Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 1, 2006 P&Z Minutes .". i ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 5 of 64 submitting it as Bentley Court, but I don't know -- we are still in process of getting that done. But it will be resolved. Part of the issue of that is going to be what street numbers are going to be for this Martin property and also the two properties to the south, if they are going to get renumbered because of the fire safety issues. So, we are just working that out with Ada County. And I stand for questions. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of the applicant? You did a good job. Thanks very much. And, Marvin, did you want to speak as well or just -- from the audience he said that Kathy's spoke for him. So, thank you. Discussion? Anybody else would -- is there anybody that would like to speak to this issue? Seeing none -- Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I move that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-023. Zaremba: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-023. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: After considering staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number AZ 06-023 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 1 st, 2006. End of motion. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-023. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from April 6, 2006: AZ 06-015 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 182.60 acres to R-8 (Medium Density Residential) (168.23 acres) , TN-R (Traditional Neighborhood-Residential) (10.42 acres) and C-N (Neighborhood Business) (3.94 acres) for Tanana Valley Subdivision (f.k.a. - Lookout Ridge Subidivision) by Farwest, LLC - southeast corner of Meridian Road and Victory Road: f', ::'!' ,. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 6 of 64 Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from April 6, 2006: PP 06-013 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 548 single family residential lots, 1 commercial lot, 1 school lot and 20 common lots on 182.60 acres in a proposed R-8, TN-R and C-N zones for Tanana Valley Subdivision (f.k.a. - Lookout Ridge Subdivision) by Farwest, LLC - southeast corner of Meridian Road and Victory Road: Rohm: Well, that went rather quickly. At this time I'd like to reopen the continued Public Hearing from April 6th of 2006 of AZ 06-015 and PP 06-013. Both of these items relating to -- I can't say it. Zaremba: It rhymes with banana. Newton-Huckabay: Tanana. Rohm: Tanana. There you go. Tanana Valley Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. That's been an ongoing thing in our office, too, and everyone pronounces is a little bit different. I'll call it Tanana, how about that? So, this one is continued from the previous hearing. There was not a staff report prepared for this item. This is a new report, so I will give you a presentation. It's a little bit bigger than the previous application. So, probably spend a little bit more time on this one. It is 182.6 acres, as shown on the map. There are a couple of out parcels that I will just call out real quick. There is one along here on Victory Road. This is the existing grange hall. It's R-1, as you can see, in Ada County. This is Meridian Road. There is also an out parcel along Meridian Road that is not part of the subject application. so these two out parcels -- and I'll talk about those here a little bit more in depth in just a second. I'll also point out on this vicinity map there is an existing private lane, Rumple Lane, that goes back and services some homes back in here. This is the recently approved Reflection Ridge Subdivision. The applicant has recently acquired that 20 or 30 foot property there. I think it came out to about three acres -- three or four acres, roughly, that is a part of this application today and they are going to be building a public street, so taking where the existing private lane is and tying up -- aligning with the existing -- the name is escaping me now. On the other side of Meridian Road. So, it will be a four legged intersection in that location. So, the request is for three zones. A large portion of it is R-8. In fact, 168 acres is for the R-8 zone, medium density residential. There is a TN~R district as well. I don't have a Comprehensive Plan map in the presentation, but this is a neighborhood center -- mixed use neighborhood center on the Comprehensive Plan future land use map. They do have a traditional neighborhood residential district and a commercial district that will -- they will become more evident as we look at the plat here in just a minute. Here is the aerial shot. There are some existing homes. This is a large home that sits up on a hill on this site. It is part of the subject application. The out parcels also have homes on them, but, again, they aren't part of this application. There are recently approved Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 7 of 64 subdivisions pretty much surrounding this, except for the south. There is the storage units -- the storage coups, chicken coups, that go down to Victory Road, which would be approximately here. And, then, there is a pit -- I'm not quite sure if it's in full operation now or not, what the status of that is. And, then, again, Reflection Ridge is this area here. Sicily Subdivision -- and, again, these aren't showing up, but Sicily Subdivision was here and, then, Tuscany and Roseleaf and -- and I can't remember the name of the other subdivision there. But, anyways, just to point out that this area is rapidly becoming part of the city and historically has been farmed. This slide is an overview. There is not lot and block numbers, but because of the sheer volume and size of this project, I thought this was probably a better visual for the Commission and the public to look at. They do have -- I guess just a couple of things to point out. There is one public street access to Victory Road into the subdivision, that's a collector down to approximately this location and, then, local streets internally. The fire department did have concerns about secondary access. I did speak with the applicant early this week, they -- I saw a rendition, anyway, that shows an emergency access approximately in this location. So, grass creet or something to that effect, because there are more than 50 homes that will be on this single access. So, it would allow the fire department to get into this northwest portion of the development, a secondary means should this one become blocked. As I mentioned earlier, they will be constructing another public street down in this location. I believe they are going to add another public street somewhere here right -- as submitted there is only one that comes into the project and, then, these houses front on this local street. I believe their traffic study came back and they think that it will disperse the traffic a little bit better if they have another access point to the public street out to Meridian Road. There is also a school site within this project in this location. My understanding is that it's an alternative type school. The applicant may be able to provide more details on that, but it's somewhere in the neighborhood of four acres, something like that. So, it's not your traditional elementary, middle school, high school site, but it is, I believe, what the Meridian School District needs for one of their alternative schools. And, then, this is the area that's zoned TN-R, as previously mentioned. There are some -- some smaller lots and alley-load lots in this area and, then, this is your large commercial lot, just one large lot at this point in time. There are some specific provisions about that lot. The applicant has not provided any elevations or doesn't really have a plan for that at this time. So, that will be back before the Commission at some future date when more details are available. And, then, the rest of the subdivision is a pretty -- not that that's a bad thing, but it's a pretty standard R-8 subdivision with all the lot sizes and frontages conforming to the R-8 subdivision. Now, I say that -- there is quite a variety in housing and lot sizes. They range from eight to 15 and, then, the existing home lot is quite large. I don't recall off the top of my head exactly how much they are retaining there, but that is a large lot as well. They are extending the stub street from Reflection Ridge that will tie in, so access to Reflection Ridge can also be provided from the new road out to Meridian Road. And, then, there is another stub street that was also provided from Reflection Ridge in this location. What is not showing on this plan is Sicily Subdivision. There is a stub street to the southern boundary of this project, the northern boundary of the Sicily project, that they will also be tying in with, as well as further to the east in Roseleaf at all subdivisions. Let's see. I think what I will do now is just run through some of the applicant's concerns. They did Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 8 of 64 submit a letter in the form of an e-mail. I'm not quite sure if the clerk got it to you all, but I hope you have it. It's dated May 31 st. Yesterday. There are a couple of changes that I'm going to run through and if I skip anything, the applicant is here this evening and he can run back over some that he didn't think that I spent enough time on or may have missed. The first one is in section ten and it has to do with the out parcel on Meridian Road. It's a big concern of staff when there are out parcels that you get the infrastructure for the general public and disconnects and sidewalks and landscape buffers and things like that are always a concern of staff. So, in the development agreement section, the annexation section of the staff report, I did include some discussion about constructing sidewalks adjacent to that property. That way you have a continuous sidewalk for that whole half mile from Victory Road to the southern boundary of this project. I think in theory the applicant is in agreement with that. However, there are some things that are outside of their control, such as getting -- acquiring an easement from that property owner to place that sidewalk -- or it, actually, is a ten foot wide pathway on that property or within ITD's right of way. I have heard from him, too, that there is some resistance from ITD to allow them to construct it within the existing right of way, which is what ACHD's requiring for this out parcel here. They have 25 feet prescriptively there and so will be a continuous sidewalk along Victory Road, either in its ideal location or may be constrained and have to kind of cruise up to within that existing 25 foot wide easement. But at least it will be a pedestrian friendly way to get from A to B along Victory Road. So, I guess I would ask in section ten on -- on page nine, that we do need to change that language to reflect, you know, an out for them, essentially, that if they aren't able to acquire said easement from -- I think the Mussels own that property -- from either the Mussels or ITD, that they are not required to construct that sidewalk. But I do want them to make a good faith effort to try to -- to try to get a continuous sidewalk there. So, just to call that out for -- to the Commission's attention. I'm now going to skip ahead to Exhibit B of the staff report. Baird: Mr. Chair? Pardon my interruption, but Caleb mentioned an e-mail that I don't think anybody has in front of them up here. I think it's important that we have that, so that they have reviewed it for the record. Hood: I apologize. Baird: So, I'll check with the clerk and we will try to get that -- Hood: I'm sorry, I should have checked with you to make sure you did all have it. I started to ask you assuming that you did. I know Tara did get it, so I just assumed that it would be in front of you this evening. I may hold off for a minute, I guess, and see if she can't get that for you. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. ! Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 9 of 64 Moe: While we are waiting, Caleb, could you maybe give some verbiage in regards to that first item you discussed? Hood: Yeah. And that -- Mr. Chair, Commissioner Moe, that will become a little more evident when you see the letter. The applicant has actually proposed some language there. It says I agree to construct a pathway across the out parcel provided the owner will allow the construction. If a construction easement is not allowed by the owner, I will be able to construct a path -- you know, something to that effect. I think there is some things here that you may be able to change an I to the applicant or something like that and formulate some -- I am just going to press forward, I think, and there is, really, not a whole lot that the applicant -- not to put words in their mouth, but not a whole lot of issues with this staff report. Borup: Maybe while we are still on that same -- are we going to come back to that, the wording of that when we see the other? When we see the e-mail. Or was that -- was that wording pretty much what we are talking about? I'd like to strengthen that a little bit. I don't know -- I mean I think the concept is fine, but does that mean they can just verbally say, well, I couldn't get approval and so it's okay? If that's the case, I'd like to tighten that up a little and actually requiring a written refusal, if that's what it's going to be. Hood: I think that makes some sense and that's -- it's kind of a fine line to walk, too. I mean you don't really -- at least from my perspective is it a make or break deal, is it not in the best interest of the city if that pathway is not there? I didn't feel, you know, that it's a life safety issue necessarily, but I think you could make that finding, too, to say, hey, this is an out parcel and it -- so. it's a little bit odd for me to even include that as a development agreement provision without the applicant volunteering that. It is off site and so I -- Borup: We can talk to him when he comes up. Hood: Yeah. Borup: Okay. Hood: So, if the Commission's okay, I'll just continue on and we can jump back. Maybe when the applicant is up there he can run through these again or highlight them again or some language, but I think, again, there is, really, not a lot to discuss. For a project this big is it pretty clean, so -- in Exhibit B of the staff report -- and this is pretty easy, because the applicant in their e-mail basically just printed off the conditions and comments in the margin regarding the conditions. So, you can follow along pretty well with just the staff report Exhibit B. And condition 1.1.2 has to do with the landscape plan. And the third bullet on there talks about the 20 foot wide buffer along their commercial lot. So, per the UDC a landscape buffer is required between commercial and residential uses and so that landscape buffer here -- what the applicant wanted clarification on and staff is in agreement with is that that landscape buffer does not need ! Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 10 of 64 to be constructed until commercial starts to be constructed in there. So, until you -- and with that first certificate of zoning compliance or building permit that's issued out there, that landscape buffer does need to be in before occupancy of that building can occur. So, we are okay with making that change. I would ask the Commission to make that change. Going back up, I guess, to the first bullet, it talks about a 25 foot wide street buffer along the entire length of Victory Road. I'll let the applicant speak to this a little bit more. It has to do primarily with -- adjacent to the school lot and there is some issues with the planting landscaping in there and, then, who is responsible for maintenance of that. Right now it would be maybe the homeowners association in putting in a partial sprinkler system and there is some logistics to that, I guess, but I will let -- let him explain a little bit more in depth. So, that's condition 1.1.2. And, then, 1.1.7 has to do with access to that commercial lot. There is nothing shown, as you can see, on this landscape plan. There are no curb cuts shown anywhere. So, access right now isn't defined. As mentioned earlier in that meeting when the applicant came in this week he had a plan that showed just access points in alignment with the public streets and that should be fine, I guess, but the intent was that access not be to Victory Road, that it go out to the -- to the residential collector there. And I guess that would be the comment that -- or clarification and, then, again, this is in the margin when you see this e-mail -- hopefully Tara comes back with it -- that Lot 2, Block 1, shall be allowed access to the local commercial street and not Victory Road. So, that would just be a clarification on 1.1.7. I think that that's, actually, for the planning department, that's -- those are the only concerns that they had that are noted in the staff report or the response to the staff report. There are also a couple of Public Works comments that I'll let Mike handle here in just a second to address and I think there were a couple of police -- yeah, the police department had a couple of comments that really quickly I wanted to address. The first one had to do with the emergency access and, again, that has been complied with with the revised plat. Now, I don't have copies of that for you. I think there may be one in the presentation from the applicant this evening that he'll show you that he's complied with that condition. For emergency access to Victory Road. And I don't know that I'll make a comment on 4.2. The police department has some concerns about some of the flag lots and not being able to see into those flag lots. But I liken it to a cul-de-sac lot not unlike these where, you know, this lot's going to be hard to patrol the back side of these lots to make sure that burglars don't, you know, get in there. There is some concern there, I just don't know what a solution is to some of those concerns by the police department. So, just I'd call those out to your attention and I think I'll let Mike take it from here. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report as modified in this presentation and I'll let Mike continue and if you have any questions for me -- I think everyone got the response, so I'm sorry that I didn't wait for that or touch base with the clerk to make sure you had copies of it. Rohm: No. That's fine. Cole: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The conditions that the applicant had with Public Works comments -- the first was on 2.5. I had a conversation with the applicant yesterday or the day before. He had indicated he didn't want to install the frontage main -- water main in Meridian Road as required in the condition. After further Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 11 of 64 modeling of this with the city engineer, we determined that we could not find a way to route it through the site that would provide adequate fire protection for the -- not just for this site, but for the city in general for a future water system and I explained to them that we are going to need that either in the frontage of Meridian Road or right along the frontage, if you wanted to carve a common lot out of his property fronting Meridian Road. He indicated that we would work that out at some future point. So, I believe he is in agreement with that condition. 2.6 required a flushing station. That's a new condition we have you have probably never seen before. We have a number of blow offs in the city, but they are not in convenient locations. With the Ridenbaugh canal here, a flushing system would be a large eight inch blow off, essentially, for when the water department -- our water department goes out, does their annual flushing, they could move a huge large volume of water rapidly and have a nice discharge point, an empty canal. His only concern was that we go through the permitting with Nampa- Meridian to make sure that they allow that. We are in agreement with that. We just asked him to provide the easements and install it with this main as he comes through. His other concern was on 2.8 -- and I don't think he had a concern as much as just he needed some clarification. This -- like Reflection Ridge, there is some very high ground on this property and it will be two separate pressure zones. It will actually be creating a new pressure zone, a high zone. For redundancy we need two separate feeds for that. One feed isn't adequate, we need two feeds. So, feeding through a pressure reducer vault -- pressure reducing vault would be the first source and the second would have to be a new well lot. Whether that comes from the Tanana -- na Valley Subdivision or to Reflection to the south, it really doesn't matter one way or another, whoever gets their first and wants to plat in that upper zone is going to have to donate to us a well to get that going. I further explained it and I believe he is fine with that condition as well. So, the conditions that he had with us I believe -- they just need to stand as written, as -- after we talked about it and -- but I'll let him agree to that fully. But that was my understanding. And I would stand for any questions. Rohm: Thank you, Mike. Any questions of staff? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I do have a question for Mr. Cole. And I could be wrong, but my recollection -- if this is Reflection Ridge, when we were discussing that, wasn't their property low enough that it -- some of it was in the flood zone and does the topography change enough before we get to this or am I not remembering correctly? I see no mention of a flood zone in this project. Cole: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, there is some low -- there is some low topography and hydropography on the Reflection Ridge, but there is no -- no flood zone associated with it. There is a high and low pressure zone on the water system. There is a little bit of a high ground water issue at the very low part where they put their __ most of their common open space, but no flood plain associated. It's a delivery canal. Generally we don't see flood plains associated with those. Zaremba: All right. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 12 of 64 Hood: Mr. Chair, if I may, I just thought of a few more things, a project this big, and there is a couple of other things I want to just point out really quickly and the applicant may touch on these, too. I did want to -- you mentioned Reflection Ridge. They did -- they are going to be constructing a ten foot wide multi-use pathway along the Ridenbaugh as well and the applicant is proposing to pick that up at their boundary and shoot that out to Meridian Road. So, I did want to point that out, that that's a nice amenity in this project. They are also providing detached sidewalks with trees along the internal streets. So, that's a nice amenity as well. It gives a real nice look to the neighborhood as you drive through. A couple other comments in the staff report. Again, back to this out parcel. As submitted, this stub street stops just short of access to this project, so didn't want to get a full blown street to this property, so access in the future to Meridian Road can go away and, in fact, it kind of comes up like this and they have got a long driveway back into this home. But, anyways, that can go away. When this house gets annexed and they potentially subdivide it into a few more lots, access can be provided internally, rather than direct access to the state highway. Same goes with this out parcel here, that the applicant needs to provide a stub street to this parcel, so their direct access to Victory Road, also an arterial street, is provided internally and not direct lot access. So, I just wanted to point those things out and sorry I missed it the first time around, but -- Rohm: Thanks, Caleb. Any other questions of staff? Not seeing any, would the applicant like to come forward, please? Martin: Members of the Commission, I'm Justin Martin with Farwest. My address is 5606 North Ten Mile Road here in Meridian. Our subdivision's name is Tanana and, yeah, it's really difficult. It seems the last few we have had have been that way. Don't do it on purpose I don't think. I have a short presentation on a PowerPoint just to talk about some of the amenities and the breakdown of the subdivision. The first picture here shows the different groupings of price points or lot sizes that we have in our project. We felt it was important to break up the lot sizes and group them to have a more diverse subdivision in general, a more diverse population, maybe, in the subdivision itself. If you'd go onto the next page. Basically, there is 225 70 to 80 foot wide lots, 13760 to 70 foot wide lots,105 50 to 60 foot wide lots, and, then, 77 lots that are smaller, 30 to 40 feet wide. They are in that Traditional Neighborhood Residential Zone that was shown on the Comprehensive Plan. This is a breakdown of how the numbers on the plat kind of turn out. We have 170 -- almost 178 acres. I think the difference between the 180 something that was mentioned earlier was right of way that's being annexed that wasn't annexed prior. Anyway, roughly 178 acres. We are proposing an alternative school site. Wendell Bigham said that that needs to be somewhere around four to five acres. The one we are proposing on the original layout was 4.8 acres. There is a commercial lot on there to come back in front of you later. And 548 single family residences. The single family lot minimum size is 3,200 square feet. The minimum house size is 1 ,400 square feet. The avenue lot size is 8,750 square feet and our residential density is 3.09. Definitely it's a low end of the plan -- the planned density for the area. Traditional neighborhood residential can have up 15 lots per acre and I think on that section we have 7.7 lots per acre. And R-8, obviously, can Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 13 of 64 have up to eight. And overall we are at 3.09. Some of the amenities in the project are the open space. In the project there is roughly 25 acres of open -- open common lots. That's almost 14 percent. As defined by the city code, we have about 11 percent of the total space as usable open space, as opposed to the five percent required by the code as well. On Linder Road we provided a buffer area of 60 feet in width and the requirement of the city was 25 feet. On Meridian Road we have installed a buffer that is 60 feet wide as well and the requirement there was 35 feet. We kind of carried that theme through. In our last couple projects we have tried to do a little bit better than was required each time. And through our collector way system as well we try and hold 45 foot buffers off to the side of the collector ways and 20 foot -- 20 to 25 foot wide islands in the middle of the road. Again, quite a bit above the minimums required by the city. We are going to also install -- or we will be installing two playground equipments -- pieces of playground equipment in separate locations in the project. We will have a neighborhood pool. I can't tell you today that we are a hundred percent sure where that's going to go, but we will have one, you know, we are willing to put that on record and say that we will install a neighborhood pool. Our fencing that we will put in won't be just standard fencing, standard dog ear, we will use some sort of an upgraded fencing, such as the one shown here, with overlap boards and kind of picture framed on the top with some larger posts and/or wrought iron fencing in the project to try and keep it a little bit nicer than standard. And like was mentioned earlier, we do plan on putting in the offset sidewalks in our projects. We try and do that in all of our projects we do in Meridian. We will have six foot -- six foot parkways lined with streets -- lined with trees and grass. We feel that the view from the road adds quit a bit of curb appeal by having those trees in there. We also feel that you have a safer feeling when you're on the sidewalk with that space between the road and the sidewalk like that. The pathways and connectivity through the project -- east-west along the Ridenbaugh canal, cutting through the middle of the project, we will -- such as mentioned earlier, a ten foot pathway connecting to the Reflection Ridge pathway. Down Meridian Road we planned out a ten foot pathway as well. The other areas that are just darker will be five foot sidewalk. Some of the areas that cut through the -- the neighborhood -- or through the lot and blocks are -- are five foot pathways in 15 foot common areas. Five of those were requested by the staff. We definitely thought that it was a good idea to put them in and we put them in the locations that we were asked. So, we feel the connectivity and the pathway system in the project will be an amenity as well. We do have the school site in the project. Our original plan, the old version in the picture, showed a stub street out to Victory Road. One of the problems with the stub street was it didn't quite align with Mesa Way to the north. We were only able to build a portion of a road. The rest of it would be on the grange's shoulders when they redeveloped. So, we are requesting to delete that access -- the eastern most access on Victory Road. Wendell Bigham with the school district stated that there is not a need for the school site to have that. We have updated our traffic study and they have confirmed that there is not a need for that access. ACHD has approved the removal of that access or that stub road. The grange has -- the grange is a small lot just to the east of all of that in the picture. It's not shown very well in the picture, but it's a fairly small lot and they do have a stub to the east from Tuscany, as well as they will have a stub on their west boundary from us. By adding a road from our stub to Victory Road, we are going to take up a lot of their future space Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 14 of 64 and we feel it's quite the burden on such a small lot for future redevelopment. This is Harris Street, it's our connection to Meridian Road. The old version didn't have the Rumple Lane, which is roughly 26 feet wide by 1,200 feet long. It wasn't on our original submittal. We did just obtain that section of land and by doing that it helped us align with Harris Street across Meridian Road. Based on our traffic study and the comments from ACHD, we added -- we made two stub streets to the north into our -- the Tanana project and did connect to Reflection Ridge at the end of that -- that Harris Street as well. So, we'd request that this new design is a better way and we'd hope we get this version approved. Also in that picture -- and you don't need to go back, Also in that picture there is -- there was a connection to the out parcel and the staff had asked us to connect -- make sure there was better solid connection there of 50 feet right of way for future development. We did do that. The traffic flows in the project -- I throw this page in there just to show that it has the school lot, changed the connection to Victory Road, and it has the Harris Street connection to Meridian Road changes on it and it shows that all of our internal local streets that have homes facing them are under the 1 ,000 trip per day requirement. I just put that in there to show that I guess we have updated the traffic study with the requested changes we have asked for as well. That's it for the Powerpoint version. I did want to go back through a few of the comments that the staff had made related to the staff report. On the ten foot pathway on Meridian Road, I am more than willing to build that pathway across the out parcel. I don't know that I can get permission to do that. The topo at that site, the right of way is a slope of one to -. maybe a two to one slope. I do have a picture that -- if we could put it on an overhead later, maybe, if you need to see it. It's roughly 30 feet high from Meridian Road at that point and the entire section of right of way, which maybe I could get ITD to let me go into, is basically a two-to-one slope I'm not sure how I could construct around. I'm more than willing to construct across the property if I can get the easement. Worst case scenario, I guess, would be that -- if I can't get permission to do that, I would be willing to bond for it, so that it could be constructed at a later date, if an agreement between the city and that property owner was ever worked out. ACHD does have us do that sort of thing now and -- in the way of give a bond for a future improvement that we weren't able to get accomplished at this time. Borup: Is that correct, that's Mr. Mussell that owns that property? Martin: That is right. That is correct. And I apologize just by -- I just haven't had the conversation with him. I haven't met with him. Dave McKinnon took me out there a couple months back, maybe, and I don't believe this issue came up at that point and I haven't had the time to go back and have a conversation with him again, but I do plan to and I will before the next hearing. Borup: Well, I for one, would be interested to know if he refuses. Martin: Yeah. I would imagine he's going to be as helpful as possible. He may have some constraints up there that I don't know of at this point, but, definitely when I go meet with him I could probably see those and be clearer on them the next time. The landscaping -. the Planning and Zoning -- the site specific requirements in the Planning Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 15 of 64 and Zoning section of that, the landscape plan, the first bullet under the landscape plan section was requesting us on Victory Road to install the landscape buffer across the northern boundary of the school lot. In dealing with Wendell Bigham, he had -- we had spoken about that and how to deal with it. We do plan on building a sidewalk across that area, as well as the out parcel on Victory Road and also, actually, connecting over to Tuscany across the grange parcel if we can get permission to do that and, if not, we will go in the right of way of ACHD. That's what ACHD requested and we agreed to. As far as the school lot landscape buffer, we would propose that we put it in a 25 foot easement at this time and when the school develops build that area then. And the reason being is that the school is going to have primarily grass besides their building out there as well. They would be able to maintain it on the same day they maintain their school lawns. The sprinkling irrigation system would be, you know, one and the same. They would be able to repair that if it broke, as opposed to if the northern 25 foot had a leak on it or south of 25 foot line had a leak. I'm picturing these areas running together, their lot and our 25 foot buffer I guess is where I'm at and Wendell Bigham was definitely -- definitely in favor of having the system as a separate system on his own. So, it is a request that that's -- that's my preference. That's probably enough said on that issue. The next issue I had was -- was taken care of by staff, basically, that the commercial lot could build the landscape buffer on the west side of that lot at the time of construction of the lot and re-approval at the -- at the body. Access to Lot 2.1, which is that commercial lot, we do have in a new drawing of the layout, including a bunch or the staff changes in request of pathways and stub street changes. On that layout it will show the connection from those two existing streets. I'll just go over and grab a plat for a second. Exactly right, the two crossing streets that cross there, that was -- we just wanted to align those. We thought it was the only place that actually made sense with the islands there. We realize the city doesn't want to have an access or I should say ACHD for sure wouldn't want to have an access out to Victory Road right next to our collector way. The only two areas that made sense visually looking at it for us would be at those streets that are existing, just align with them. So, I would request that we could make that change. Extending stub streets. I had a note on there, but, basically, we are definitely going to conform with what the staff had requested on our stub streets. That was item 1.1.11 was extending stub streets and we did revise the plat to meet that requirement. I was okay with everything else the staff had to say on the Planning and Zoning -- or the planning department section. As far as Public Works, I did talk with Mike about the 12 inch water line in Meridian Road. It's definitely a headache to deal in the ITD right of way and the large road. He was nice enough to come up with an option that we could put a common area on our frontage somewhere, a separate area for a water line, pull it down that, and I like that. If we could keep -- if we could just insert the wording that I have the option to do that or that Public Works would work with me on that, I'm okay with that wording. The flush station he explained perfectly. I'm happy to install those. The well lot and booster station, he explained perfectly. Again, I don't need to go into anymore detail on that. I met with Joe Silva at the fire department. His major concern was a 50 foot access out to Victory Road for emergency fire access. We did install that and -- let me grab a plat real quick. This is the corner of Meridian Road and Victory. This is the 50 foot access we put to this area. The way we had laid this out originally it did only have one access point from here and it made sense that it Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 16 of 64 needed a secondary access. We didn't want to make this a public access, so we are either going to install a gate in there with a knox box lock system, which is what the fire department requested when I spoke with them and I said I would do the 50 foot access, 28 foot inside, and 48 foot outside radiuses, a 20 foot paved path in the middle, capable of carrying their fire truck, provided the police had the similar comment. I needed to talk with them. And so when I did go talk with Lieutenant Stowe at the police department he requested that there be no knox lock box system and so, basically, is what I'm saying is I will definitely install the pathway, I'll install the emergency access, and they both agreed they are going to talk and decide what we need in there, whether it's removal bollards, knock down or layover type bollards, or whether it's a formal gate system in there. We will have enough room in that area to have bicycle paths on the outside edges of that, outside of the 20 foot access if there is a gate to go out around it, so there is better connectivity as well. The last issue was 4.2 on the police department's report. They have concerns about the flag lot and when I talked with him I asked if they had seen any good examples that I could go look at to come up with a plan on how -- you know, how we could model those after something that does work, and, basically, there isn't anything that he liked very well and so I can't do a lot about it. I do think that the flag lots are an important piece of a layout. I think they work well in the community. We did end up changing Lot 19 because of a stub road to the out parcel on Victory Road. So, one of the flag lots that he didn't like did get straightened out on our new plat and I do have that here as well. The old plat there was this turn down like this and so we have now added access to this lot, so it straightened these out more like a standard version. He wasn't so concerned about this one, he knew that I couldn't do much about it when we spoke about it. We talked about this lot here, this is on a flag lot, and we talked about the possibility of doing some different fencing along there. I didn't make any guarantees. We just basically talked about it and was trying to get ideas for the future, when I layout a subdivision I know I need to talk to them first, as opposed to waiting for comment. It was a fairly new thing for me to get comments from the police department in much detail and so I thought that was a good thing in general. Last of all, due to some of the changes we have lost a lot or two in the layout. I would still request that we are proposing a 548 lot subdivision and if there is a way without losing that 11 percent open space that -- that we have said we will provide in the project, I would like the permission or the ability to add a lot or two back in, obviously, not taking away from the common space that we have guaranteed we would give and also not -- just not taking away from the common space. I guess you know what I'm getting at, I guess. I'll stand for any questions. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of this application? Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Just a point you just made. You brought in a revised preliminary plat for this evening and now you're also now talking that you want to add more lots into this thing. Are you looking for this thing to be continued and whatnot? Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 17 of 64 Martin: I am not. I am definitely not. That's a really good point. This layout that I brought in this evening has the changes that the staff has asked for and it has 547 lots and if it meant coming back with a new plat that that -- there is no doubt I'm happy with the plat I have in front of you. Moe: Glad to hear that. Thank you. Martin: Thank you. Rohm: Any of questions of this applicant? Borup: Mr. Chairman, this is probably not really that pertinent, but on -- I was going back to the chart you gave on average lot sizes and et cetera. I'm assuming that included that one large lot in there on those -- on those averages. Martin: That's correct. Borup: So, that kind of skews a lot of that with that one on there. I didn't know if you had ever calculated with the lot there excluded. Martin: That's a good question. That lot is 6.93 acres. Borup: Okay. Martin: And I would -- I shouldn't even guess I guess at how much that did skew that number. You're right. Next time I will come in with that separated. Borup: But there are some -- still some very nice size lots and I do like the pathways and the other amenities there. The other thing I did have a question on -- you have -- and mainly because you have made a point mentioning the school site several times. I was rather disappointed that we did not have any type of input from the school district at all and it almost makes you feel like they don't care. I don't know. But in my mind for this to be any type of a plus or amenity to the project, I would assume there was some type of can concession or something given to the school district, otherwise, it's just selling property that, really, wouldn't affect my attitude about the subject division in a positive way if it was just sold. Martin: Mr. orup, I did speak with Wendell today. Wendell said he was out of town. He called me from his cell phone and I was just talking to him in general about the changes to the school lot. I told him there was a hearing tonight and he said that the lot could change fairly substantially and they would still be able to use it, is what he said back to me. And so it's not your standard version, like the elementary schools or other school sites that we have worked on in the past, it's when he has a lot more flexibility in the shape and design of. We -- I guess the benefit for the school in this scenario is that we have sold it to them at original cost and everybody knows how the land values have Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 18 of 64 been going as of recently and included in that original cost would be the ability for us to bring the services to it, plat the lot, and bring all the services needed to that lot and make it a buildable lot, provide the power needed, the gas needed, the streets, things like that. Borup: That was what I was hoping for. Martin: And we haven't finalized that yet, but that is our hand shake agreement and we do have the first draft of the contract at our office and I didn't see many changes on it and we are working with Mark Freeman on that. Borup: That's great. You're to be commended for that. And one of the reasons I brought it up is recently at a meeting some of the other -- specifically the parks department mentioned one of the reasons they are paying so much for land or feeling they are going to need to is because the school has been paying way more than they felt was justified and -- Martin: Yeah. I would imagine everyone's -- all the agencies that need to obtain land are -- Borup: Well, when they go to -- yeah. Yeah. If the school district overpays, then, everyone else is stuck with the same thing. Martin: Yeah. Borup: Thank you. Martin: Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would ask one question, since we have talked about the school site and it's the school district that's going to design it I'm sure, but do you anticipate that they would take their access from your internal road or from Victory Road? Martin: They will definitely take the access from the internal subdivision streets. They will not take access to Victory Road. He specifically stated that he did not need that and, then, we had our traffic study updated along with the traffic study on this sort of a school site that he's got out on Locust Grove, we gave that to the engineer when he was doing it as well. And so we have updated showing that almost the alternative school site's traffic is very minimal compared to any of the other school sites. Zaremba: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 19 of 64 Moe: Just one more on that same subject. So -- and have they seen your new design with the cul-de-sac to the east, as opposed to the road going around? Martin: He has not. Wendell has not seen the new design. He did state that it was okay not to have that access going out to Victory Road and we have sent this layout to Ed Daniels at Hummell Architects and we just -- we don't perceive any problems with it. Moe: Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Martin: Thank you. Rohm: Rich Chaney. Chaney: Hello. I'm Richard Chaney. I live at 448 East Observation Drive in Meridian. I'm here representing the Observation Point homeowners association, along with Mert Logue who should be able to get a chance to speak here as well. We were in opposition of the Tanana Subdivision as it currently stands. Our two main concerns are very much interrelated. Dwelling unit density and traffic. I should note that we have a petition here that we will leave with you from a large number of the homeowners in Observation Point and so the information I'm going to give you is -- is in that petition. Basically, Observation Point up here is R-4 zoned and Tanana is primarily R-8 zoned, which in itself is not a major problem, but what's been done here with Tanana is to locate the commercial and the highest density housing directly across from Observation Point. The traffic is a concern, because we have got 548 homes sites here that are served by one primary artery of traffic and, then, another minor traffic artery down here. That's going to generate quite a bit of traffic through here. In Observation we already have a problem with cut-through traffic and high speed traffic. Any cut-through traffic that we get here just exacerbates an existing problem that we are already trying to address with Ada County Highway District. So, these are two very big concerns. In meeting with our homeowners, we have decided that we can withdraw our opposition to Tanana Valley, provided that we get a few remedies to address these concerns. One would be relocating the commercial and the highest density housing over to closer to Meridian Road. It really makes sense, because up here on Meridian Road across Victory we already have Double D, we already have Victory Greens, we already have commercial and higher density. In addition to that, we believe that there should be a main artery for traffic put in here that would attach to Victory Road that would go well with the stop light that's going to be put in at Meridian and Victory. It would bring a lot of this traffic out directly here, reduce the cut through. We would propose that this second major artery be relocated to the east, somewhat offset from Standing Timber Way to reduce any cut-through traffic through Observation. The area between the two entries, as they would be lined out, could utilize this -- this green space. I think that also goes into solving some of the other problems from fire and police about secondary access by making two major arteries along Victory Road for the Tanana traffic. And, then, we would also like to -- in addition to considering Tanana, that we look at additional traffic ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 20 of 64 calming measures for Observation. We have already been petitioning Ada County to get a traffic study done there. So, we would like those improvements in Observation to be put in to further mitigate any additional cut-through traffic that happens as a result of Tanana. And so I believe Mert has quite a few signatures on the petition. They are under many different covers here, but I -- I don't know who I need to give these to, but we have the signatures there, so if there are any questions to our opposition -- I'd also like to make sure that Mert gets a chance to speak. He's also the president of our homeowners association. I'm a director. So, we wanted to both make sure that we were here. Rohm: I assure you everyone will be given an opportunity to speak. You can go ahead and just give me the petition. We will have the clerk make a copy for each Commissioner and -- are there any questions of this individual? Okay. Thank you. Chaney: I guess one final thing. I understand -- and maybe I'm wrong -- that if a petition goes through without appeal, if Tanana Valley doesn't get an appeal, that it can bypass the Meridian City Council, and we would like to make sure that our opposition is noted, so that Tanana Valley actually gets heard by the City Council. And maybe I'm off on my understanding of those rules and procedures. Rohm: Once this body completes hearing this project and makes recommendations, it will, then, go to City Council. Chaney: Okay. So, it will be heard? Rohm: It will be heard again. Chaney: Okay. Very good. Hood: Mr. Chair, if I may, just to clarify, there is a section in the Comprehensive Plan that does say if a developer comes in and does a traditional neighborhood design, we kind of give them as the carrot to do those types of things, you would have the authority. This does not -- it has a lot of those concepts, but it's been determined that this is not consistent with that diagram that's in the Comprehensive Plan. So, this will, in fact, go to the City Council for their approval as well, so -- Chaney: Thank you. Rohm: Okay. Thanks, Caleb. At this time I'd like to have Lorelei Smith come forward, please. L. Smith: Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission, my name is Lorelei Smith and I am at -- from 2830 South Daybreak Road in Observation Point and my comments are, in fact, very similar and reflect the -- the concerns of the homeowners association from Observation Point and the major concerns are with the residential zoning density there, as opposed to the neighborhoods that are directly across the street in both -- both Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 21 of 64 directions. When you go across Victory into Observation Point and over to Meridian Greens, the zoning is for larger lots and across the street on the other side of Meridian they are also zoned for larger lots and our concern is that the very high density of the townhouse size lots are directly so closely associated with the Observation Point Subdivision, as well as the location of the business and commercial lots directly across from there when it -- as pointed out by Mr. Chaney, it would seem a much more logical position to have those -- the business lots placed closer to Meridian Road where there are already business sites in effect. So, it's really just more concurring with the homeowners association assessment, which you have as part of that petition. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Any questions? Thank you. All right. That is the end of the list of people that have signed up, but at this time it's open to anyone else that would like to step forward and provide testimony. Logue: Commissioners, my address is 574 East Observation Drive. Rohm: And what was your name, please? Logue: Mert Logue is my name. My comments, you know, pretty much mirror what the petition is supporting and the thing that -- I can't remember if it's Commissioner Borup or not, but they kind of referred to, you know, considering the large home and 6.9 acres, I guess, that's included in all the calculations to make the density figures come into the smoke screen here a little bit and I'd really like for you guys to take that under serious consideration, because, you know, when we are talking about traffic -- and I know you guys' job isn't traffic, that's ACHD, and I was involved in those meetings when they reviewed it and submitted their study and I understand, you know, what the report's saying with the alignment and just trying to make things flow, but when we are talking this kind of volume and the two arteries that are outsourced and the one going onto Meridian and what's there and what you have to deal with with the traffic that's coming out of Kuna and the loads that's coming on that road, the major arterial is going to be Victory Road and, then, with the density that's there it's just going to compound that and I feel the neighborhood commercial property where it's located is just going to influence that as well. If you go across Meridian Road, what would be the northwest corner there of Victory, there is subdivision going in there as well and I see the TN-C property, I'm assuming that that's what it is, is all pushed to the frontage of Victory Road and they have designed it so there is access, you know, through the subdivision into the commercial property, which makes a lot of sense from my point of view. If I'm a -- if I'm a businessman, I don't -- I don't know that that's really attractive for me to put a business in a commercial property that is tucked in and off Victory Road where I really don't have any access from traffic. So, I really hope you, as a board, take a look at the true picture of what the density really is here and take that into consideration about trying to realign this to make it look a little better. I know that when Observation went in Meridian Greens had a huge objection to Observation, because they wanted to push their density levels up and Observation ended up bringing the density down in order to accommodate those people that live in Meridian Greens. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 22 of 64 Borup: Just-- Logue: And, lastly, I have one letter that I submitted and wanted to make sure that you all had that, I personally wrote, and make sure that's that in the packet. Okay. And that pretty much addresses all my other concerns as far as the speed and the blind hill that's at Observation that should be considered in this as well. Thank you. Rohm; Thank you very much. Borup: Mr. Chairman, just one. Do you happen to know what the density of Observation Point is? Logue: You know, I don't, but I could find out. Borup: Okay. Logue: It's an R-4 zone. Borup: Yeah. I realize that. Logue: Okay. I know that there is -- Borup: And I remember when it went in, the -- Logue: Eighty-four homes is what's in there. Borup: And how many acres? Logue: They are about a third acre lots, if you was to break it down as far as the square footage. Borup: I don't think so. But you -- Logue: Well, I believe the plats -- you know, with Observation, if we brought that down and compared it to what's there, I mean it's obvious that the density -- Borup: I remember when it was before in the public hearings. So, this one -- this subdivision does come out -- I mean as a whole is three units per acre is the density in here. Logue: Yeah. I understand that. But also it's got a nice six point, you know, nine acre lot that's in the middle of that that breaks down into that figure and so that kind of skews it. I mean you got to -- Borup: Well, it skews it on -- in maybe what the average lot size would be with those numbers, but if that lot wasn't vacant there would be more lots in there, too. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 23 of 64 Logue: That's true. But I don't feel that that changes the issue with density, you know. Especially when you take a look at that and compare it to every other subdivision that's around that. I mean they are pushing a lot there to get what they want and I really think it needs to be taken into consideration. Borup: Thank you. Rohm: I have a question for you. Did you folks meet with the developers of this -- Logue: Yeah, we did. I went to the neighborhood meeting and one of the things that-- you know, he explained it all and our concern was the density. I mean we realize it's going to get developed and the developer said that, you know, it's the City of Meridian that wants this. It's not us. I mean that was a statement that was made at the neighborhood meeting that, you know, we -- you know, we are just doing what the city tells us they want and so we don't want to have any objections when we go through, you know, Planning and Zoning or the city, so we are going to do what they want us to do. And that's what we were told at the neighborhood meeting, is that the city wants the neighborhood commercial property and that's where they want it and the city wants the higher, you know, density and they adopted some new policy and I'm unfamiliar with that and that's why -- and that's why it's in the plot. I mean the developer said at that meeting that, you know, it's not us, it's the city, so -- Rohm: Thank you, sir. Borup: And I think what they were referring to -- that is what the Comprehensive Plan shows. Logue: That could be. Rohm: Again, there are no other -- oh, please. Sullivan: My name is Lisa Sullivan. My address is 817 East Glacier Bay Court and I'm in the Glacier Bay Springs Subdivision right across the street -- or right next to Observation Point. And this is my first view of the plan and I'm actually -- we are just in the process -- our homeowners association hasn't been established yet, so we don't have anybody to group that together, but I would agree that the high density housing is - - and the commercial property is not feasible where it's located and I know Observation Point and probably our tract is considering the value of the homes overall, because of the high density, would probably hurt its value. The concern of the traffic, dealing with it already, I agree that it's going to be definitely a problem when you consider most homes now have two cars per household and so you're talking over a thousand, you know, potentially per day coming and going, especially at high traffic times. But my -- I just want to make my comments that I agree that the high density housing needs to be maybe revised of where it's located and also the commercial property. Any questions for me? Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 24 of 64 Rohm: Thank you. Comments? Oh, excuse me. Zaremba: Response. Rohm: Would the applicant like to come back up, please. Martin: Thank you, Members of the Commission. Justin Martin again, 5606 North Ten Mile Road. As far as the density goes, we did try and follow the city's Comp Plan. I know that they put years of work into those things and try and make the plan the city could somewhat follow and we do put a lot of stock -- when we are looking for land or looking to buy a property, looking to acquire property, we pay attention to what the city has planned for in those areas and try and pick in a location that we are not going to go against what the city's looking for. And I did do the math on cutting the 6.93 acre lot out of the project and it would move it up from -- it was 3.09 before, it would move it up to 3.2. So, basically .11 is what it moved it up. Next no change in the way of -- it is a change. Next to no change in the way of what the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning areas that we are in allow for. As far as the cut-through traffic in Observation Point, I did drive through Observation Point to get to Overland Road and it's, basically, a mile and a quarter or so front-on housing winding through Observation Point and, then, through Meridian Greens to get out to Meridian Road. It doesn't make any sense to drive on front-on housing and that kind of a distance and try and hurry yourself along and we all can realize that it's unsafe and I'm sure that people do do it. I guess is what I'm pointing out is that I would hope most people would recognize that that is unsafe and they wouldn't be doing that. Our traffic study did show no cut-through traffic going straight out of our main collector onto Victory Road into the project to the north. If Victory Road -- as things build out there it's going to be difficult to cut across two directions of traffic to get into Observation Point. Anybody that's coming out onto Victory Road at a rush hour time most likely is going to be turning right. If they want to get to Meridian Road they should be going to Harris at the back of the project and going out to Meridian Road that way. ACHD is going to build a signal at Victory and Meridian Road this year. We did give up -- anyway, we gave a piece of the land for that to help move that project along. I think it's good of ACHD to be trying to stay ahead. I know it's difficult. The homeowners at the ACHD hearing commented that most of the backup traffic comes from Meridian and Overland -- the intersection of Meridian and Overland another mile to the north and the traffic backs up so bad that's what encourages people to cut through their subdivision. ACHD's comment was that in 2009 they were going to upgrade the signal at Meridian and Overland and as far as our project further back at Harris Street and Meridian Road, we did agree with ACHD to provide a bond for 50 percent of a future signal there as it becomes warranted or as it becomes available to construct based on alignments and things like that. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Is that -- that isn't the half mile there, is it? Martin: It is. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 25 of 64 Newton-Huckabay: Isn't that the half mile? Martin: Do you mean to Victory Road, the -- Newton-Huckabay: No, the-- Martin: -- the Harris Street? Newton-Huckabay: -- that's half, Harris Street. Martin: It is the half mile. Newton-Huckabay: It is. Okay. Martin: And that's why it was fairly important for us to obtain that small Rumple Lane section is, because Rumple Lane, really, was right on the half mile and we were just withheld from the half mile by a tiny bit and, anyway, all the agencies, obviously, would like to see a half mile access. ITD's standpoint as of recent on the project that we have done has been trying to control their access points to the half mile section to allow for future signalization, instead of -- instead of a bunch of accesses onto the road, they think that it's safer that way. We also have the same theory with our connection to Observation Point. I do understand the theory of not liking the higher density project right across the street from where they are living. I think the longer term theory it would be best to align those accesses for the point of future signalization, if it ever become necessary, and as far as commercial and the higher density down on the corner at Meridian and Victory Road, I think that that does all of a sudden make a need in our project for accesses to Meridian Road or more accesses to Victory Road. They made the comment of moving our higher density and our commercial over to the corner and at the point we -- if we designed something like that, I think it almost mandates having accesses to those roads from our point of view, because of the higher traffic and the issues with the commercial lot tucked away inside a subdivision too far. That's it. I'll stand for any questions. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? When do you project build out of this project? Martin: That's a really good question. I haven't been so good at guessing that in the past. Some of the projects that we projected seven years on in the past took two to three years and so I guess I would like to say that we start construction on this project in the spring or sometime in the winter and that -- Newton-Huckabay: Of '07? Martin: '07. The end of '09, I guess. At the current rate and the current absorption rates of projects in the valley, a two year build out would be -- would be fairly obtainable. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 26 of 64 If the market slowed to an older pace, I mean it could take five years. You could get down to 50 lots a year and it could take ten years, potentially at a fixed year ago rate, but two years is probably the more likely scenario. Borup: Somewhere in between. Martin: What's that? Borup: Or somewhere in between those. Martin: That's right. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Can I finish -- Rohm: Absolutely. You got it. Newton-Huckabay: What type of housing are you thinking of putting in the most dense area there on the north corner of the -- Martin: That's all single family homes. No attached homes. No apartments. No duplexes, some of the things that are allowed in those sort of neighborhoods. We are doing single family homes. They are going to be more narrow. We do have some alleys -- alleys on the back of the smallest lots and they are going to have alleys so the garages will be facing back towards the back of the home and so the front of the home will still be really presentable from the street by not having it all garage in the front on the smallest of the homes. My best guess is that those would cost -- would be that those lots would be somewhere around 60,000 dollars and that the end product -- Newton-Huckabay: Well, I was just curious about the type of home. So, you see detached, row house type? Martin: I do. And so there is definitely good examples around town and there is poor examples. Some of the good examples have been done by David Turnbull in the community here and as well as other communities and that's definitely what we like and we do -- we do have fairly good CC&Rs and control, we review every plan that's submitted before it's constructed on any of our projects. So, we have fairly decent control over those sorts of issues. Newton-Huckabay: So, you're envisioning, then, a Heritage Commons type product? Martin: I would. I would. We sure don't want to build something that doesn't have value, that's for sure. Or long term value. Newton-Huckabay: And I think my last question would be in that commercial area -- Well, actually, I have two more questions. What are you envisioning you're going to be Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 27 of 64 marketing that -- that property to? What type of business? I can't see it being any type of a gas station type -- well, it's TN-R, isn't it? Martin: It's definitely going to be a neighborhood friendly business. You know, if it were at the corner -- the intersection of Victory and Meridian Road, then, you could see it being a more regional type of a use. It's a neighborhood friendly use. You could see it as a dentist's office, you could see it as -- you know, there is a bunch of uses, but more of a neighborhood use. The staff had me add an access path to the back of that lot for more foot traffic coming into it. Its intent is definitely a neighborhood use. Can't give you much more feedback than that. We didn't design anything on there and bring it to you now to try and get it approved, because we can't see that far in the future. But by no means is it going to be a residential -- or a regional use where we are drawing traffic from all over to this site. It's going to be a neighborhood friendly use. Newton-Huckabay: So, we are looking at -- I mean I would envision this would -- if it says the way it is today, develop as a -- more of a pedestrian friendly -- coffee shop. Martin: Right. So, it would be small -- small retail shops that the subdivision could use. Nothing large. It could be offices, for that matter, small business offices. Yeah. Coffee shop. Good example. And so, honestly, we haven't got that far along. I can't give you a good answer, except to say that its intent is a neighborhood use and you guys will definitely have another shot at making sure that's true. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. And my last question -- can you go to the -- where you can see the school site? I was -- and this mayor may not be feasible, but to me, coming in here and having to wrap around to get to the school site seems a bit awkward. I was wondering if it might be more feasible to access through here to get into the school site, rather than come completely into the development. Martin: I think that's a very good point. My only concern with making that more of a straight shot would be we would be encouraging people from the other subdivisions to drive through our front-on housing more often. The school site is definitely an alternative high school site. We talking about 50 trips per day on a traffic -- on a traffic study and one bus running morning and night. So, it's not as you would picture an elementary site where they really need a collector right near them. Newton-Huckabay: Is this the half mile? Martin: And so the connection -- Borup: That's the mile. Newton-Huckabay: Is that the mile? Okay. Martin: And so my only concern is that the straighter we make streets that connect with the rest of the mile section, we turn it into a problem of exactly what Observation Point co Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 28 of 64 is concerned about now, is people actually cutting through their subdivision with front-on homes, because it's more straight shot or it goes faster than when traffic's backed up on the arterial roadway. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I hardly think that breaking that through there is any different than breaking it through right there. That's my point. I mean I see what you're saying, but if you were coming here and come across and up, it's not really any different than right there. Martin: Sure. Are you suggesting that I would delete that other one and add one at the location you were -- Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. That's what I would do. Yeah. And I mean maybe that's not feasible. Again, I'm not a -- I just pass judgment. Hood: And that's a good thought. I had a similar train of thought when I looked at it, but I wasn't looking at taking the first entrance in, it would be the second entrance in up and up. So, it's not -- and this -- actually, they have got landscaping along both sides, so you're not front-on housing, it's, actually, a road that's more dedicated to traffic and you don't have people trying to back out of their driveway to actually take access here, so -- Newton-Huckabay: Oh. Okay. Hood: -- you bypass the first road, take this one -- and, then, you do have a -- you know, a short block that you run by to get to, but that -- at least that was my train of thought when looking at that. Newton-Huckabay: Fair enough. That's the end of my questions. Martin: Anything else? Rohm: It doesn't look like it. Martin: I really appreciate your time. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Okay. I'll ask you first. Commissioner Moe, do you have any comments? Moe: You're starting with me? Rohm: This time. Moe: Mr. Chairman, actually, I -- going through the plan and whatnot I actually felt that - - again, we are -- we have a neighborhood center situation here again and those are fairly new to this Commission and it seems that we get quite a bit of discussion from the audience in regard to how we are placing some of these. Quite frankly, in reviewing this Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 29 of 64 project I actually like it quite a bit. I think there is a lot of diversity in it and I think the applicant has done a very good job and I'm in favor this project going forward. End of comment. Rohm: Thank you, Commissioner Moe. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Can you skip me? Rohm: Absolutely. Newton-Huckabay: And come back to me? Rohm: Commissioner Borup. Borup: I'm feeling real comfortable with it. I know I had a lot of questions prior to the hearing and I think a lot of those got answered and the project. The only comment I would have -- and I understand the concern people have on traffic and density, that's always -- that always is a concern and -- but I think one of the things -- at least us as a Commission needs to take into consideration is the Comprehensive Plan. That's one of the things we are bound by. The Comprehensive Plan map -- maybe one of the staff could answer -- or help me here -- it shows that as designated as low density and maybe it made it, which would be three or less per acre. So, it may have complied with that as an overall. Whereas this project is medium density, which is three to eight per acre. So, they are at the low end of the Comprehensive Plan and that's -- that's the guidelines that -- that's been established -- I mean this particular case since 2002. That's the expectation that someone -- developer would have to go by is that they would expect to be -- need to comply with the Comprehensive Plan and they have stayed at the far low end of that, which is really as much as they can do without asking for a -- for a -- I guess it would be a bump down, rather than a bump up. Usually, we hear it the other way around, people are trying to be more dense than what the Comprehensive Plan calls for. That's the only comment I have on that, other than I know -- I do have a - - can share the concern on -- on the cut through. I don't know that it's that convenient. I wonder if anyone's ever tried timing it. I tried it once, it wasn't worth it. I got lost in Meridian Greens almost, but -- because the road -- there is not a very good straight shot, depending on -- if you're coming from Overland anyway, but -- I haven't tried it -- I haven't tried it at 5:00 o'clock either. So, it may be different then. That's all I had. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: Well, I agree. I had a number of questions before we started this evening and they have all been answered to my satisfaction and as has been pointed out several times, this not only complies with the Comprehensive Plan, but it's at the low end of complying with the Comprehensive Plan. The medium density would allow for easily two and a half times as many dwellings as this applicant is asking for. I had my questions answered about commercial area and the applicant has seemed to have Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 30 of 64 been cooperative with staff about accesses and pathways and landscaping, which are often issues of contention. And I think I'm satisfied this is a project that is appropriate for the area and in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Rohm: Thank you, Commissioner Zaremba. Just a final comment on all of this. The Comprehensive Plan was developed in, what, 2002? Zaremba: Approved in 2002. So, four years of work before that. Rohm: And there was -- there was a huge amount of work -- body of work that went into the development of that Comprehensive Plan and each and every one of us had an opportunity to participate in that Comprehensive Plan development and from a consensus standpoint these regional commercial pockets, if you will, are something that were overwhelmingly endorsed by the community as a whole and the intent is is that, really, they will help reduce traffic from the standpoint that if you have got some small commercial pOCkets here and there, as opposed to everybody driving into town to get services, they can obtain some of those things right in the neighborhood that they live and that was the whole idea behind having these small pockets and I think that overall they have been pretty well received where they have been developed to date and so it's not that there is anybody on this Commission that doesn't take your concerns -- you know, we don't take them lightly. But I truly do believe that the small commercial pockets ultimately benefit each of us as we move forward. So, that's the end of my comments. Thank you. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: Before we proceed, I would ask one more question of staff, and that is at the beginning of Exhibit B, conditions of approval, quite often when there is an annexation and zoning there is a restatement that the development agreement is a requirement and I don't see that on this page. Should we add that or the fact that it's in the discussion is that enough? Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, you sure can add that. I mean 1.1.1 typically has -- it says you need to comply with the accompanying annexation and zoning application. You could read into that the associated DA with the annexation and zoning application, but if you think for clarification that needs to be put in there, that would be fine, too. Sure. Zaremba: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I'm ready to make some comments. Borup: It might be too late. Better hurry. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 31 of 64 Newton-Huckabay: Caleb, I just -- we will not -- this doesn't require a Conditional Use Permit if the commercial comes back through; is that correct? Am I reading that right? Hood: If you look -- Newton-Huckabay: Did I just miss it? Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, Members or the Commission, on page ten -- I remember drafting something to that effect. I don't remember exactly how it turned out, so you will have to bear with me as I scan those bullet points. Newton-Huckabay: Here it is. Hood: Oh, that future uses in the area -- a re-subdivision. So, you will see the subdivision and at that time we need more details. So, yes, it will be back before you. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Okay. Generally I'm afraid I, too, am in agreement. I think this is a nice development. We see a lot of developments come through here that don't get the detached sidewalks. The pathway system is definitely above what we are used to seeing. I like the dense project up in the -- up in the northeast corner. We have similar developments in Heritage Commons. They can't keep those -- they don't stay on the market very long. A lot of demand for that type of home for babyboomers, et cetera, who are looking for not a lot of land and a nice place to live. I do not like the six acre area in the middle. Those of you who have -. I don't like it when they leave those big pockets like that in the middle of a development. I think it's -- unless, of course, you're going to donate it to the city at some point as a public park, then, I suppose it would be okay. But I .- that, to me, when something's built out, generally does not look nice. Is it a deal breaker for me, I would say probably no. I would have liked to see other access to the school. How you would accomplish that -- again, I don't have to design them, I just get to pass judgment on them, so -- other than that, I look forward to see it come together. Rohm: Thank you. Moe: Mr. Chairman, question of staff. Caleb, do you have a date on this revised preliminary plat? Hood: Commissioner Moe, I do not have that. I spoke with the applicant about this very thing and I told him to hold off on submitting that, because I hate to draft a report, get one last minute, and, then, have to update everything I just wrote in the staff report. So, I said if you agree to make the changes, bring it to the Council. So, I don't -- I don't have a copy of that in hand. Again, that's because I -- I don't like to have to revise the report to reflect now that's not a comment, because what I'm basing my comments on they have already complied with. So, the original submittal date is what I have been working off of. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 32 of 64 Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I may not be remembering this exactly right, but the applicant took us through a drawing that the purpose of the drawing was the pathways. That appeared to have all of the changes that have been asked for and discussed. If we referenced -- I mean as part of the public testimony we could reference that as being the changes we expect to the plat. Am I correct about that? Hood: And, again, Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, all of that is verbally in here, so, again, back to 1.1.1, you know, you could make some reference to it, but they are all covered in the following conditions, just that's your visual and this is in the black and white. So, it's up to you. Again, that's why I work that way, because this tells you what he has to do. He's gone ahead and made those changes before it was even required by this body, so -- and that's great, too. It's just I don't update the staff report to reflect that, so -- Rohm: Thank you, Caleb. Borup: Yeah. I don't see any conflict there. There is no conflict there, then. Rohm: I think the point is the applicant's in agreement with the staff report and that will, then, adjust the plat accordingly. So, that makes sense to me. Borup: Mr. Chairman, except for maybe three areas and that's -- is my understanding. And, Caleb, you agreed with all -- I think their wording just kind of reiterated what you said and they were in agreement with everything and from what notes I had, the road along Meridian Road and you're okay with their -- or the sidewalk along Meridian Road, you're okay with their wording on that one? And, then, the other was on the water main. I think the agreement was it could be -- it could be within -- they said they had a 60 foot -- a 60 foot buffer. So, somewhere within that 60 foot buffer is what we are talking about? Cole: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Borup, absolutely. I guess I didn't study the landscape buffers. If they have a 60 foot landscape buffer and a pathway through there, that would be an ideal location to place a water main. I think -- I wouldn't want to nail them down to that. I think if we just add -- include a 12 inch water main in the frontage along Meridian Road, then, add: Or an acceptable alternative to Public Work's standards, and that way that gives them some flexibility to either put it in the landscape buffer in Meridian Road -- I think that would be -- Borup: Yes. That's what I was looking for and I think that -- so, the only thing I think we haven't discussed is the landscaping along the school site, if that sounds okay, their proposal, was I believe -- if I understood it, their proposal is to put the sidewalk in and, then, let the school do the landscaping. Rohm: Do you have some thoughts on that, Commissioner Borup? Borup: That was my thought. We haven't discussed it, so -- Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 33 of 64 Rohm: Do you think that they should put the landscape in or is it satisfactory in your mind to just put the sidewalk in? What are your thoughts? Borup: Well, there is not a -- it's not a separate lot; isn't that correct? It's owned by the school district. Rohm: I believe it is a lot within the subdivision. Borup: No. I mean there is not separate landscaping -- landscaped lot or -- Rohm: I think -- Borup: Mr. Hood maybe could clear -- I should already know that, but Mr. Hood's got a clarification. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Borup, the submitted plat didn't show any landscaping there, whether it be an easement or in a common lot. For residential subdivisions we do require them in a separate common lot. For commercial or even school district properties, it can be just an easement within the build-able lot, so it would be an easement on that school district's lot in this subdivision would be okay. Borup: If there was landscaping or the sidewalk would be in easement. Hood: Yeah. They can put it within -- there is a 25 foot wide landscape buffer required and that sidewalk can meander with that 25 feet. Correct. Moe: That is what the applicant is basically stating they would do. They put the sidewalk in and leave the rest to the school district to take care of, so that they design their irrigation to the -- Borup: And that makes sense to me. I don't know who handles weeds and weed maintenance -- so, to me that's the only thing that's maybe up in the -- Rohm: Well, I think that if the lot's owned by the school district, the school district will be required, by city ordinance, to keep the weeds down. Borup: I guess that's true. Rohm: Makes sense to me. Hood: Mr. Chair, I guess just one more thing back to this discussion of old plat, new plat changes made. The other change that isn't talked about in the staff report that is new that I was made aware of I believe after the staff report even went out, maybe the day before, but is the other access near the grange not being there to Victory Road. I'm not -- I don't think it has to be one way or the other, but just so you know, the plat Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 34 of 64 submitted did show the public street access -- the second public street access right at the grange property. That location probably isn't ideal as mentioned by the applicant, because the grange would be responsible for constructing, basically, half of that street and it's a smaller site. But that would be a change that maybe -- I guess just to gauge, if you're okay with them taking that access out or not, would be a change. And, then, they also showed two public street access points down to Harris Street, which is the one that goes out to Meridian Road. So, originally they just showed the one and, then, the revised plat -- or at least some renditions -- they did have two access points. So, just so we are on the same page. I don't have -- either way I think it still works, but this one -- this is the submitted plan and they just had the one that came down and out. And in the revised plat I don't remember if it aligned here or aligned there, but there is a second street so you can get people from here taking that one, people from here taking that one and out. So, those are some of the other changes that were made that aren't required in the staff report, but the applicant has made those changes since, so I just thought I would call those out and see if anyone had any problems with those changes as well. Moe: I guess I would just make -- asking the question basically with any modifications to a motion, maybe just put something to the effect that revised -- modify the revised preliminary plat as shown during the open meeting, something to that effect, so it's on the record that we have seen -- Borup: That was my assumption. Rohm: With that being said, maybe it would be appropriate to close the Public Hearing on these items at this time. Would someone like to make that motion? Newton-Huckabay: I will make that one, but I won't make the next one. Mr. Chair, I recommend we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-015 and PP 06-013. Zaremba: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-015 and PP 06-013. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Newton-Huckabay: I did want to make note I was glad to see the signal bonding on this development. We don't always get that. That's nice. Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Just since we are in discussion -- and Mike leaves the room. What exactly was his point on 2.5 under the -- on the water main? Was that just or as -- Borup: Just that -- yeah. Along Meridian Road within the buffer or other acceptable -- Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 35 of 64 Rohm: Acceptable to staff. Newton-Huckabay: City standards. Borup: And then -- so, then, you got the other two -- 1.1.2 I think was -- Moe: Well, I guess what-- Borup: Sidewalk would be as the applicant reworded or -- Moe: I would put both of the -- the first and third bullet points could stay. You know, their response. That's kind of the way I was looking at it. Newton-Huckabay: Say that again. Borup: You mean the staff report would stay? Moe: No. On 1.1.2 the applicant's response to the first bullet point and the third bullet point would be added to the staff report. Newton-Huckabay: At the -- Borup: Well -- okay. Moe: Do you see where I'm speaking of? Borup: Yeah. I thought -- and I thought Mr. Hood said that they had already reached agreement on that and it wasn't -- it was maybe redundant. Moe: They have reached agreement, but it's not noted within his report. That's why I'm just -- Borup: Do you mean the applicant's comments would stay? Moe: That's correct. Borup: Yes. Yeah. Moe: Okay. That's all. Borup: Well, actually, I mean all of them were okay. I thought those three were the only ones that was up in the air. By the two public access points and all that stuff was in here, too, and et cetera. Moe: You know, those are the only -- those are the only three within that that I will be making points on. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 36 of 64 Borup: Okay. Moe: I think. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Moe, it sounds like you're maybe leaning towards a motion. I'd ask you also to look at that -- Borup: We hope so. Hood: -- development agreement provision for the out parcel on Victory Road -- or, excuse me, on Meridian Road. It's the second to the last bullet point on page 11 and just -- it has to do with the applicant being willing to construct the sidewalk or the pathway along Meridian Road adjacent to the out parcel, just -- Moe: Well, can I read you what I was anticipating doing there? And I'm back on page nine of that where you note the sidewalk. I just put after the -- after what you've got in here, I just put note: If the construction and easement is not allowed -- now I have got to go find where I was at -- is not allowed in writing by the owner of the out parcel, the applicant will bond for the future pathway improvements when allowed. Because that's what the applicant said he would do. I see you're not -- you don't like that. Hood: He did -- he did volunteer that. I would hesitate, though -- and I'm looking at legal a little bit here -- to hold a bond for an improvement on an out parcel. That is going to be -- I mean when do we cash that, if ever? I mean how do you -- it just seems a little bit ugly to me to put a -- to require them to bond for something in front of someone else's property, when that property, really, should be responsible for that construction when they develop. I like the idea, again, in theory, but it really creates more of a headache for the city as far as tracking that, holding the surety for whoever knows how long. Baird: Mr. Chair and Members of the Commission, I don't want to lose the fact that the developer volunteered to do this. I think it's something that we can work out between now and the City Council. Perhaps the appropriate language would be to put: Or bonding or other mechanism acceptable to the city and we can -- maybe in the meantime make contact with the property owner and find out if it's allowed. If it is, then, we don't have to worry about it at all. If it's going to be a future thing, then, we will figure out some way to make that happen. I know that the City Council loves it when someone steps up and volunteers to do this, so I'd hate to lose that. So, if that gives you sufficient alternative language, that would be my suggestion. Newton-Huckabay: Did you get that? Borup: Mr. Chairman -- Mr. Martin, if you -- if Mr. Mussell does not feel like he wants to comply to that, I'd be glad to talk to him. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 37 of 64 Rohm: Okay. Good. Thank you. Commissioner Moe, I think we are ready. Moe: Hopefully I am. Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-015 and PP 06-013 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 1 st, 2006, with the following modifications. The first one would be that the -- that to please note the revised preliminary plat as shown during the open meeting. Next item would be item on page nine, section ten, dealing with the sidewalks, at the end of that paragraph put: Note. If the construction and easement is not allowed in writing by the owner of the out parcel, the applicant will bond or provide other methods for future -- or provide future -- excuse me -- or provide other methods as the city agrees to future pathway improvements in there. Next, under the Exhibit B, page one, item 1.1.1, where it starts out the preliminary plat label just at the end of that, would you also include a sentence that just basically states that the development agreement -- or enter into a development agreement would be that. Under 1.1.2, also in Exhibit B, bullet points one and three would include the applicant's response to the staff report as part of the motion. And under public Works Department, item 2.5, add to the end of that that basically states: Or other acceptable city standards. End of motion. Zaremba: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of Items AZ 06-015 and PP 06-013, to include all staff comments and public testimony, with the aforementioned modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: At this time we typically take a 15 minute recess and we will reconvene at 9:15. Thank you. (Recess.) Item 12: Public Hearing: CUP 06-016 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Day Care Center on 0.37 acres in an L-Q zone for Bearly Grown Child Care by Justin and Katie Fish - 3665 North Locust Grove Road: Rohm: At this time we would like to reconvene the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission and the first thing I'd like to do is make notice that Item No. 15 on our agenda for CUP 06-015, Conditional Use Permit for Walgreens, will be continued, because it wasn't properly noticed, so if there is anybody here that intended to speak to that, it probably won't be -- well, it won't be heard tonight. And so that note -- with that being said, we will continue, but we are going to change the order just a little bit. We have got an item that I think will go rather quickly and so I'm going to move it up on the agenda and it is for Public Hearing CUP 06-016, a