Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 4, 2006 P&Z Minutes i ,- MeridieHl Planning'" Zoning May 4, 2006 Page 11 of 84 Zaremba: Works for me. There is always a simpler way to do it. Mae: Always. Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Mae. Mae: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I would move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers RZ 06-001 and PP 06-014, and CUP 06-011, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 20th, 2006, and May 4th, 2006. And the preliminary plat labeled sheet one of one, dated January of 2006, revised 3/1 of '06 and the site landscape plans labeled sheet one of one, dated January 2006, revised 3/1/06 with the following modifications: To conditions of approval, which would be under site specific requirements, and for the Conditional Use Permit, item 1.3.2 where it's stated that any future drive-thru, I would like to strike the word future under that. End of motion. Zaremba: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto the City Council recommending approval of RZ 06-001, PP 06-014, and CUP 06-011, to include all staff comments with modifications as stated. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. I thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: AZ 06-018 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 20.01 acres from RUT to R-4 (Medium Low Density Residential) for Incline Village Subdivision by Incline Village, LLC - north side of Cherry Lane west of Black Cat Road: Item 8: Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: PP 06-016 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 64 single-family residential lots and 8 common lots on 20.01 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Incline Village Subdivision by Incline Village, LLC - north side of Cherry Lane west of Black Cat Road: Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the continued Public Hearing from April 20th, 2006, for AZ 06-018 and PP 06-016, both related to Incline Village Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. This is the second item on your agenda tonight that we didn't make it through on the 20th of April. There was no hearing before. It is a continued item, but I'll give you a brief description of the project. It is an annexation and zoning and a preliminary plat request for a 20 acre subdivision located on the north side of Cherry Lane just west of Black Cat Road. There are 64 lots ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning May 4, 2006 Page 12 of 84 in the subject subdivision proposed originally. The applicant has since modified the plat, has removed three lots, so I'll get back to that in just a second. The surrounding area is still largely rural. There are to the east of the project on Black Cat Road an LDS church and a Seventh - Day Adventist that is under construction. I don't think they have occupied it yet, but it's under construct. To the north is Turnberry Subdivision in the city. And, then, everything around this property to the south and to the west is still in the county. Applicant has submitted a letter referencing the staff report and a couple of conditions that they would ask that be modified within that staff report. I have looked at that letter and am in general agreement with the applicant's proposals. I guess I should jump back real quick and -- in the staff report there was a request -- this is the modified site plan. Few of the changes -- there is an existing home here on this lot. They did have a flag lot behind that lot. Had a pretty good stand of trees within it. There is some visibility concerns from the police department. They have removed that lot and, then, two other lots within this block that were below the 8,000 square foot minimum. So, all of the lots within the subdivision now conform to the standards of the R-4 zone. Another change to the plat. They did add a traffic circle here at this intersection. There is a stub street, so when this property develops in the future, that can be extended and there will be a traffic circle. This is their -- a large majority of their usable open space. They also have a sewer line that's running in this location. It's an open -- I think it's about 20 feet wide or maybe 25 feet wide. This, then, is that infamous easement for access to these three homes that are back here that was of such discussion when the Seventh-Day Adventist church came in for their annexation request. The idea with that, the parks department would like to see multi-use pathway to get to the park that's about half a mile or so away further to the west through this site. There are some other site constraints. Off-site here. And they were trying to get a pathway -- maybe I'll go to the vicinity map. So, there is that access I was talking about. Then, coming to the applicant's property, you can, once this subdivision gets constructed, a pedestrian or a bicyclist could use, then, the internal street system, go up through Turnberry and there is a stub street here, too. Without getting too much stepping on the Public Works Department's toes too much, these parcels over here are largely constrained by the lack of sewer-ability at this time and they are relying on another main to be constructed. This is the last one, I believe, that's going to be able to sewer back without that main line coming in. But, eventually, the city's park is over here somewhere. And they are trying to get that pathway through there. There is a condition in the staff report that basically conditions the applicant to construct that multi-use pathway on property they don't own in this section here. In the development agreement it's worded a little bit differently and it gives them an option to bring it up from Cherry, through the site, and, then, stub it over this way. That option still works in my mind, but I think there may be other options in the future that would work better than having it be on one side of the sidewalk through this development and, then, stub over. So, I think there still are some other opportunities here that the Parks Department can get their pathway over to the park and -- the parks department can get it over to the park in the future. I'll let you make the call on that. The condition does need to be modified, I think at least, because it doesn't give them -- the one in the preliminary plat, just straight conditions that they need to construct the pathway off site over to Black Cat and we shouldn't condition that off-site improvement. If the applicant were to volunteer that in the development Meridian Planning'" Zoning May 4, 2006 Page 13 of 84 agreement, we can sure accept that proposal, but I don't feel comfortable requiring them to construct a pathway on something they have an access right, but they don't have a right to grant the city easement across property they don't own. Finally, the other thing I wanted to touch on -- in the staff report there was a requirement that -- or we gave the applicant a couple of options for getting their density back at that 3.0 dwelling units per acre. This is shown as low density on the Comprehensive Plan. They are coming in at 3.2 dwelling units per acre. They have lost three, which puts them at 3.05. So, this lot - - it makes it a really nice parking lot. I'll leave that up to your discretion. The density is fine. I like what they have done with the other lots in making all the other lots conform. I think the park still could function, just from my perspective, it sure makes it a nicer, more usable park, but it's at one acre right now, so I don't think it's a make or break deal there, but those two conditions are -- I think it's 1.1.2 and 1.1.3. I apologize for not circling those. And, then, also if you so choose to modify the requirement again. The condition in the provision in the development agreement gives them the option of constructing the pathway in a bunch of different locations. That would be the -- the fourth bullet point on page nine of the staff report, if you felt the inclination to modify that one as well. It's kind of a wordy bullet point, but it's there and it, effectively, gives them options for how they construct a multi-use pathway. I think I'm going to stop there. I'm sorry to kind of leave that one there. But I will -- and I think maybe some discussion or presentation by the applicant and we can come back and revisit that if you feel that that's necessary. So, we are recommending approval of the subject Incline Subdivision annexation and zoning, and I will stand for any questions you may have. Rohm: Thanks, Caleb. Any questions of staff? Okay. Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward, please? Fluke: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, thank you. My name is Daren Fluke with JUB Engineers, 250 South Beachwood in Boise, representing the applicant in this matter. Caleb's done a nice job going through the project. I think we have worked real hard to make this fit in and to do what -- you know, what the city would like to see in the area. So, I'm not going to belabor those -- those points and go back over that. I would like to just touch on this pathway issue really quickly and give you our perspective on that. This came up very late in the process in reviewing the Comprehensive Plan map for the area, the pathway was located well to the west of this site. There is, actually, two pathways that intersect to the west of the site and so we -- and we had two or three pre-application meetings with staff and the pathway never came up, so we felt pretty comfortable that we were in compliance with the Camp Plan and the zoning ordinance and went forward with the app. Well, it turns out that the parks department is having some trouble -- could we see the aerial, please, Caleb. Getting an alignment along their preferred alignment, which is the drain here, because there is a viable commercial operation here in the form of a nursery. And 50 they don't think anytime soon they are going to be able to get that. The parks department approached me about that and we sat down and talked about it and I think the consensus between us and them was that the best thing to do -- could we see the plat again? Thank you. Was to make this connection right here where we have a sewer line coming through, so we have a lot there anyway and, then, the sewer line does extend Meridian Planning & Zoning May 4, 2006 Page 14 of 84 over to Black Cat Road here. What I told the parks department at that time and they seemed amenable with was that we would go ahead and build the pathway here, we'd love to have the path come through the project, but that we had no rights or authority to be able to grant an access over that easement next to the church. I told them if they wanted to negotiate that we would fully support that and help them out however we could. And once you're into the project here, it's an easy matter to just bop up the road here and, then, you're on a public right of way in this project and over to the west and that will make a nice connection for them and get them where they need to be. So, I think the parks department is reasonably happy with that, we are reasonably happy with that, and that was really the biggest issue that we had. Caleb did mention the conditions of approval that we had an issue with and I just want to touch on those very quickly just for the record. Condition 1.1.2, if you just eliminate that third bullet point that works for us. We did leave that -- the build-able lot next to the park. We think that's a really nice lot and we really did want to keep that one. Condition 1.1.3 could just be eliminated. We have made the changes to the plat now and we won't change it back, so that one could be eliminated. 1.1.10 is dealing with the pathway. What we'd just simply ask that that be modified to require us to go ahead and build the ten foot pathway across our property here to facilitate future connection to Black Cat should the parks department be able to do that. So, that's really it. I think I'll just leave it at that and if you all had any questions I would be happy to take those now. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of the applicant at this time? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I have a question probably of staff while Mr. Fluke is still here. Thinking back to the discussion of the application for the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, there was actually a requirement that they supply a stub street to the properties that we are now talking about, wasn't there? Did that fall out somewhere? Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, that did get modified at the City Council level. There was -- and Bob -- I don't know if Mr. Kell is here this evening or not, but he may remember it better than me. I have seen some projects go across my desk since then, but there was not a requirement for a public stub street. I think the church did -- they moved, basically, their building down, so if Mr. Kell, a future property owner here, needed to purchase, that it could be made available to them to purchase, but there was not a publiC stub street provided to this property from within that easement or even a portion of that easement, so -- Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Borup: While you're on that subject, is that easement strictly a sewer easement or that could be a pathway -- I mean a pathway can be built on there without acquiring other permissions? We have pathway over other sewer easements. Cole: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Borup, you can build a pathway over our sewer easements and it's not a problem, as long as we have a few rules. No trees planted within that 20 feet. Low lying shrubs are all right. We do not have a sewer easement Meridian Planning'" Zoning May 4, 2006 Page 15 of 84 through there as of yet. The easement you're talking about was an ingress-egress easement for benefit of the three five acre parcels, which isn't sufficient for sewer. It doesn't have our standard wording or doesn't give us right to go in there and dig it up. Prior to construction plan we were conditioned to have the applicant submit us with an easement signed by that property owner. Borup: So, there will be -- is that -- Daren, there eventually will be a sewer easement there? Fluke: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Borup, we did have an access easement to provide access to three lots, but we didn't have the right to put a sewer line in there, so that my client had to go back and negotiate that and by some additional easement language, if you will, to be able to put the sewer easement in there. So, it's pretty well exclusive to that, to the sewer line going in there. There is a condition of approval requiring that the city have an easement on there and so that burden is on us to provide that. We have negotiated it with the church we will do that, but it doesn't include anything beyond sewer lines. Borup: Okay. But it sounds like if there is a sewer easement, a pathway can be built over it. Fluke: Well, as far as Public Works is concerned that is true. They don't mind if you put a pathway on there, but the land is still owned by the church and, again, that easement currently is exclusive to sewer and so somebody's going to have to negotiate with the church to open that easement up to a pedestrian path, which is beyond the scope of what our easement is currently. And as I stated, you know, we are supportive of the pathway being on there, but somebody's got to convince the church that it's the right thing to do and perhaps even pay them for the right to use that land. Our use is relatively innocuous to the church, because it's underground, you know, and you don't have people, you know, moving through there at all. So, perhaps the church will be amenable to it. I don't know. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman and Mr. Fluke, this is kind of a side issue, but on the same subject. There was some discussion during the hearing on the Seventh-Day Adventist Church that the actual easement that we are talking about actually is twice as wide as it looks like and that the LDS church had built on what was originally half of the easement. Has anything in that been resolved or does that make any difference to what you're doing? Fluke: You know, I'm afraid I don't know the answer to that question. I do recall some discussion to the effect. One of the landowners is here tonight and I'm sure he could address that issue a little bit better than I could, so we will have him get up next and -- Zaremba: Thank you. Rohm: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you, sir. Meridian Planning'" Zoning May 4, 2006 Page 16 of 84 Fluke: Thank you. Cole: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Go ahead, Mike. Cole: If I may. Public Works has not had a chance to see the revised plat with the cul- de-sac, the roundabout in the lower portion there. If so, we would have added a condition not allowing any man holes or water valves in that -- laid underneath that roundabout or if -- and if they are going to route water and/or sewer mains underneath there, that they can't have any trees in that. So, I would like to get that condition added onto this as well. It's not in the staff report, because the plat I was looking at didn't have the roundabout on it. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Cole: Thank you. Rohm: Okay. At this time if there is no more questions of staff or the applicant, I will ask Leona Clower if she would like to come forward, please. If she would like to speak that is. Clower: I'm not Leona, but -- that's my wife. Rohm: Oh. Okay. Clower: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Don Clower. I live at 5103 West Cherry Lane, which his directly across from the proposed subdivision. Of course, I can say I appreciate your job here. I once served on the Ada County planning and zoning commission, so I can understand some of the arguments that are going on tonight. I have a couple of considerations. One is on Black Cat Road with the exit from the Incline Village. There is going to be about five driveways on a two lane very busy Cherry Lane Road anymore within about 200 feet. Plus, if you move on down a little further you have the nursery, which is a commercial place that operates about eight, nine months out of the year, which is very busy with traffic. It's right on the other side of the little bridge and it goes over Ten Mile Creek. It seems like there is going to be a lot of congestion and lot a turning. Right now it's very hard to get out of our driveway anytime of the day, especially early in the morning and late in the evenings, you just can't get across Cherry Lane. It's just wall-to-wall traffic. Some has got to do with construction. Second is this pathway on -- this is the first I have heard of that one proposal is to come through my property, which I'm not very happy with, because we have a drain ditch with an easement by the irrigation company. I don't know how in the world you're going to cut across the nursery and come out of there. Making a pathway seems like a lot of pie in the sky and totally way ahead of its time, because the so-called park is a rodeo stand down about another half a mile and you have got to cross a lot of Meridian Planning'" Zoning May 4, 2006 Page 17 of 84 private property to get to this so-called park that's going to be constructed maybe some day. So, I think that's our main concerns and one last one is my water. All those -- all that property across and me we are on one feed line for our irrigation. We flood irrigate. And it comes across the property and so I assume that it will be buried. I don't know if it's going to be buried. I guess that's really not my concern, but I would like to get my irrigation water once a week. That's required to irrigate my five acres of pasture. So, thank you very much for your time and if you have any questions I would try to answer them. Rohm: Yes. Any questions of this individual? Thank you, sir. Steven Cady. Cady: My name is Steven Cady and the property actually wraps around my five acres, so I'm kind of at the southeast corner of it you might say. Rohm: Steven, could you give us your address, too, please. Cady: 5120 West Cherry Lane. Rohm: Thank you. Cady: We had talked with JUB at the first meetings concerning a couple of our concerns. One was the water, which they did answer for us, actually. The other was the fencing. We had been opposed to wood. Mr. Kell had told us it was -- at one point that it would probably be vinyl. We are now being told it was going to be wood again and I don't know if you address those type of issues or if someone else addresses those issues or not, but we are still opposed to wood. It's my understanding that he give it to the lot owners and I just replaced over 4,000 feet of wood fence in one of my mobile home parks that after, you know, awhile you have to paint it and people don't paint it and it starts to fall apart and people don't fix it and I have got, you know, a thousand feet, roughly, on my property that his fence will be up against and I just really am opposed to a wooden fence for that reason. Maintenance reasons. The other thing is, of course, we have lived in this rural area for 16 years now where we are at. We have a nice backyard and a swimming pool and a hot tub and a few other things and we had requested or asked JUB if it would be possible to have the -- I believe it's nine -- eight or nine lots that are adjacent to our property designated single level homes. He stated that that had been done in other subdivisions before and would talk to the owner about it. Prior to the last meeting that was canceled I contacted him to see where that had gone and he was surprised that Mr. Kell hadn't called me, so I called Mr. Kell, who was out of the state at that time and, then, called me the day before the last meeting and really didn't answer the question, but we would really -- we are very very much opposed to having eight two story homes with all their back windows looking into our backyard. I know, again, that's probably not your concern, but it is for us, because if you go through all the new subdivisions, you know, the homes are right up against the fence and they are just -- the upper level is just looking into your backyard. Rohm: Can you point out on this map here where your residence is and the -- Meridian Planning & Zoning May 4, 2006 Page 18 of 84 Cady: So, basically, it wraps around my property here. Rohm: Thank you. Borup: But your house is -- which one of those buildings is your house? Cady: Right there. That's a vOlleyball pit and that's the swimming pool. So, I guess the only two concerns we have are, you know, if it is feasible and possible to have some sort of wording that those eight lots be single level homes and, again, we really don't like the thought of having wooden fences that someone else is, in my experience, not going to take care of and when you look all the subdivisions that have been built after four or five years the fences are in need of repair and we are told that he will be giving those to the landowners and that the common area maintenance or association dues will not have anything to do with maintaining those fences, so -- Rohm: Thank you, sir. Cady: That would be our -- Rohm: Thank you. That is all that we have signed up to testify for this application, but at this time if there is anybody else that would like to come forward and testify now is the time. Okay. Seeing none, would the applicant like to come back forward, please. Fluke: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Daren Fluke again, 250 South Beachwood in Boise with JUB. Let me just address issues raised by the neighbors. First Mr. Clower's issues. Traffic on Cherry Lane is bad. We understand that. I don't know that there is anything associated with this application that's going to change that or really significantly impact what the traffic is in the area. It's really beyond the scope of this one application. As far as the pathway feasibility, you know, the parks department came to us with this issue and we are supportive of them, we are supportive of the path. If they can make it happen we will do what we can to facilitate that. It is shown on the Comprehensive Plan and it is planned that that facility will be built through time as the opportunity presents itself. So, we will do our part to make that happen. As far as the irrigation water goes, we will be subject to all the usual rules and regulations. We will take delivery of the irrigation water where we do now and we will deliver that where it leaves the property now. So, this application, if it affects Mr. Clower's irrigation water, it ought to make it better, because that ditch will go into a pipe where ever it does abut our property. As far as Mr. Cady's issues go, on the fencing it is the preference of the applicant to go with the six foot picture frame cedar fence. It's really a matter of personal taste. They like that better than they like vinyl. However, in the spirit of cooperation he would build vinyl fence if that is Mr. Cady's preference. As far as the two story dwellings go -- Caleb, could we see the plat real quick, please? We don't want to restrict eight lots to single story dwellings along here, but -- because we'd rather let the market make those decisions about what product is built. We would, however, again, in the spirit of compromise, offer up that on these three lots that probably impact him the Meridian Planning & Zoning May 4, 2006 Page 19 of 84 most looking back toward where he lives here, that we would restrict these two single story structures provided that we could build a second story bonus room above the garage with -- and we would stipulate to no rear-facing windows on that to address the concern of the windows. Along the property line here you have got -- Mr. Cady has a fairly large structure here that really does obscure any views into the site this way. It is a two story structure on his property very close to the property line. These are far enough back that any rear-facing second story windows will be facing that way and they -- these are very deep lots. I think they are 150 feet deep there. So, those structures are going to be well off of that rear lot line. So. we think that's an effective compromise. We hope that that will mitigate his concerns. And with that I'd just take any questions you might have. Rohm: Thank you, Daren. Any questions of the applicant at this time? Thank you. Fluke: Thank you. Rohm: Okay. Discussion. Commissioner Zaremba, do you have thoughts on this application at this time? Zaremba: I do. Yes. I think everything has been very well presented. I think the applicant's last offer of restricting I believe it was three lots to single story with a bonus room and no window facing south is a good compromise. His explanation of the other spots is satisfactory. There is some discussion about the single lot on the roundabout corner just north of where the open space would be. If you considered just this piece of property, that's probably a little bit odd, but if you consider that that stub street probably will continue on and carry the traffic from any future subdivision to the west, it would also make sense that houses be lined up next to that. So, if you just look at this, I would think that was weird to have one house stuck out there, but considering that there may be future development along that road, I don't have a problem with it, because that row of houses probably will continue and nobody would notice that it's just one. I believe the applicant has expressed a preference for the pathway to come from Black Cat and go up into Turnberry Subdivision, which is one of the options provided by staff and I, actually, would support that as the best choice for future uses. So, that's my only comment. Rohm: Good. Thank you, Commissioner Zaremba. Commissioner Borup. Borup: I think I agree with that. The applicant has said that they would do the vinyl fence. I personally don't think it is because of personal preference, I think it's a cost issue, and there is -- I mean it's double. So, I think that's probably the real reason. But he already said. The other is just my -- and I have been consistent on my opinion on restricting two story homes and I just don't agree with it, except for maybe very few situations. The applicant says he will. If they'd like to, you know, that's up to them, but the three lots they are talking about is well over 300 feet from the residence and when you're that far away I don't know where that's a factor. That's-- Meridian Planning'" Zoning May 4, 2006 Page 20 of 84 Rohm: I tend to agree with what you're saying, but if the applicant has agreed to, then, I don't see any reason to not make it part of the approval process. But I -- in concept I certainly agree with that. Borup: I guess if the applicant would have said they didn't want to, I would have supported that. Rohm: I probably would have, too. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I have nothing to add on this one. Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Moe. Moe: The only question I have -- I'm still a little bit confused on the pathway. I understand that the applicant has no problem putting the pathway in over on the east side of their property, but as far as the sewer easement and whatnot, I assume that that at this time will be done or are we looking to require them to work with the church to do something when they, in fact, don't own that property, so -- Borup: But they are getting a sewer easement agreement, so why can't the words added sewer line and pathway. It's two words just added into an agreement. Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner Rohm? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I just want to get clarification from Commissioner Zaremba. Were you, when you spoke of the pathway, talking about extending it from Black Cat? Zaremba: From Black Cat. And, actually, my earlier question to Caleb about the discussion with the Seventh-Day Adventist Church requiring a public road access back there, since the City Council gave that up and, therefore, there was no requirement on the church, but they have moved their property a little -- their building a little farther south than they originally planned in order to allow an access at the top, it seems to me that it's a good trade for them to be cooperative about this -- the needs of this applicant and the needs of the city to have a pathway there. I'm not sure that we have any hammer to throw at them, but we did give up the requirement for a full public road and I would think they would be willing to cooperate. Borup: We have got one Commissioner that's got a long memory. Zaremba: It's sometimes faulty, but -- Newton-Huckabay: I just remember it was a fairly stormy discussion that day. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 4, 2006 Page 21 of 84 Moe: SO, then, am I to understand if, in fact, we are hoping that the church is going to grant that, that this applicant would be required to do the paving within that sewer easement through and out their property? Borup: That wasn't my understanding, but I think -- I think -- I don't know. Have they? Newton-Huckabay: No. Borup: I didn't think so. They offered to do it on their property. On their one lot. Moe: That's alii heard them say. Not from Black Cat over. Zaremba: It's possibly misunderstood, but the Public Hearing is still open if Mr. Fluke would care to correct me. I thought you were offering to pave all the way out to Black Cat. Borup: I didn't hear that. Zaremba: If it could be worked out. Fluke: No, we were not. We were offering to build it within the bounds of our property where we have control over it and we just simply don't want to get tied to a condition where we have zero control, because it could mess the -- you know, it could hold the whole project up. Given that the church apparently has some fairly strong objections to public access through that area -- I wasn't at that hearing, so I don't know, but if it were as simple as adding two words to the easement, I would do that for you, but I don't have that authority. Zaremba: The church's issue was the amount of space that would be taken up by a full width public road. They thought that was too much space to lose without compensation. Borup: Who is preparing that agreement? Fluke: Mr. Chairman, we will prepare the agreement with the church. However, it's well beyond the scope of what they have agreed to to provide a pathway on top of the easement, whereas we have only secured an agreement to put a pipe below ground. Borup: Well, they are not being asked to provide the pathway, they are just being asked to allow it. Fluke: Correct. In my discussions with the parks department, I told them that if they would lead the charge to obtain the easement through there, that we would support them on that and facilitate that -- that process. Borup: So, when you prepare that agreement can you add those two words? Meridian Planning & Zoning May 4, 2006 Page 22 of 84 Fluke: Well, yeah, I could add the two words, but -- Borup: And see if it gets signed. It sounds like Mr. Cole has a question. Zaremba: But I think the other point is I stand corrected that you're not offering to make the path go across that portion. Fluke: That was not the offer. That's correct. And like I said, we will do what we can and I will make this agreement with you that if you do not require us to build something on land that we don't own, that we will do everything we can to make that connection, because, in all honesty, we would prefer to have a connection there, rather than having a dead-end path. That is not an amenity to the project where a pathway connection is. Rohm: I agree with that wholeheartedly. Borup: Mr. Cole has a -- Rohm: I have a question of legal counsel here for just a moment. We had someone in the audience that would like to speak it appears, but the applicant has already given their rebuttal. Can we take additional testimony from the public at this time or -- Baird: Mr. Chair, it's in your discretion, but if you do allow -- basically reopen the Public Hearing, you have to allow rebuttal again. So, it could extend your evening unnecessarily. However, if he's got information that might be helpful to the situation -- it's totally in your discretion. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. And I guess my only comment would be I would hope your testimony would be to this specific issue. Please come forward. Law: My name is Brent Law. My address is 4888 West Cherry Lane. I live right on the corner of Black Cat and Cherry Lane. lawn the property right here on the corner. The problem -- what you guys are discussing right now, what concerns me -- I believe somebody is going to have to require the church to leave some kind of a pathway or something in there. Right here, approximately, is the head-gates for all of our irrigation water. If they try to cut that access off back into there, how is the rests of us going to use our water? I realize right now we can drive into the LDS church parking lot, which currently exists right about in this area. The Seventh-Day Adventist church exists right in this area and our head-gates are actually real close to where that easement is all going through there. So, some way or another something's got to be left open there, I would assume, because the technical sense is if the LDS church didn't want us using their parking lot to get in there to our head gates -- I mean we have the easement that is currently there that everybody has been using for access back to that property, that's what I use to go get my irrigation water and I don't -- you know, I can't see how because of where the head gates are for the irrigation and this -- the head gates are for all the properties over in this area. Everybody that's already talked, everything that's already gone on -- everything that's already gone on, all that -- our access has to be through a Meridian Planning'" Zoning May 4, 2006 Page 23 of 84 pathway or we have got to be able to be told that, yes, we have access through the LDS church, but the current access that is there now is what we use to get our irrigation. So, it's all kind of a -- the whole thing is going to be kind of a picture. This pathway you're talking about building or that maybe somebody's going to have to be required, I hope somebody would realize the church that -- I don't believe the Seventh-Day Adventist Church should be allowed to cut that off and be -- and them be able to sit back and say, well, nobody is going to get use to this property when we have currently had that use and we still need that access. And so for them to say it can't be used, I would think there -- somebody should be able to step up to the plate and tell the church, well, I'm sorry, but we have to leave a pathway in there, because the current access back into there has to remain open for the property owners to be able to get our irrigation water. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Law: That was my concern. Rohm: Yeah. And that's well taken. I don't believe that this application would preclude you from gaining access to your irrigation -- Law: Well, the only thing I want to state is that the access in there, this pathway you're talking about, I wouldn't think somebody has got to purchase property or somebody's got to get a right of way to it or something, because we have a right to have access to it. Baird: Mr. Chair? Law: And I personally -- I'd love to be able to have a pathway, instead of feeling like I have got to cross somebody's private property and get in there. Baird: Mr. Chair, I might suggest that the Commission redirect its discussion back to the confines of the application. I think we are getting a little off course. Rohm: And that's what -- kind of what I was saying. Law: Okay. Rohm: -- is your access to your head gates is not really part of this application and that -- Law: But it affects the pathway. Rohm: It mayor may not, but their pathway doesn't address your access to your head gates and I think that's -- our legal counsel -- what he's trying to say to you. But thanks for your testimony. Appreciate that. Law: Okay. Thank you. You bet. Thank you. Meridian Planning'" Zoning May 4, 2006 Page 24 of 84 Baird: And, Mr. Chair, you might check with the applicant to make sure he has no rebuttal based on the -- Rohm: And no rebuttal from the applicant. Thank you. Okay. Any additional discussion before we close the Public Hearing? Moe: Are we any farther on the issue of this pathway? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I have one more question. Caleb mentioned the other potential access was up through the main entrance of this development for a pathway or you were -- did not think that was a feasible option? Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, the staff report conditions -- I talked with Daren a little bit today about it -- the option in the development agreement in the annexation and zoning is that they take -- tap into the other subdivision, you take your five-foot wide concrete sidewalk and in lieu of that you construct a ten-foot wide pathway that would come up and, then, stub over to this property, because that's the direction the pathway is supposed to go. So, in the -- on page nine of the staff report, that fourth bullet on that page, that's the last option given in there is that you -- you construct the pathway ten feet wide, instead of a sidewalk up and over. Now, I have not talked to ACHD about that, but they have approved those in the past. I have not specifically talked to them about doing that in this application. So, I think it's feasible. Whether it's desirable or not is the question I guess you're going to have to answer what's the best option here, you know, if, really, any. I mean that's where it's up to you to make the decision. I don't have any great -- this has basically come out of the parks department, so they feel the need for a pathway here through this site somehow and that was just an option given to them. Newton-Huckabay: Which would -- actually, I have another comment on that. There are no comments from the parks department on this that I -- were there? Or did I just miss them or -- they are not stating their preference or am I -- Hood: As the applicant mentioned -- Newton-Huckabay: Oh, there it is. Hood: -- there were comments. They were last minute comments. I think the meeting was the day -- the day of the print deadline even or maybe the day before, but it was right at the 11 th hour anyway. So, there wasn't really -- the applicant was good enough to sit down with the parks department director and I believe Elroy Huff was there, as well as the city arborist, and they hashed through these things and I put it in the staff report, you know, tried to get it over to the clerk to go to print. So, it was -- they mayor Meridian Planning & Zoning May 4, 2006 Page 25 of 84 may not be in their Exhibit B conditions under their name, but they were comments from the parks department. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. All right. Okay. And, then, I have one another question. Can we go back to like the aerial? Where -- remind me where the pathway is coming up from the south on the west side of Slack Cat. I remember we had the -- I don't remember the name of it. We have had some applications there to the south. We had -- Hood: All that property -- excuse me. All of that property there south of Cherry Lane, west of Black Cat is all in the county I believe still. I don't think -- Newton-Huckabay: Doesn't that -- Zaremba: I don't know if I'm correct, but I think the pathway at the moment goes around Fuller Park and along here and probably ends at Black Cat. Hood: Correct. Newton-Huckabay: Oh, yeah. Okay. All right. Zaremba: So, this would be the current terminus of it. The desire is to have it go along here. Newton-Huckabay: Right. Zaremba: But that looks like that may be a long way off, I believe. Hood: And that -- that section that you just pointed to -- Mr. Chair, excuse me, and Commissioner Zaremba, is not the problem. I think they can probably get it -- although there are several property owners that when they develop would all have to construct their portion of it to get it here. It's really on the north side of Cherry Lane as the applicant pointed out, getting it through this property here, he's not been very willing, he's been approached by the parks department is my understanding and he's not very willing to give up -- to do his portion and he has no reason to come to the city. He's got a business operation that he has no intention to be annexed and so it would be a hole, basically, in the pathway system. So, that's why they are trying to go around and, basically, abandon this section, come up Black Cat and over and go around him. So, that's where we are at today and that's why it was -- is so late in the game with the applicant, in his pre-app meetings with us, the Comprehensive Plan does show it off -- you know, off this property, it shows it over here and so we have never -- as staff I never commented to them, hey, you need to construct your portion of the pathway. It's not on the Comp Plan that way, so it was something that came up a little later, so -- Rohm: Thank you, Caleb. Meridian Planning'" Zoning May 4, 2006 Page 26 of 84 Zaremba: I would comment that I believe the applicant has offered to work it out however it can be worked out. Who is the next one to take the lead? Does the parks department need to contact the Seventh-Day Adventist Church and perhaps the city needs to buy a piece of that easement or whatever they need to do, is that -- the applicant can't really do it. Rohm: Yeah. Zaremba: They can be happy about it, but they can't do it. Rohm: My take on this is this applicant's willing to make that pathway available to their east line of the property. That's where their responsibility ends. And if, in fact, the city works with the church to carry that on out the balance of the way to Black Cat, so be it. But at least this applicant has come to the table and found a way to get it across their property and I think that that's where the discussion really needs to end. Borup: Except for they are obtaining the easement agreement. Zaremba: The sewer easement. Borup: The sewer easement agreement and that's the time to add a pathway at the time the originally agreement is being done. Cole: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Borup, your statement of adding a couple words to the easement to allow it to be a pathway easement seems like a good idea in principle. In practice, it's more cumbersome than that. Our sewer easements -- we have standard language that speaks of maintenance, who has to fix this if we go through their -- what uses they can use on it. It's a rather burdensome document that spells out the maintenance, what they can and can't do, what we can't do. It's a nonexclusive easement, so they are more than welcome to put anymore easements over that property at the same time. If Mr. Fluke obtains a sewer easement through there and, then, Mr. Strong from the parks department goes through and gets a separate easement with -- it would, essentially, be the same legal description and I believe what JUB -- and I don't want to speak for them -- what they are talking about is doing the legals for it, putting together the survey documents for them, the standard language that the parks would want for their maintenance ownership relationship through that. It would be a separate document, a whole separate recorded document. It would be the same piece of property, essentially, it would be the same legal description, same metes and bounds, but it would be a separate document, totally separate from the sewer easement. Borup: It sounds like what you're saying it would be easier to just let the parks department work that out and not be bothered with that anymore? Cole: In kind of a long way, yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 4, 2006 Page 27 of 84 Rohm: Thank you, Mr. Cole. Moe: Mr. Chairman. Just in comments to this again. Basically, you know, within the report where it talks about that the applicant will agree to construct the minimum ten- foot wide multi-use path through this site and, basically, it's giving a couple different options and here I guess -- we have belabored this thing long enough. I would assume that, in fact, the applicant is going to decide one way or the other how he's going to get the pathway through, it's basically stated that way now and I don't understand why we need to go any further with it. Zaremba: I think my expression was to add the support for the Black Cat alignment. That's my preference. Rohm: Okay. Good. I think we have beat that one up pretty good. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-018 and PP 06-016. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-018 and PP 06-016. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Good. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I believe I could be prepared to make a motion, but I did need clarification on one thing. On Exhibit B of the staff report, conditions of approval, paragraph 1.1.2, the applicant had a comment about one of the bullet points -- Borup: Third. Zaremba: -- and I missed which bullet point it was. Okay. So, my second question is -- is the staff acceptable to -- what, were we deleting that -- Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, that's up to you. Yeah, it's in the staff report. They have removed three other lots, so their -- that's one aspect of it and you made your stance on that pretty clear, so that's at your discretion. I can sleep tonight. Zaremba: Oh, that's the one I was talking about. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 4, 2006 Page 28 of 84 Hood: Yes. That's the lot that's adjacent to the park. Zaremba: We can delete that one. Hood: I would ask, since I have the floor real quick, the 1.1.3 also talks about that Lot 3, Block 1. Zaremba: Uh-huh. Hood: You have a couple of options, I guess, and although the applicant said they aren't going to put those lots back, we either need to reference the revised plat date and remove that condition or leave that condition and leave -- you know, and leave the old plat date. So, it's up to you. The new plat date, the revised plat, is dated 4/19/06. So, if you remove condition 1.1.3, I would just ask that you change 1.1.1 and reference the revised plat date of April 19th, 2006, so -- which is the plat we have been talking about tonight, so -- Zaremba: All right. Thank you. In that case Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move -- let's see. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number AZ 06-018 and PP 06- 016, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 20, 2006, with the following modifications: On page nine, the fourth bullet on that page discusses options for the pathway and I would offer that this Commission prefers the alignment that would connect to Black Cat as shown on the applicant's plat. On Exhibit B, conditions of approval, paragraph 1.1.1 references the preliminary plat dated February 8th, 2006. I would say as revised dated April 19th, 2006. Under 1.1.2 I would, then, delete the third bullet, which says incorporate Lot 3, Block 1, et cetera. Paragraph 1.1.3 I would leave as is, but comment that the applicant has satisfied this condition. Hood: Mr. Chair. Maker of the motion. That Lot 3, Block 1, is still in that condition, so they haven't -- Zaremba: Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. If we reference the correct plat above, we can just delete this one. Hood: Correct. Zaremba: Okay. So, we will delete 1.1.3. On page two of Exhibit B I would add a paragraph 1.1.14, that the applicant has agreed to limit to one story, plus a bonus room with no south facing windows, on three lots -- and I missed the lot numbers. Block 3 -- Hood: Lots 5 through 7. Meridian Planning'" Zoning May 4, 2006 Page 29 of 84 Zaremba: Five, six, and seven on Block 3. And on, again, Exhibit B, under the public works comments, I would add a paragraph 2.27 that says in the roundabout there shall be no man holes and if the sewer runs under the roundabout there should be no trees. End of motion. Moe: 1.1.9 in regards to fencing. Did you want to -- Zaremba: Oh, yes. Moe: -- make that vinyl? Zaremba: 1.1.9 add the word vinyl to that. Yeah. Moe: I will second that. Zaremba: End of motion. There may be discussion. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded -- Cole: Mr. Chairman? Sorry. Rohm: Mr. Cole. Cole: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, you might also add, if you would, please, no water valves in the roundabout as well. Thank you. Zaremba: To my knowledge -- Borup: If there is no water lines, how can there be valves? Cole: Water valves. Zaremba: You mean sprinkler water valves or sewer -- Cole: Main line water valves. They can route around the roundabout or they can run underneath it with no trees in it. However, generally, at intersections there is valves on the T's, the crossings that go through there, and when they are in those roundabouts they tend to become overgrown and un-findable and it makes it hard to shut them down during emergency situations. We don't have it in ordinance yet, but at the plat we require that no water valves are allowed in there, so they have to, actually, route the water main around the roundabout. Zaremba: Okay. So, I would add to paragraph 2.27, in addition to what I already said, that within the round there shall be no water valves. . Meridian Planning'" Zoniny May 4, 2006 Page 30 of 84 Moe: Second. Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-018 and PP 06-016, to include all staff comments as amended by this motion. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank you all for your contribution. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Hood: Mr. Chair, point of clarification -- a couple for the maker of the motion. The applicant did ask for bonus rooms on those single-story -- as long as there aren't any windows on the south, is that -- Rohm: He put that in the motion. Hood: That was in the motion? Zaremba: I did include that. The bonus rooms with no south facing windows. Hood: Okay. I'm sorry, I missed that. I'm sorry. And, then, I have one more clarification. The fourth bullet on page nine, the intent, I think, is there. It's clear -- at least I want to go on the record, make sure that we are all clear, just what is on the applicant's property is what they are responsible for constructing as far as the pathway; correct? Zaremba: Yes. Hood: Because the four different options in the bullet point say you need to construct it, basically, from your point out to Black Cat Road. So, I will modify that fourth bullet point and put the preferred language that it goes through Black Cat, but that this applicant is not required to construct it all the way to Black Cat. Zaremba: That's agreed. Yes. Hood: Thank you. Rohm: At this time -- typically we wait until 9:00 o'clock, but this seems like a pretty good place to take a break. We will reconvene at 8:45. (Recess.) Item 9: Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: AZ 06-019 Annexation and Zoning of 10.59 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Southwick Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC - 1255 West Ustick Road: