. And this is an example of the type of structures that we are looking at putting in there. We will work further -- with further detail in getting the full designs on these, but I wanted to give you some sort of an idea of the appearance of the structures. We also have open space area with a pathway running through this portion here. And we feel that these are going to be pretty desirable and our lot ranges in there are just under 5,000 square feet and we have some that range on up to 6,500 square feet, depending upon which bend of the road you're in. Joe. And, then, on the -- our western border, which wraps right around here, these are all front loaded. Once, again, we are just trying to give you some sort of an idea, an example of the type of buildings we want to put in there. I didn't have any really good single stories to show you, but it would be a mix of some single stories and two stories. These lots will range anywheres from I think 6,000 square feet up to -- over in this area we are looking into the 10,000 square foot. On the rear loads and the front loads the square footage of the buildings that we are looking at are somewhere in the area of at least 1,600 square feet up to 2,400 square feet. Okay. We can go onto the next one, Joe. Thank you. Okay. As discussed by staff, we have the Finch Lateral that runs along here. We are proposing to tile that. I have discussed that with Nampa-Meridian, John Anderson, very preliminarily, and they would support us doing that and we may also be able to get them to participate. Along with that we are proposing to put in a pathway that would be located over top of the piped ditch and, then, of course, our pathway runs across here. We will also tie into this short section that the Sadie Creek Promenade not would do. Once, again, we have some pathways running up through here. So, we are trying to get everything connected nicely. Along Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 34 of 113 with -- in discussing the Finch Lateral, we also have this lateral that runs down through here. Actually, this one that runs right down -- I'm sorry, it's right here. Runs along this parcel line. Of course, that would be piped and continued onto terminus over here where it feeds other properties to the west. That would be reviewed by city -- the city engineer and also we have a gentleman who kind of represents the users, we were fortunate enough to meet him Saturday and discuss some of the issues on that lateral and we feel that -- real confident that we can work with them and make sure that we satisfy everybody's needs and continue the water flow through there. As far as open space on this project, we have three plus acres of dedicated open space. I'm going to start off over on this side where we are showing over here -- we have a volleyball court, a basketball court, or a hard surface court. That's a horseshoe pit there. Over here we are going to do a clubhouse and a pool. We have a tot lot in this area. And this is all open space area here for recreational purposes. All of the area in between these condos -- and we have over 60 feet between the buildings in here, so it's a fairly large area of open space, sufficient enough for, you know, kids to go out there and throw a football and things like that. Intermixed throughout all of this we have some picnic tables, barbecue pits, and things like that. We are very aware that a development such as this -- and particularly in the higher density areas, that we need recreational areas, particularly for kids, so that the kids aren't running over into the neighbors' yards over here or down here or out into the streets. So, we have got a substantial amount of open space and recreational areas for -- for the kids and for the adults. As far as the buffering -- of course we have a 35 foot buffer along here and a meandering sidewalk and with all of our buffering, not just along here, but the buffering that we will be doing pretty much around the entire boundary of the project, with the exclusion of where we connect into here, we are looking at putting in substantial buffering with trees and shrubs and things like that to really, you know, provide a really nice buffer all the way through this and, then, along here maybe not quit as heavy as what we would do where we border the existing residential area. But certainly it's -- and they are hard to see. There, actually, are trees in here. It's hard to see on this plan. Along this -- particularly along here we are also looking at doing some sort of a berm along with our landscaping along there. And we have discussed with the neighbors -- I guess Sadie Creek Promenade has committed to constructing a -- I believe a -- some sort of a decorative block wall. The neighbors have asked us -- along here have asked us to continue that forward and up to this point we have said that we would certainly consider that. Something we would like to do is spend more time with the neighbors and look at some alternative fencing ideas, bring in a landscape architect and a few things to see if there is something we can do that would be acceptable with them, but a little more economical, because I can see if we do it here, then, I'm going to have to do it here and by the time I get done I'm going to be putting in 13 -- close to at least 3,000 feet of concrete wall, which is very very expensive, somewhere in the area of about, you know, five, six dollars a foot. That's just -- and that's probably on the cheap side. So, it is something that we would like to meet and spend more time with the neighbors on to discuss maybe some alternate fencing and some dense -- very dense landscaping along there. Somebody threw this at me today and I thought it was great. We'd much rather see green-scape than gray-scape. So, we are going to work on that with those folks, but we will fence the boundary. And I hear the beeper and it's perfect timing, Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 35 of 113 because I'm done and I thank you all very much for your time and the time of your staff and as staff has stated in their report, our proposal substantially does comply with the city's codes and regulations and we feel that this project will be a very nice addition to the city and I will stand for any questions you might have. Rohm: Thank you very much. Any questions of the applicant? Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Well, I have a couple, yes. I noted on the landscape drawings that you are showing a cedar fence on the west side. Is that what you have proposed? And you're rethinking that issue as the block as the property to the north has done? Unger: That is correct. Our -- in our submittal we showed a cedar block combination type fence and in the last couple of neighborhood meetings that we have had, the neighbors have -- along the -- I'm sorry, along the western boundary has said, well, would you consider doing something like -- like they have done I guess behind -- is it Home Depot or -- who is that over there? Lowe's. And we have looked at that and we have said that we would -- you know, we would seriously consider that. But at that time we weren't looking at the possibilities of doing that, so -- so, it's something we want to revisit with the neighbors. Moe: Next you made reference -- showed some elevations for the properties on the west property line, which were all two story, and you said you were going to have some single story in there. Do you know what kind of a balance you're going to have as far as how many -- are there going to be more two stories than single or do you know that yet? Unger: Actually, we have -- we really have not considered any kind of a balance there as to what that would be and Rob Haggett is here and maybe he can come up and address that when I'm done. Moe: You had shown the elevations of the front side. Unger: Yeah. Moe: I would be very interested to see what the rear is going to look like that are overlooking the properties to the west. That's what I was concerned about. That's it for me. Rohm: Thank you. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 36 of 113 Zaremba: Three general questions. The sports facilities here -- are you intending to light those or will they just be daytime use? Unger: Mr. Chair. They would be daytime use only. Zaremba: Okay. I ask that question before the people to the south ask it. Unger: Right. Zaremba: The second question. With a mix of commercial properties and residential properties -- where I'm going is the maintenance of the open areas and common areas. Are there going to be separate homeowners association for the three different zones? I mean two homeowners and one commercial owners association or is it going to be all one association or what happens? Unger: Mr. Chair, in the past on other projects we have had a property owners association for an entire project, because of the maintenance of the open area and things like that. I think in this particular situation we may be able to have a -- where we have a homeowners association for the residential portion of the property and an owners association for the commercial portion and -- but who would also jointly work together. I'm not sure how we would work that out legally. So, I guess at this point we are proposing one property owner's association that would -- that would control all the architectural and all the maintenance, et cetera and et cetera. Because we have -- not only do we have public streets in here, but we also have some private streets and also these little private streets here are also going to be used by these folks also. So, some of that maintenance should come out of that owners association, so -- Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Unger: It's something we have to look at a little bit closer. Zaremba: Okay. What I hope is my final question at this point. Unger: Okay. Zaremba: I do like the suggestion of moving your access to Eagle much farther south. I believe in Meridian code and perhaps ACHD there is -- they don't encourage connecting public street and public street with a private street. Unger: Correct. Zaremba: So, I'm not quite sure how that's going to fly, but that wasn't really my question. My question was going to be at the access to Eagle are you looking for a full access intersection or is that going to be right-in, right-out? Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 37 of 113 Unger: Mr. Chair. Although our original application -- our variance, we were requesting a right-in, right-out, because we knew that that's all we could get here, this particular location, actually, since it's at the quarter mile mark, actually puts us in a position where we do want to request a full access there. And that's what I have shown as a full access, as opposed to the right-in, right-out. Zaremba: I would certainly encourage that. I probably was the one that suggested the moving of it, but -- Unger: Yes. Zaremba: -- also in anticipation of -- we some time ago -- is this working? Well, the two portions of your property, the one that would be the northern portion -- thank you. We had a -- we had an application on -- I think it was that piece that only had a right-in, right-out and as one of the people at public testimony pointed out, that means that anybody that needs to reverse direction is going to drive through Leslie Lane to do it. So, I have to say I'm very much not in favor of the right-in and right-out, but I would even like to see Sadie Creek's right-in, right-out disappear, so that more of the traffic was coming out here and helped you meet the warrants for a signal there. But if you're going for a full access, I'm much happier about that. Appreciate that. Unger: And we appreciate that, too, and if you could pass that onto the City Council when our variance comes up, we would appreciate it. Zaremba: Happy to express my opinion. Rohm: Thank you, Zaremba: That's it for me. Borup: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Unger, I think the only question I had clarification on the boundary fence. You said your original proposal was a block and cedar? Did I hear that right or -- Unger: Correct. Borup: So, block pillars with cedar in between, is that -- Unger: Yes, sir. Borup: And the fence at Lowe's, was that some type of -- was that a concrete panel or - Unger: It's a -- it's a decorative block wall. Borup: So, is this a CMU type of block? Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 38 of 113 Unger: Yeah. Borup: Okay. That's what I thought. panel. Unger: Okay. Yeah. Okay. That's what I meant when I said a concrete Borup: But you have not looked into that at all? Unger: We haven't looked -- we haven't gotten into that part of it that deep yet. You know, the cost -- I -- you know, just from experience, the cost of that, you know, far exceeds your cedar fence or a vinyl fence. In fact, one of the things that we -- you know, that we wanted to discuss with the neighbors was the possibility of a -- some sort of a wrought iron fence with extensive landscaping and things like that to go along with it. Just -- and we really haven't had a chance to talk with the neighbors about that. It's something that we just came up with this week. Borup: And the property to the north, has been solidified on the type of fence or wall that they are doing or is that still in negotiation? Unger: Along this area? Borup: No. To the north. Unger: Oh, I'm sorry. Borup: I thought you had mentioned they were doing a block wall. Unger: Right here. Borup: Yes. Unger: Right here. Right. We understand that that's what they had committed to. Borup: Okay. Unger: So, if they have committed to that, you know, it kind of puts us in a spot where we almost had to follow along with what they are doing, you know, unless -- you know, unless the neighbors are, you know, open to something else that we don't know, so -- Borup: Or maybe we can get some more testimony on that. Right now I think where you left it it was kind of open-ended. Unger: Right. Right. Anyway you look at it, you know, we are definitely going to fence it and it seems logical to do the same with what Sadie Creek has done, but then, again, Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 39 of 113 they haven't gone to City Council yet either, so you never know. If I could, one other point. I'm -- since you brought up the lighting issue. These units here are -- they are not going to have like huge outside lighting or anything that like, they are going to have standard residential lights, you know, just like any single family house out here is going to have a light, you know, on the front porch and things like that. It will be the same situation here, unless the city specifically requires any additional lighting, that would be the only lighting that we would be proposing in this particular area. And, of course, the commercial will -- this area is definitely going to have the standard lighting that's required for commercial development. With just this one small one over here, it should be fairly minimal lighting throughout this area here. So, we are hoping with that -- all of that we can really reduce any kind of glare that might even try to creep over to the neighbors. That's everything. Rohm: Good. Thank you. Unger: Thank you very much. Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to ask Candy Seeley if she would like to come forward. Seeley: Hi, my name is Candy Seeley. I live at 1567 North Leslie Way. I, actually, live across the street from the houses that will be backing up to the property. I do have a strong opinion on the fencing. I think it needs to be exactly the same as what's already been offered and told going to be put up, because it would look pretty stupid, you know, having a block wall behind two of the houses and, then, go along and having some other funky design after he just got through saying he's going to try and match the buildings in design with the people next door. Now, all of a sudden he doesn't want to match the fencing. I have a problem with that. I also, I guess, am still quite upset by the fact that I don't understand why the four-plexes still need to be in the middle of the property. We have already -- from my opinion understood that the requirement for the housing is already taken care of by the back -- the lots that are backing up and, then, the alley-driven houses, why the middle area needs to be four-plexes, why can't it be office space? I guess that's basically my problem with what's going on here. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Janice Helms? She has indicated she doesn't need to speak. Linda Morris. Morris: I'm Linda Morris. I live at 1374 Leslie Way. And my home is on that west end. I was at the Saturday meeting the developer called and the homeowners specifically asked several times what kind of fencing would be put along the west end and unless I misunderstood, what we went away with was that whatever the property owners of those new homes put behind their yard for fencing is what there would be. This is the first time we have heard about a path between our property and the undeveloped property. That really has more concern for us, because -- and that more foot traffic is going to go right along our boundary and for us, not only on the east side of our Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 40 of 113 boundary, but on the south side of our boundary, because we are right on the corner down here and where they tile right up to our property line, unless something else happens that we haven't heard of, we have that open ditch there, which we much enjoy, because all the wildlife like to be in there. It seems to me you're going to focus the kids down that path and, then, you're going to go right behind our place right into the ditch area there, too, which could be a safety concern. Besides more traffic along our area. So, I guess my real concern is that we have heard several stories on what's going to be the barrier between us and the development and it changes all the time. Like I said, this is the first time we have heard about a path. And I would like to see something concrete before you guys -- excuse me -- before the Commission or the Council here gives an okay to this development, because we keep hearing so many different things and, well, we are looking into this, but they don't commit to anything. So, we have no idea what's going to happen for landscaping and fencing. We keep hearing different stories and different stories from what you're hearing, so that's my concern. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman. Would you care to offer a suggestion as to what you would like to go there? I can understand if there is going to be, actually, a regional pathway there, that you would want to separate your property from it. Do you have a preference for what you would like to ask go there? Morris: The block fencing that they are suggesting to go along the north end of the houses, to go along -- between us and the pathway. But, then, I'm also concerned what happens, again, right here. Rohm: You need to speak into the microphone. Borup: And there is one right there for you. Zaremba: Right here. Morris: If this path comes right to here and, then, turns here, I can guarantee you, unless there is some kind of barrier here, the kids are not going to stop here and hang a left -- or hand a right. They are going that way. They are going to come right down here, here is open water here, and here is our place right here and you know how kids are, the place you're not supposed to go, that's right where they are going to head. Borup: So, you would like a fence there? Morris: Something, yes, across here where they are not having access, yes. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: Mr. Chairman, maybe while the next one is coming up, just might mention, the exhibit that we got dated January 5th shows landscaping and a fence and pathway and Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page41of113 everything along the west, so I'm not sure why that wasn't presented at the meeting, but that was what was presented to us. Rohm: Betty Rosso. Rosso: My name is Betty Rosso and I live at 2832 Leslie Drive. I am a little concerned about the tiling of the canal. Not that I oppose it totally, but I talked with John Anderson and he told me that it had been over two years before anybody had contacted him about that Finch Lateral and that if it were tiled, the access road would still be in effect and that property would still belong to Nampa-Meridian Irrigation and it would not be used for a path or anything else. There is no trespassing on their property. And, secondly, I wondered if, in fact, as she just mentioned, at the end where the tiling would come down, then, there would be open canal again. The canal -- I can tell you I keep my canal clean and I'm down in there working and that can be a very swift running canal. And I am concerned about the safety of that. Plus, I'm also concerned about the elevation of the condos, four-plexes, whatever you want to call them, on that lateral boundary facing our homes along there. I'm also wondering about this access to Eagle Road and how much traffic is going to be coming through there and back through the Sadie Creek Promenade out to Ustick. It seems to me there is an awful lot of housing and a lot of traffic and a lot of commercial stuff and they are all on just one -- one in and out on Eagle and two on Ustick. It seems to me there is an awful lot of car travel there for such small streets and small openings and possibly right-hand turn only coming out of -- onto Ustick. I don't know if that's true or not. Anyway, those are my concerns at this point and thank you very much. Rohm: Thank you. Mark Snodgrass. Okay. From the audience he said no comment at this time. Billy Knorpp. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, while he's coming forward, I would comment that I believe the one roadway at what would be the west end that intersects with Ustick is intended to be full access and I believe signalized. And, then, the other side of it will go behind the Kohl's department store on the north property, so that one at least has full access. Knorpp: My name is Billy Knorpp. I live at 2972 Leslie Drive. My home is about right there. I have -- just want to echo some of the concerns that they have. It appears that they have no plan for a buffer along the back of the entire property line along the south side. What he just told us, which we didn't hear -- I wasn't at the meeting. I got some feedback from people. But what he just told us is they are going to make a pathway that basically goes right along the back of our lots. That's unacceptable. Completely unacceptable. There is going to be no -- and he's planning on putting up a cheap fence that will -- and he's not even talking about a fence along our boundary, only along this one, because he thinks he might be forced to by Red Cliff. So, actually, I want to change my vote on -- I put I'm neutral. I'm completely against what he's planning right now. I thought it was going to be acceptable from the earlier plans, but no longer do I believe that. So, he's planning to tile the ditch, put a path right along the back of my fence. No barrier whatsoever, except maybe a cheap fence he's going to put up that's Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 42 of 113 going to fall down in another ten years. It needs to be one of the permanent type fences. Who is going to maintain this fence? Ten years from now the thing's going to fall down if he puts it up and nobody's maintaining it. It can't be a fence that is going to fall down. It has to be a block fence with a berm and 30 or 40 feet of a buffer between us and them. Right here where my house is and right along here where the others are, very close the way they have got it planned. I can't tell exactly from the plans they have, but it looks like that is -- on the order of 20 or 30 feet from my back fence. There is no barrier whatsoever. That is completely unacceptable. The other thing is they are going to be two story buildings looking right down on my backyard. Those need to be -- if they are going to put two story -- I agree with the previous testimony. They should not be two story buildings there. If they are going to be two stories, there should be no lights on our side and no windows on the south. And it was always noted that the right of way along the ditch -- what we would prefer is that the right of way to the ditch remain the way it is now with the ditch that they can't put anything on it that is going to encroach upon our backyards. So, I believe that's all I wanted to say. Do you have any questions of me? Rohm: Thank you. Before we move to the next person that signed up here, I have a question of staff. The proposed pathway along that south line parallel to the Finch Lateral, is that something that the city is encouraging to move pedestrian traffic through the properties? Guenther: Mr. Chairman, the 2002 Comprehensive Plan does call for a multi-use pathway -- a regional multi-use pathway on the Finch Lateral. The pathway location does -- is shown to come from the north property -- or the west property -- east property boundary through the west property boundary, come through the Leslie Creek -- or the Leslie -- or the Carol Subdivision and, then, continue to the west from there. The location has changed slightly with the developments that have occurred off of Ustick Road and it -- this location would better connect that multi-use pathway to the sidewalks on Ustick and, then, to the north -- again to the North Slough. Rohm: Thank you. The reason why I asked those questions is because the -- and I'm not speaking for the developer, but in compliance with ordinances and Comprehensive Plan, these regional pathways are something that are encouraged within our own Comprehensive Plan system and I'm not trying to speak for them, but in compliance with what we are proposing -- what we have told them is a requirement, this is the response that they have made. So, it's -- I want you to know that it's not something that they just came up with on their own, it's something that's been encouraged by the cities themselves. So, with that being said -- and we will continue with that discussion as to the applicant response to your concerns in their rebuttal. So, with that being said, I will go to the next person that signed up and that's Steve Grant. Grant: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, my name is Steve Grant. I live at 1534 Leslie Way, which is kind of at the northwest corner. My home is the third one in. Third lot in. I don't see a -- maybe this is it. It would be right about there. And I don't know if my -- yeah. I think the residents have always had kind of too big issues. One transition and Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 43 of 113 the other traffic. And as has been indicated before, the Sadie Creek folks have made a couple of commitments for this property here. One being a masonry fence, as you have heard. Second being a 30-foot easement. I think, if I read right in the staff report, that this area would only be 25 feet and I think we are anxious to have continuity along the -- you know, all of this area here, so that it's consistent and I think you can understand why we would want that. I think the landscaping plan -- I don't know that it's been submitted, but is a concern. We would much prefer evergreen trees that would be -- provide that barrier year around, rather than, you know, trees that shed their leaves at the end of the summer and, you know, for six months you would have -- you would be staring at each other. I think there is -- you know, I'm not quite sure why, you know, a public road is not allowed, but a private one is. That doesn't make a lot sense to me, because access is access and I'm concerned that even moving that down here is going to cause, you know, some congestion and safety issues here. While I would be in favor of a full access for reasons that I think Commissioner Zaremba has indicated, if that's not approved -- and it may well not be, then, they may approve right-in, right-out and, then, we have a huge issue with this. And that right-in, right-out might be a compromise. I don't know how that would work and I guess that's to be determined. I think it's also one of the things we would like to have them consider is that, you know, homes -- those homes along that area there, if they are second story homes, that there would be no windows facing west and I think that provides privacy for not only us, but also for the residents there, if that can be accommodated in their designs. I think that that's -- those are the -- again, the issues that we are concerned about. Transition of traffic -- and you have heard them a number of times from us over the last two and a half years and we appreciate your consideration for the things that we have outlines as our concerns. That's alii had. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions? Borup: Just one, Mr. Chairman. Rohm: Yeah. Borup: And, then, on the -- just on the wall, I think so far everyone has testified on preferring a block wall. I haven't heard any discussion on the concrete panels like behind Lowe's. Knorpp: I think they are interchangeable to us. Borup: Okay. That's what I was wondering. Knorpp: Yeah. Borup: But either one is -- accomplish the same thing. Knorpp: We are interested in continuity and I think they have -- I don't know -- she's shown us some elevations that a block that -- they are not necessarily -- they have got, Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 44 of 113 you know, the face of the block wall is broken up a little bit, which would mitigate some sound issue and other things. So, I think we could work those out. But a good barrier I think is what everybody is interested in as a part of that transition. And, again, the 30 foot -- by the way, the -- it's important to note that the -- the decision has been made in the negotiation with those folks on Sadie Creek that the fence would be on our property line, rather than, you know, the property line of these homes. Guenther: Correct. Knorpp: Otherwise, you're going to build -- you're going to probably build two fences anyway, but we'd wind up building our own fence if it was on that property line, so -- Borup: And that is where their landscaping plan shows it. Knorpp: It is? Borup: Yes. Knorpp: Okay. And to my knowledge there is no pathway here -- dedicated pathway, it's just -- and if I heard correctly from staff, that the path is -- the only path is -- on the plan is on that southern boundary. Do I understand it correctly? Because I have never heard that there would be a path. It would be open, but I have never heard of a foot path there. Borup: I think the concern is if you have a path that doesn't go anywhere, you have got to turn around and go back. Knorpp: Good point. So-- Borup: And now that would be to Ustick. Zaremba: Well, what I understood staff's explanation was that the regional pathway showed on the Comprehensive Plan continues into your subdivision. Borup: Right. Knorpp: That's the first time I -- Zaremba: And this is avoiding that. Knorpp: Well, this would be here no matter what. And I don't know -- again, I don't know -- I have never heard anybody discuss -- like a paved path. It would certainly be open, so that somebody could walk there if they wanted to, but I assume it would be grass or some kind of a maintained, you know, surface. But, again, a lot of questions, a lot of concerns, and as you have heard from other residents, there are a lot of questions Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 45 of 113 and we are-- we feel like it's appropriate to get those resolved before we move on. Anything else? Rohm: Thank you. Knorpp: Thank you. Rohm: I'd like to return to Linda Morris for just a moment. I believe she had some -- didn't you have a -- something you wanted to bring up? One more thing on -- Morris: We had heard nothing about this path along the western side at all. I mean maybe you had heard about it. Rohm: I think you need to restate your name, too. Morris: Linda Morris. Rohm: Okay. And that was your additional concern? Because I saw you down there -- Morris: Yes. That -- and as I said, Saturday -- this Saturday we met with them and we were trying to get more information on what's going to happen on the western -- on the western side here and nothing. We didn't get any answers. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. That's what I needed. Thank you. That's the end of the list of people that have signed up for this, but it's open, so anyone else is welcome to come forward. Thurston: Mr. Chairman and Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I think I did sign up. My name is David Thurston and I live at -- Rohm: Oh, I'm sorry, I messed up. Thurston: Okay. David Thurston. I live at 1470 Leslie Way, Meridian, Idaho. My home is right there. And the question I have is concerning the -- Mr. Unger's comments about tiling this ditch. He's indicated that he had met with the gentleman who represents the water users of that ditch. I'd just like to have clarification of who that gentleman is, because I am a water user on that ditch and I don't know of anybody who has been given that authority to speak for all of us. So, I'd like to know the name of the gentleman who represented the water users for that ditch and represented the things that Mr. Unger stated. Rohm: What is your concern specifically to that? Thurston: Well, he indicated that they had met with somebody who represented the water users and that this gentleman had agreed to whatever they -- the specifications Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 46 of 113 for the tiling of that ditch and I'd like to know who that individual is and exactly what are the specifications. Rohm: Well, I -- not knowing what those specifications are at all, but it is their obligation to make sure that the water that you currently are receiving will continue -- Thurston: Yes. Rohm: -- to be received and I think that that's the primary point of any of this, is that you continue to receive water in the fashion that you had in past. Borup: And the city also requires it to be tiled. Thurston: Yes. I realize that. But as a -- the ditch is owned by the water user, not by Nampa Irrigation District, and so as a water user I want to know who is making decisions on behalf of my -- on behalf of me. So, I just wanted him to clarify that. Rohm: And I think we will get that, so thank you. Thurston: Thank you. Rohm: And I'm sorry I missed your name on the first shot through. Is there anybody else that would like to testify on this issue? Okay. At this time -- oh. Quick one. Please come forward. Knorpp: Billy Knorpp. 2972 Leslie Drive. The question that you raised about the path, I don't think there is any problem with that path, I just don't want it right along my back fence, unless there is some -- unless we do put the brick wall in there and there is a barrier between me and whatever is going along that path. Rohm: Thank you. Okay. At this time I'd like the applicant to come back forward, please. Oh. And this will be a -- Rosso: Just short. Betty Rosso. 2832 Leslie Drive. Mr. Davis from Champion -- what is it called, that new division there? Davis's -- where the Davis's dairy was. Borup: Champion Park. Rosso: Champion Park. Okay. He was the one here Saturday that was concerned about the irrigation and I don't know that he was speaking for the irrigators, he was more concerned that his water was going to continue to come. And, again, I wanted to - - the pathway has -- was startling to me, I guess, and especially when Mr. Unger said that it would follow on top of the canal, which Mr. Anderson just told me that that property, plus the road, would not be usable. They only maintain it themselves and it is not to be used or be trespassed upon. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 47 of 113 Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Rosso: Thank you. Rohm: Okay. Okay. With that, would the applicant like to come forward and offer some clarifications to some of the issues brought up by the testimony? Unger: Once again, for the record, Bob Unger, Red Cliff development. First of all, I have to say I misquoted the price on the wall. It's running about 50, 60 foot -- or bucks a foot, not -- I don't know where I got five. You can't do cedar for five. Borup: No, you can't. Unger: And -- yeah. Be a cheap wall, wouldn't it? And it's -- you know, we are going to settle this right now. You know, we have made somewhat of a commitment to the folks on the wall, we will make that commitment now. Okay? Borup: Excuse me. When you say commit, you're saying either -- either block or concrete wall? Unger: Yeah. To match up -- to match up with whatever Sadie Creek Promenade is doing. Zaremba: Are you including the south property line as well? Unger: If we end up tiling it, that's probably what we are going to have to do. If we don't end up tiling it, we will have to fence it all on our side. And that's where I was going with the whole tiling of the ditch and in -- you know, I have spoken with John Anderson. I talk to John Anderson all the time in Nampa-Meridian. In fact, I have two other projects this Finch Lateral runs through that we are building right now and we are piping both of those projects and we are putting landscaping on top of those projects with a license agreement through Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. It is a standard operating procedure. We also provide a path/drive on their easement, so that they can still access and maintain if they ever have to get there and repair any pipes or anything like that. Okay. And that is standard stuff that is done through a license agreement with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District, so that's what we are proposing here. Moe: Mr. Unger, you did make one statement and I'm a little -- you said if we tile. Will you explain that one to me? Unger: We have committed to tiling this thing, but the neighbors are saying -- I'm hearing from the neighbors they don't want us to and -- but our proposal is to go forward with that and unless you folks change it, that's our proposal. Rohm: Well, just as a point of clarification, then, the tiling, coupled with the fence, I think is the solution that everyone wants to drive home here and so if you tile it and a Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 48 of 113 regional pathway is along that tiling, then, the fence would be in order. I think that's the conclusion that we are trying to get to. Unger: And that's -- and that's what we are trying to say here. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Unger, while we are on the subject of the fencing and so - - somebody mentioned whether there would be double fencing along the rear property line, so -- of what you're proposing and I think the city would say that if there is a block wall on one side, that abutting a pathway would have to be probably no more than four feet clear vision or something like that along the new property lines. That's pretty standard. Staff, am I doing that accurately? Guenther: These standards are -- there is a standard condition in this report that says that all fencing shall comply with the fencing standards listed in section three of the UDC. Unger: Yeah. Did you want a response on that or -- Zaremba: Well, I just want you to be aware of the issue. You probably are, but I just wanted to raise it. Unger: Exactly. Moe: Mr. Chairman, just one other comment on that same subject. Basically, you're expressing to put the block or a concrete wall up at the property line all the way around? And, then, the path is -- would be on their side anyway, so, then, they have a shorter one, if they so -- Unger: If I could, I think -- I think what we -- you know, along the ditch here -- and I guess maybe that's part of why the fencing issue along this ditch is a tough one for everybody, is I build a fence on somebody else's property. All of these folks -- and well -- and we are going to have to figure this out. All these folks along here, their property lines run to the center of the ditch. And the ditch lies within an easement and I'm not -- I believe the one along here is -- I think it's a 40 foot easement. It could be a little larger. I can't build a fence on their property. I can build a fence on my property. So, if we all work together we might be able to build a fence to accomplish one goal, but at this point, you know, we are going to have to build our fence and it's going to have to be along -- along this easement on our side. Rohm: And the pathway would lie to the south. Unger: The pathway would be on that side -- yeah, on the south side of our fencing. Borup: Can you do -- if you had an agreement with them to build a fence on their property, is there any problem with that? Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 49 of 113 Unger: I think we would entertain that. Borup: But I realize every property owner would have to agree to that. Unger: Exactly. Borup: And maybe while you're on that, 40 feet you said is what the easement is, to your understanding? Unger: I believe it's 40 feet. I'd have to check that to be sure, but I believe so. Borup: That is what your document says, too. Unger: Yes. Rohm: Okay. Unger: Okay. Let me finish up a couple things and I think that will wrap it up. As a matter of fact, you're correct, this -- Sadie Creek there is a full access and signal going in right there on Ustick. Where was this? Oh. Separation -- I think -- this -- this is a 30 foot landscape buffer with a path there. That's what staff told us. Two years ago I was doing a 30 foot path or -- you know, a buffer there, so we have 30 foot there minimum. This is -- you know -- you know, we have at least 40 foot of separation there. Over to the condos we are looking close to a hundred feet, over to these structures here. So, at least a hundred foot separation there. Rohm: And that's to the property line, not to the -- Unger: Yeah. To the center of the ditch. Rohm: Yeah. Thank you. Unger: Yeah. So, we have some good separation there and the one gentleman about piping the lateral that runs down through here -- and I appreciate the lady coming up and identifying the gentleman. He gave me his name and number and for the life of me I couldn't find it in my files. But he indicated that -- you know, that there really wasn't anybody -- a good contact and I said, well, when we get ready to design this, who do we contact? He says what -- give me a call and, then, you know, I'll help you through that. So, he really didn't represent himself as, you know, the -- representing everybody of the users association, but he was the first person that came up and identified himself as one of the users and I thought good connection to have, since finding out who these users are sometimes are tough. So, I know I have got it written down, I just didn't have it on a piece of paper I had in my hand. So, I think we have a good project here and I think -- I think we are responding to a lot of the concerns of the neighbors. I think the whole wall fencing issue can be totally resolved throughout this process and we are Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 50 of 113 more than willing to work with everybody on it. So, we certainly feel we have a good project and we would ask for your recommendation of approval. Rohm: Okay. And thank you, I appreciate your -- I believe we have come a long way -- Unger: Oh, I think so. Rohm: -- tonight as far as the fencing and I appreciate both the public testimony and your response to that. There were a number of people that also spoke to the two story condominiums along that south line and I'd just like your comments on that. Unger: That's a very hard -- very hard thing for us to look at and restrict. I mean I'm sure -- catch up with me, Joe. You know, I assume some of these are going to be single story, but to specifically say half of them are going to be single story or not going to be single story is -- it really restricts the use of those lots, the value of those lots to some extent, but also you have to -- also have to understand that the houses to the west of the project, those are all on their own one acre lots and the houses themselves are approximately -- and approximately 40, 50 feet from the property line and maybe even further. So, there is a huge separation of their backyard and, then, we have got another 30 foot of -- we have the wall, we have the berming and the landscaping, and, then, these structures that we have in here have an additional 15 foot setback, that's the rear setback requirement, so you start adding it up, you have got 40 to 50 feet, plus another 30 feet, so you are looking at at least 70 feet -- 85 feet separation between buildings. That's a pretty good size separation. Rohm: And thank you. I -- that's the response I was looking for. Unger: Okay. Rohm: Thank you. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: One of the other suggestions -- and I think it referred to the condos and not other areas -- was that on their south surfaces they don't have windows and I would only comment that the police department consistently asks to have windows, particularly where there is a pathway involved, so that there is public visibility on anything that might be happening on the pathway. So, I'm not sure that's an issue we can help the gentleman with. You probably need to have windows there. Unger: Right. Borup: These two are the south, so there is very limited windows. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 51 of 113 Moe: Mr. Chairman, I think he was, actually, talking more about the homes on the west side. Rohm: Thank you. Any other questions of the applicant? Unger: Thank you very much. Rohm: Thank you. Before we move forward I'd like to just give each of the Commissioners an opportunity to kind of summarize their thoughts on this project and see if we have some concerns and we will go forward. Commissioner Zaremba, have some comments? Zaremba: I do. And I think my overall comment is that this whole concept pretty well matches the intent of the mixed use area. It has a mix of uses and combined with the other uses on the other corners of Ustick and Eagle, brings the proper element of what is being asked for in the Comprehensive Plan identifying that area as mixed use. I will say that if on the original plan the roadway continued straight out to Eagle on the original drawing and had to be right-in, right-out, even though I like the project, would have been voting against it. The new configuration is important to me. If that can end up being a full access intersection and it's very logical at that point that the development on the other side of Eagle would line their road up with it as well and further make it reasonable that it be signalized and full access, that not only helps this development, but one of the advantages of a signalized intersection is that people that are trying to get in and out of Leslie, a signal does what's called platooning. It slows down the jackrabbits and let's the turtles catch up with them and it gives you several hundred feet south a break in traffic that would not otherwise be there. So, there is a lot of reasons why, in my opinion, the project is fine. I think it's extremely important to have the access where the new design shows it and with it there I can support it. Rohm: Thank you, Commissioner Zaremba. Commissioner Borup, do you have some final thoughts on this? Borup: Well, I think it's -- you know, as we hear time and time again, we are -- we are in the city limits of Meridian and there is going to be growth and we need to try to accommodate the best we can, realizing that an acre lot is not going to be abutting against acre lots. So, my concern is best to see what could be done on buffering and privacy and appears to me that the developer has agreed to -- I mean clarify this, a 38 -- a 30 foot easement to the west and it will either be a block or a concrete panel wall of some type and I assume to be worked out between the neighborhood and the developer. The property to the south, I don't know that that's been settled and I -- I don't have a high comfort to going into things where they are up in the air, unless there -- unless there is some stipulations that can be placed somehow. It sounds to me like a good solution was if a ditch is tiled, a wall on the south -- to the south side of the easement, but that would necessitate the wall to be on the property owner's side of the ditch and on -- against their property -- against their usable property, which would separate it from the ditch. So, I don't know, I mean it would have to be an agreement Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 52 of 113 with everyone along there. The other concern I had is maybe --.1 don't know if we got a lot of detail on landscaping. I don't think we have the one tree per 35 feet, which is a minimum along the south. It has that landscape plan. Josh, has that been analyzed at all? Guenther: Commissioner Borup, the landscape plan is not approved with this application. It would need -- and there is conditions in there that this applicant's landscape architect needs to certify two things, that the appropriate number of trees have been provided for, as well as one tree per 8,000 square foot of turf be provided for and we don't have those calculations at this time. We, typically, receive those through the phasing plans of the final plat, but they are conditions of approval. Borup: Could maybe something be added as far as maybe increasing that density at this time? Guenther: If the Commission so chooses, what we -- what this Commission has done in the past is say add -- take the total required number of trees in that 20 percent or something along that line in order to further buffer it. But that's something that we have utilized in the past. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: There may be an issue along that south property -- Guenther: For the easement. Zaremba: -- if it's a tiled ditch you can't plant a tree there. Borup: Yes. I think they will only allow shrubs and bushes and -- without the root invasion and stuff. Zaremba: I think the ordinance requires that if there is a place where you can't plant the trees, you still have to put that number of trees just somewhere else; isn't that correct? Guenther: Yes. It's tree mitigation. Borup: So, along the west line would be a good place for that. Guenther: Yes. Or out of the easement. Borup: Pardon? Guenther: Or out of the easement. Borup: Oh, out of the easement. Right. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 53 of 113 Guenther: On the landscape plan it does show that there is several trees planted along the southern portion of that boundary. However, the roughly 40 feet of landscaping, which would be required in this area, most of it is in the easement. However, it could be designed in order to accommodate trees immediately at that easement line, which is what the landscape architect has preliminarily shown. Borup: Okay. Thank you. That's alii had. Rohm: Okay. Commissioner Moe. Moe: Before I make comment, Joe, one question I have for you. Well, I guess more of a statement than anything. I guess if, in fact -- my biggest concern -- as far as what's gone on tonight, I'm in favor of the project. I think some compromises have been taken care of and whatnot. The one concern I still have is the block wall, as far on the south property line, and as to whether or not it ends up being on the north side of the ditch and, then, we still need to put a fence on the south side of that walking path at that point, would that notbe correct? Guenther: That would be correct. Moe: So, that we'd have visual for that. Guenther: Well, there is standard fencing required for multi-use pathways, which is a section of our code. Moe: Well, my point is is I'm just concerned that although the applicant has stated he will want to work with the neighborhood to try and install block fence on their property, whether or not all the neighbors agree to that, we don't know that tonight and so, therefore, we are in a situation where we are requiring them to put a block wall in. If that is the case, then, that other fence would have to definitely go in on the south side of that walking path. And, therefore, that would be a condition that we would want to clarify as well, based on the report. Borup: Mr. Chairman, my plat shows there is only seven lots on the south. I'm just curious how many of those seven homeowners are here tonight. South line. Three out of the seven. Zaremba: Well, I certainly think they could influence their neighbors to -- if it got them a nice block wall, I think they could influence their neighbors to join them. Rohm: Okay. And I guess -- and echoing both the public concern and the Commission comments on that, has staff seen where they have been able to work with adjacent property owners and place a fence on the adjacent property outside of their project to be in compliance with fencing along that regional pathway? Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 54 of 113 Guenther: Chairman Rohm, in a situation like this -- and Mr. Cole has already kind of talked about it a little bit here. Is that they can relocate that pipe anywhere within that easement and be able to put the fencing in there on their property line in order to accommodate the required separation from fence to the piped ditch. And Nampa-Meridian -- obviously, they have dealt with this situation before and have come up to resolution. I guess while I have got you, it seems that this might be something that if we continued the application for two weeks to allow staff time in order to draft a condition with the applicant in order to adequately address that and bring this back to the Commission in two weeks, because the second thing is that we still -- I haven't been able to review a full scale plan for this southern boundary and it seems to be more of a problem than originally I had anticipated. So, in order to give staff more time, I guess we would change our recommendation to continue it for two weeks in order to allow us time to keep the hearing open in order to work through this condition that we need -- or that we seem to be going towards, as well as to get a better large scale copy and adjust some of the staff report. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Thank you. Zaremba: If we went that direction, I would add one more thing to be discussed among staff and the applicant and probably ACHD and that would be the newly aligned access to Eagle, seeing if we can make that be a public street. I know ACHD has said no public connection, but they don't actually control Highway 55. Just a comment for discussion. Guenther: Chairman Zaremba, just for point of clarification, staff is recommending denial of that -- of that access point to Eagle Road, as it is inconsistent with Unified Development Code. Zaremba: Okay. Guenther: Which will be presented to the City Council with the bulk of this application. Rohm: Okay. I think that it's the consensus of the group as a whole that the fencing issue along the south line is a major concern to those people who spoke tonight and I believe that the applicant has offered up some alternatives that would make it acceptable to the testimonies received, but it's easier said than done for us to be able to respond to that in the form of a motion tonight, so I think that a two week continuance, so that applicant and staff can work together to get that verbiage down, so that it would be included in the staff report in a fashion that is acceptable to the public and to the applicant is probably in order. And with that being said -- Borup: Mr. Chairman, I would request maybe one other item be included on that. Rohm: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 55 of 113 Borup: And that's if those seven property owners could be contacted -- maybe that would be up to the applicant to contact them and perhaps just to -- I don't know, maybe a non-binding agreement as far as where they like the fence and see -- basically, in my mind to see if all seven of them are in agreement on the location of the fence. If they are not in agreement, then, there is going to be another direction that needs to go. If they are in agreement, then, something could be worked out. Rohm: And I think that that's the direction we need to go as well and so I'm pretty sure the applicant understands where we are going with this. So, I think at this point in time I would entertain a motion. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I move to continue file numbers AZ 05-57, RZ 05-019, PP 05-059, and CUP 05- 052 to the regularly scheduled meeting of February the 16th, 2006, give staff time to review documents and resubmit. Does anybody want to second that? Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we continue items AZ 05-057, RZ 05-019, PP 05-059, and CUP 05-0-52 to the regularly scheduled meeting of February 16th, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: And thank you, folks, all for coming in and very much appreciate your testimony and we will see you in two weeks. Item 10: Continued Public Hearing from January 19, 2006: AZ 05-062 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.11 acres from RUT to R-8 for Sharp Estates Subdivision by The Gables, LLC - 2445 North Wingate Lane: Item 11: Continued Public Hearing from January 19, 2006: PP 05-062 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 25 single-family residential lots and 2 common lots on 5.11 acres in the proposed R-8 zone for Sharp Estates Subdivision by The Gables, LLC - 2445 North Wingate Lane: Rohm: All right. At this time l'd like to open up the public hearings of AZ 05-062 and PP 05-062, both pertaining to Sharp Estates Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. I realized here late in the game that the clerk did not run you a copy, because I did not send them any copy of the staff report. Actually, it was the same copy that you had back on the 19th of January