Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSept 19, 2002 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 5. 2002 Page 46 of 47 Item 12: Public Hearing: PP 02-014 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 439 building lots and 50 other lots on 209.01 acres in an R-4 zone in a Planned Unit Development for Bridgetower Crossing East Subdivision by Primeland Development - northeast comer of North Ten Mile Road and West Ustick Road: Borup: Yes so Number 12. Zaremba: In that case, Mr. Chairman, I move we table Item 12 on our agenda, the Public Hearing for PP 02-014, until our meeting on the 19th of September, to now be the final item on the agenda. Shreeve: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: We have one more motion from somebody. Shreeve: I make a motion we adjourn. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Thank you, Commissioners. It's 9:03. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:03 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN I I DATE ATTESTED: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19. 2002 Page 58 of 96 Zaremba: Okay. An additional exception is on page eight, item seven, the sub parenthesis 16, the front setback for the subdivision shall be 25, not 23 feet from back of the sidewalk. Mathes: Second. Borup: Okay. Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: I think I'd just like to comment it's kind of really refreshing to see a project like this come before us. We have not seen lots of this size with full city services. Commissioners, are we -- would you like a short break or do you want to proceed? (Recess.) (Reconvene at Item 14: Tabled Public Hearing from September 5,2002: PP 02-014 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 439 building lots and 50 other lots on 209.01 acres in an R-4 zone in a Planned Unit Development for Bridgetower Crossing East Subdivision by P rimeland Development - northeast corner of North Ten Mile Road and West Ustick Road Borup: Okay. I think we are ready to reconvene our meeting. Let's -- it has been requested during the break if we could rearrange the schedule and move Item 14, which is Bridgetower Crossing East on up in place of Item No. 11, so -- Zaremba: Do we need a motion to that effect? Borup: I don't know if we do. Wollen: I believe the agenda can be changed however the Commission sees fit. Borup: Okay. Unless there is any objection. Okay. Let's go ahead and do that. I'd like to open -- oh, this was -- this was tabled from our September 5th meeting, PP 02-014, request for preliminary plat approval 439 lots and 50 other lots on 209.01 acres in an R- 4 zone in a Planned Unit Development for Bridgetower Crossing by Primeland Development. I'd like to open this hearing at this time and start with the staff report. I just asked for the staff report on Bridgetower Crossing. We changed the agenda. Hawkins-Clark: Did you get it? .Borup: It was very short. Hawkins-Clark: My apologies. 0 kayo B ridgetower Crossing East. T he application is a portion of an already approved planned development, which I guess, Chairman Borup, Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 59 of 96 you were the only one here at that point in time, but it would primarily just be the full eastern half of what has already been approved as Bridge Crossing -- Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision planned development and at this point in time they are coming through with the actual plat on the phases. The overall project is 370.55 acres and has a density of 2.84 dwelling units per acre. This portion is 209 acres. They are proposing 439 buildable lots. The -- I guess we don't have any existing site photos of this one. I will go over some of the -- just kind of key highlights and then I let Becky hit on more details. But they are basically in compliance with what has already been approved. They have this residential collector street that's proposed connecting to Under Road here, an approximate 12 a ere elementary school site that is located on the north side of that collector. McMillan Road here on the north. They have provided a local street connection here to McMillan Road, which was not a part of their original planned development, but that is a new addition that is matching with what the staff asked for originally. They have the -- the White Drain, as you may remember, is a dominant feature of the project. It courses more or less east or west -- east and west and this common lot right here in the middle is a proposed relocation site of the White Drain. They are proposing to relocate three different large canals and drains. The Settlers is along the north and they are proposing to relocate that slightly to the south. The White Drain, again, is being relocated to this area and then -- or the Coleman is along the south. Coleman does more or less kind of run up along this east boundary and that's going to be proposed to be relocated in this common lot area as well and then continue to the west. The 8 ridgetower Crossing does already have a phase final platted 0 ver here off Ten Mile Road. This portion will be connected to the south through another north-south collector. Here is a little bit more detail of some of the sections. They are proposing some office lots here that front on Under Road. There is three that are north of the collector and three of them that are south of the collector. There are several micro paths in the project and Joe Silva of the Meridian Fire Department has in his staff comment requested a couple of additional micropaths. His concern is primarily related to one point of access into these pods. They are proposing to have a median -- a landscape medium here, sot hat ins orne ways t here a re two - - it's a split entry into these. There is one here, there is another one here on the south side. There is one here. One here. So as you can see it goes in -- if it serves more than 30 houses, the fire department does have concerns that there be a secondary access into these pod areas, rather than just a single point. So what the fire marshal has asked for is a couple of improved pathways that would be just emergency only, they would not be full-blown, so that would be something for the applicant to discuss. Here is -- going south in the project, this is a little bit more detail on the plat itself. They are proposing a community clubhouse at this location within a common lot. There is a requirement in the planned development for a pathway that would be adjacent to the White Drain. In the applicant's written comments that were submitted today, they have discussed that and are in agreement with providing that. So, again, that would kind of serve this clubhouse area and then would continue west and then cross all the way over to Ten Mile Road. And then here is the southern portion of the proposed plat. As far as the staff report dated September 16th, I think there is just a couple of items to point out to you. The additional considerations that start on page three, the first one is -- relates to the -- well, I'm sorry, number two relates to the phasing plan and Ms. Bowcutt has asked that you grant the Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19. 2002 Page 60 of 96 staff some latitude to review minor changes to the phasing. It is a large project and so they are asking for some flexibility there. We would need that to be part of your motion, since the subdivision ordinance is pretty clear about how phasing is handled. So if you want to do that, I would just recommend that that be a part of your motion that we have some flexibility in phasing there. There are -- there is one primary point of disagreement. Staff has recommended two additional stub streets for interconnectivity. I will go back to the opening here and we are -- they are currently providing a stub here to the north on the -- or to this 40 acre piece that is to the south of the office lots. There is also a proposed stub right here and then there is another one, let's see, right here. So staff is recommending two more be added in this half mile stretch on the eastern boundary. We feel that the planned development that was approved gives a concept approval and it does allow us to ask those things as part of the preliminary plat, the actual submittal. So I think the only other item to point out for us is there are several issues with regards to the Settlers Irrigation District and I'll probably just let Becky speak to some of those, that they are -- that may impact the design of the plat. I think that is the majority 0 f - - there is - - they have said that they would comply with most 0 four recommendations. They will provide that easement for a pathway, but the city will need to work with Settlers in terms of liability issues. The parks department, in my understanding, has not submitted anything to us in writing yet. I did have a conversation with Elroy Huff at the Meridian Parks Department and, you know, he felt that that would probably be able to be worked out. I guess the only -- yes. The fencing issue, item number four under streets and pathways, the applicant is in agreement with the condition if the fencing is installed in the previous phases, they prefer not to deviate from the four foot fence with the two lattice tops currently constructed and certainly for continuity throughout the project it makes sense to continue the same type of fencing. That's it. Borup: Okay. Questions from any of the Commissioners? Would the applicant like to submit a presentation? Bowcutt: Becky Bowcutt, 1100 East Valli-Hi, Eagle. I'm representing the applicant in this matter. As Brad indicated, this is the second preliminary plat of a larger project. This is the Bridgetower project in its entirety. When we -- this project has been annexed. The property is zoned -- currently zoned R -4. We revised the Planned Unit Development ordinance and brought through an ordinance amendment in conjunction with this project and we have a conditional use for this planned development that you see here. It has a mix of office, commercial, single family residential, and some attached single family residential or townhomes. When we submitted the application, the original application, we only platted half of it or provided a preliminary plat just on the western portion of the property. The staff, as part of our conditions of approval, was concerned that we would come in, in a timely fashion, with the second preliminary plat in order to accommodate the Meridian elementary school that's proposed on this property. So we submitted this application the end of June in compliance with that condition. As Brad indicated, most of you haven't seen this project, because it was prior -- it pre-dates you, so I will just kind of give you a quick overview. It's designed off of a collector system with different types of housing lots provided, different sizes of homes. We have smaller lots that range from Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 61 0196 like 9,000, 8,000 square feet and then as you go toward the interior the lots get larger and larger. In this particular area here we have lots that are like 90 by 150 feet in depth. In this area those lots range in the 70s and 80s in width, down to about 115. We have no lots -- I don't think we have any lots that are any less than about 110 feet in depth and those are up along this McMillan corridor. These collector roads come in from Linder, comes down, intersects with Ustick and then also goes out and intersects with Ten Mile. What that provides is excellent interconnection within the interior of the section. It captures traffic, unlike subdivisions that are on 80 acres or less, their traffic comes out to the arterials and then they are dispersed throughout the arterials. Here we have the traffic dispersed within the interior on those collectors. All of these office lots take access within the interior. We have no direct lot access to the arterials. There is an access roadway, 25 feet, runs across the rear. So like if there is a dentist office here and you live here, you would stay on the collector and you could come in here without going out onto the arterial. As Brad indicated, one of the changes that was asked of us was to add a connection to McMillan Road, so we did add that and it's reflected on the preliminary plat. This project has two clubhouses and two swimming pools. One of the clubhouses is under construction, along with its pool, in the southern portion here. The other clubhouse would bel ocated along the collector roadway in the mid section. I 'II jump to the staff report. I know it's getting late and if we can get out of here early everybody is happy. We have changed some of the phasing a little bit in this project and we changed the phasing for different reasons. One, engineering reasons. Two, market conditions. And, three, obviously, to make sure that we have that school site available when the school district needs it. They have given us dates such as possibility of one in 2003, 2004, it all depends on which elementary school out in this northern area they decide to build first. But the property has been set aside, it's in the project, so it is reserved for them. They do not own it at this time, but we are holding it for them. The applicant asks that we have some flexibility in our phasing. Obviously, phasing is dependent on market conditions. If I show 50 lots in a particular phase and the housing market gets very soft, the applicant may just plat half of that, maybe 25 lots, as an example. We need to have some of that flexibility. If we have, for an engineering reason, that we need to adjust, maybe include additional lots into a phase because it makes sense, we have to have that flexibility. The only -- you know, the one thing that the staff would look at is just minor things like that. If we were to say move the school phase way out to the last when it's shown as one of the earlier phases and the district needs it, then that would, obviously, be something that the staff would say, no, that is significant, we can't allow that. So we are looking for those minor - minor deviations in phasing and other projects have requested that also. That's item two under additional considerations. Item three, the staff asked we show a cross section of 33 feet for the street section. That's the local section. ACHD in their conditions says unless otherwise approved you will confine these streets to a 36 back to back with a 50 foot right of way and a five foot sidewalk. The key is unless otherwise approved. They have changed their policy manual and are allowing us to go down to 33 foot street sections if we meet certain criteria, that's less pavement, less storm drainage, we can allocate more area for __ you know, to nonimpervious surfaces and so forth. It just -- it just gives us a better flexibility in design purposes. We have some streets out here that are 36 back to back, but if we can go 33, we would appreciate that and the highway district gives us that Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 62 of 96 latitude. The fourth item is the White Drain. I kind of went into a lengthy discussion in my narrative concerning the White Drain. I just wanted the Commission to be aware of the fact that we have been working with Settlers Irrigation District for two years. We have received letters that we could turn the White Drain into a water amenity, then we received letters that mandated that we pipe the White Drain, then they reversed their position again and said, no, we want it open. They were going to allow us to run it through our ponds and then they came back and said, no, we won't allow that, they want it separate from any ponds, whether they be storm drainage, irrigation, or just an esthetic pond. They do not want any interconnection. They were going to accept some predevelopment discharge with storm filters being installed, which are very expensive and have been very effective. Boise has been testing some of them with the new Wal- Mart facility downtown that discharges into Julia Davis Park's pond, then they came back and said, no, we won't allow that. They have been a very difficult agency to work with. I just wanted that to be on the record, because we have some concerns when we have an agency that continues to flipflop when we are trying to design a project. It would be the city's responsibility as far as the pathway is concerned -- we have always been in agreement that we want a pathway running along the White Drain, along this collector roadway. Settlers wants the city to accept liability and enter into some type of an agreement very similar to what the city entered into with Nampa-Meridian on Five Mile Creek pathway. I did provide Settlers with a copy of that agreement for their review, but I will need the city's assistance in that matter. Item five is the issue of Settlers Canal. I did adjust my preliminary plat prior to submittal to allocate additional area, more than what we had originally shown in the original -- or the first concept, because the White Drain will have to be located south of the new transmission poles. Right now it is north of those transmission poles. Settlers indicated to us for two years that they want a 40 foot easement. They indicated, I guess in writing, that they want a 50 foot easement. We have allocated adequate area to accommodate that Settlers canal, whether it be open 0 r whether it be piped. We are in agreement with staff. Settlers a sked that we provide access along both sides of the settlers Canal, plus fence both sides. That would just be an eye sore and the staff is in agreement and they have asked I think in their comments that we get with Settlers and try to negotiate that out. We have been working vigorously to come up with very esthetic improvements on these facilities and they don't necessarily care about the esthetics, they are looking at the functionality. So I would hope we could find some middle ground, but I do want it on the record that we have had extreme difficulty with them. The only disagreement that your staff and I have is concerning two additional stub streets. ACHD and our traffic engineers reviewed this, analyzed it, ACHD's engineers analyzed it, there are two parcels here, located here, the Brenneger parcel is the north 40, this southern 40 here was purchased by Kevin Howell. I provided him with a copy of our stub street locations a few months ago, so, obviously, he's been working on a design that -- off of the existing stub street locations that we show on our plan. We stubbed here, we stubbed there, and there is a parcel down here and we provided at stub street connection there. Borup: Becky, can you clarify -- you mentioned two parcels. The plat we had it looked to me like four or some of those -- Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 63 of 96 Bowcutt: I think Kevin Howell -- there may be multiple parcels, but my understanding is he's bought the 40. So where you see the RUT, yes. Borup: That's the one -- Bowcutt: That's Brenneger's -- no. That's Brenneger's and I don't know of any developer that's purchased that. Borup: That's one parcel? Bowcutt: Right. And I have provided a stub street on its northern boundary. Then if you go to the south, my understanding is Kevin Howell has purchased those parcels consisting or approximately 40 acres. Borup: Okay. Even though they are -- there is four parcels there, but two mainly, but the same ownership you're saying? Bowcutt: That's my understanding. And then there is a parcel to the south, kind of an L- shaped, and we have provided a stub street there. When we provide these interconnections we don't want to make it as convenient as possible for people to get into their vehicles. If we can promote people to walk or bike between neighborhoods, between uses, obviously, that is one goal we have as a planner. I don't want to make it so it's easier just to jump right in your car and drive over there if at all possible. And that's one reason that I feel if we create too many stub streets we are just making it convenient to get into your car. As far as item three was discussed, the pathway and the liability issue. Item four is the fencing. I guess what I was alluding to is out there right now we have vinyl fencing. The slats have a three-quarter inch gap between each slat, so it's not completely site obscuring on the four foot bottom section and then we have a two foot lattice that is kind of crisscross vinyl across the top. And so we would hope -- staff kind of gave a -- defined what they wanted to see out there. I think they used the word, what, 80 percent, Brad? Eighty percent nonsight obscuring, I mean I don't - - I haven't gone out and measured the lattice, but I would hate at this point to try to deviate. The staff has gone out and they have inspected a couple phases now, we are on our third phase, so I guess I'd defer to staff if they believe that what we have out there meets that criteria. Do you have any questions? Borup: Questions from the Commission? Zaremba: Would you, on the larger map, clarify for me which -- no. The one that's standing up above that has all the phases -- which parts of that are we discussing tonight and which parts are already approved? Just with your hands. Bowcutt: Probably easier to show you here. Zaremba: Okay. That one works. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 64 of 96 Bowcutt: You see t he lots t hat a re in the darker - - t he bolder type h ere? This is the phase you're discussing. It comes along the out parcel here, comes down, we made a little bit of revisions to this collector, at one time the collector shown it splitting with a median, but we ended up -- Borup: He's having a little trouble hearing, so if you can -- Bowcutt: I'm sorry. We ended up making that just single collector roadway that's functioning the same and then it comes down and comes around like that. So it's kind of like the eastern portion of that project. Everything you see in the lightf1lr text was previously approved on another preliminary plat, but the PUD covered all of it and the annexation and rezone covered all of it. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Now on that same one, I understand your discussion and the reasoning for not having more stub streets and you make a strong case for it, trying to get people out of their cars and I agree with that. I think the issue was probably this area and this area, is that there were too many houses for the fire department to have only a single access into those loops. Down here it looks like there is a pathway. Bowcutt: Yes, sir. Zaremba: Are those wide enough so they could be emergency access pathways? Bowcutt: The lot -- Zaremba: I was just thinking of some secondary emergency way -- Bowcutt: The lot itself is 20 feet wide and then we are required to have, I believe, a five foot wide path and then landscaping on both sides. All of our pods are interconnected. This is our seven acre private park here. There is a pathway comes through to the north of it, then we have a public street, pathway coming to this pod, and then if you come up, this pod is connected, this pod, then we have got another connection here, coming out here. So all of these are interconnected with pathways. Zaremba: Could the pathways be used by an emergency vehicle? Bowcutt: They have to be 20 feet wide and be able to handle 75,000 GVW, so we would have to pave the whole thing to accommodate a fire truck. Now what we have done is, as Brad indicated, we have put these medians in. I do not have a median at this -- in this loop, nor do I have a median here. But all these other loops do. And this median is short, but could be extended clear down here. And, as Brad indicated, what the fire department looks at, they have one point of ingress and egress, if that point were to be blocked say, for example, they use there is a car accident, then they could -- they would have no access in there, but when you have the median separating it, it would be pretty difficult for them, because it's so much wider and you have got that landscape median, to block the entire entrance into that pod. So that's t heir reasoning behind -- behind Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 65 of 96 those islands and I believe staff stated at one time -- or one of the staff members, that the fire department had accepted that in some other developments. I think it was Dave McKinnon I was talking with, but I couldn't tell you what projects those were. Zaremba: Another question. Access to the elementary school is only on your internal road; is that correct? Bowcutt: We have access on the collector and this collector right here. As far as McMillan Road is concerned, that would be determined by that school district, ACHD, and the city staff. They talked about potentially having like a teacher -- a teacher parking lot in the rear, but that was before we added this, and so they have got a lot of area here to come off that collector, so I would hope -- they don't have to use McMillan, they have got two points of good ingress-egress. Zaremba: That's good. This approach here to Under-- Bowcutt: Yes. Zaremba: -- is that far enough south from McMillan to satisfy ACHD? Bowcutt: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. Bowcutt: It is two, four -- about 500 feet, approximately. And we moved it 30 feet further south to mitigate the impact of the lights on the English's home. That's the couple that's here this evening. Zaremba: Those are my questions. Borup: Okay. That concludes -- Bowcutt: Yes, sir. Borup: Mr. English, I'm assuming you stayed for -- or your wife? Let's go ahead and give you a chance and then we will ask staff some questions. English: Margie English, 4650 North Under Road. We commented on this last year. Commissioner Borup was there, so I think he remembers us. We always seem to be here in the late hours of the night and the last people at the meeting. I have one primary concern remaining. I don't know, Commissioner Borup, if you still have our letter from a year ago, April 28th, 2001. We put several concerns down in writing and you took time to read our concerns a nd you a cknowledged that they were some of the m ore valid concerns, but because you were only approving the western side, you said, well, these are things that can be worked out in the future. So here we are. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 66 of 96 Borup: This is the future. English: Yes. And if you don't -- if you don't have a copy of this letter anymore, maybe you could find a xerox machine to give to it you, but -- Borup: We do not have that, so -- have you had a chance to meet with the developer and work out some of those things? English: Yes. Most of them. And Becky mentioned she -- and I agree, she has been being very responsive in working with us, Borup: Bruce is prepared to make copies. English: It's late and I may not remember. Borup: You want to pause just a little bit and maybe we will ask staff a couple of questions. English: Okay. Borup: Does anyone else have any questions of staff? I would like, Brad, maybe some comments on the stub streets and the fire department's comments. Hawkins-Clark: Sure. We just like to disagree with the developers. Borup: You've got to find one area. Hawkins-Clark: We've got to find one. On a project this big, if we don't find one, something's wrong. My understanding -- the concept for planned development did give them 1,500 foot -- they could exceed the maximum block length up to 1,500 foot. One thousand is the standard. Borup: Right. Sixty percent increase. Hawkins-Clark: Yes. A lot of this issue of stub streets comes down to where do you measure a block from, because the ordinance says a thousand foot block length. So then you say, okay, well, what's a block. And the ordinance is a little bit vague on it. Historically -- and we feel pretty consistently we have measured, particularly on the perimeters of subdivisions, we have taken the rear -- the rear lot lines and essentially gone from a street center line to a street center line. So, for example, I will go back up to -- for example, if you take this stub street that is right here, if you take the center line of that street and you say, okay, let's start the block and so you move west along this lot line and then you come south and you keep going until you hit a new block, this is all a part of the same block right here. So you're coming down to this stub street right here. That's the approximately 1,800 feet, if you measure the lineal footage along there. So I guess in our opinion that it's greater than 1,500 feet, so you break it up and you add in a Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 67 of 96 stub street and that creates another block and so you have met that -- it's the same principle down here, If you start from this stub street and you continue south and you make the turn tot he east a nd you come down tot his point, t hat's a Iso greater than 1,500. So ours is -- our interpretation of the block and the measurement of that is that it exceeds even what their planned development granted in terms of the 1,500 foot. I mean certainly we are not looking for people to get out of their -- or get into their cars either. You know, I guess there can be some design issues, if there is some concern about future residential subdivisions on these parcels, you know, using these stub streets to cut through, I guess in our opinion the more likely is that Bridgetower residents would use future stubs to access Under Road and would help to shorten trip lengths if that occurred. So I don't know if I'm getting to the question or not. Borup: Yes. I was looking for support for your argument and I think that's what you're doing there and the number of parcels wasn't necessarily a big factor. Hawkins-Clark: No. It was more just the lineal foot of a block. Borup: The only other question I have on that is in this case -- and I see what you're saying and I agree with the over 1,500, I wonder if in this case you also have the waterway canal or whatever it is going through there, which effectively separates the blocks. I don't know if there is maybe some consideration on something like that. Hawkins-Clark: Technically, it is still Block 18. Borup: Right. Hawkins-Clark: But, you're right, in terms of a future extension of the pathway that they are providing, you know, there is a way that could be made if you want to -- well, I guess the pathway wouldn't be interrupted, necessarily, should that future -- should that future parcel continue the pathway, then that wouldn't necessarily be interrupted, but I guess I don't necessarily buy the argument that that common -- common lot shortened or should give them an out on the block length, but -- Borup: Okay. Zaremba: From your a ngle you are not able to see the two areas that I was asking about. You probably were able to figure out, but -- that I was concerned about one access into this pod and one access into this pod with how many houses there are there and the discussion about whether or not these pathways could be used as emergency -- a second emergency exit or entrance. Hawkins-Clark: Yes. The fire department has asked -- and I'm forgetting if Becky addressed this or not, but if you can see this little small line right there? That's a micropath. The fire department has asked for that to be extended out here to the collector. Do you see what I -- so that would essentially give them the emergency access -- that would have bollards. He has requested bollards. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 68 of 96 Zaremba: And that would satisfy fire. Hawkins-Clark: It would. Zaremba: The same thing down here. Hawkins-Clark: On this particular one I believe they are -- you would have to angle that micropath, because of the location of the stormwater pond and the slopes of the White Drain right here, I think you would have to angle them and we have always discouraged having angles in micropaths just for the hiding --you know, you can hide in them more easily. It's just a safety thing. Mathes: Could you move it up one? I mean -- Hawkins-Clark: Certainly. I think the fire department is certainly -- just is looking for another way in, so I don't think they would care. It would make for a straight - you're right, it would make for a straight shorter -- Commissioner Mathes. It might accommodate a stormwater drain and maybe that's the reason that 20 foot is there. I don't know if that could be shifted or not. Borup: Okay. Mrs. English. English: Margie English, 4650 North Under Road, and I wanted to hit on tonight probably our biggest -- well, two of our biggest remaining concerns with the proposal and the one is with our irrigation. I understand -- I mean, obviously, I understand that by law they have got to provide our irrigation. However, we take our irrigation from gate 28, as it's written here, and our return line, our waste line, currently flows across the Bridgetower property and I think here we counted -- tried to estimate which lots it would impact in our letter. Right now there isn't any design to deal with that, to address the return line, so my concern is that I want to insure that that is taken into account and I would request that -- that you folks make that as a condition of your approval, that the irrigation return line is taken into account. When we wrote this letter a year ago, we put in some specific items based on what our understanding was at the time. I mean certainly item number one -- you know, that they don't go in and start ripping out the return lines during the irrigation season. I don't want the irrigation water to back up on our property. If it does do that, it flows right into our septic drain field area, so, you know, it's a very real concern for me. And I also am concerned if it's in the non-irrigation season, that they at least have some sort of provisions for getting somewhere where that water will channel, because there have been some pretty strong precipitation events since we have been there, approximately eight years, where even in the wintertime the precipitation runs down that irrigation return line. So that's what I'm requesting tonight, that as a condition of your approval that you put that requirement on there. Also you will see that much of the rest of our letter concerns traffic issues and I don't know if this is really an item for this meeting or if this is more of a City Council thing, this was brought up last year and it seems to me that the representative from Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 69 of 96 ACHD, according to my notes, came to the City Council meeting and not to the Planning and Zoning meeting and I'm not sure if this is in your ballpark, but in the City Council meeting, the representative from ACHD very clearly specified that they had not reviewed the eastern side of the plan and that they had -- she stated some of her concerns did match what we had laid out in our letter and I guess my question would be has ACHD now looked at the size of the subdivision and maybe have these concerns addressed. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. B.English: Brian English, 4650 North Under. If I can clarify a couple of the concems we had. One of the issues we have raised with the traffic study was that Bridgetower did a traffic study without taking into account some of the other developments that have been approved around and now with this new section there has been even more developments that have been a pproved a round. We a re concerned that t he way the connector system is that that connection comes out to Linder Road -- right now the high school that services this area is Eagle High School. We have trouble getting out -- we have a lot of trouble getting out of our driveway and turning right in the morning and their connector is going to be coming out across the street and it's going to be carrying elementary school traffic. We wonder if there is not going to be a lot more people that are going to cut through and use this access to McMillan Road. We wonder if that could be looked at. We wonder if the -- some of the other developments they are putting in -- they are proposing 270 homes in that section just south of the 40 acres that we live on. Thank you. That was not approved at the time the traffic study was done. There is going to be a middle school that's already approved in that spot there and we wonder how -- and we have attended all these meetings -- you know, the regional meetings for the seven or 14 for whatever -- they change it all the time. Twelve square miles now? They have changed it about four times on that and we also attended the Comprehensive Plan meeting and the North Meridian meeting and we tended to leave those meetings more confused than when we went in, because the North Meridian Plan does not match the Comprehensive Plan and what ACHD was putting out in their plan didn't match either one of those and so we were wondering has the traffic been looked at and have those concerns been addressed. Thank you. Borup: I can say that we do have a 23 page report from ACHD on this project, dated -- what is the date? November 7th. But they have updated it. They have mentioned an extension on the North Meridian Planning area also, but we do not have an update from November last year. But they have made several references to the 12 square mile study area in their report, so they were looking at the overall surrounding development also. B.English: One of the problems I had with that plan is that it assumed that all of those roads were done and built and that really -- how that is going to happen hasn't really been addressed and explaining what has to happen with what's there. Borup: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19. 2002 Page 70 of 96 B.English: I'm wondering if -- when they get to the point when that last phase is built in the northeast corner, is Under Road going to be capable of handling the additional load it's going to have as a result of the elementary school, a middle school, there is a proposed high school in the next square to the north, plus all the development, the roads are going to have to -- you know, will the roads even come close to keeping up, because right now they haven't. Borup: Thank you. Any of the Commissioners have any other questions they'd like to ask before we have Becky come up? Zaremba: No. Borup: Do you have any final comments? Bowcutt: I will quickly try to answer the English's questions. Concerning their wastewater ditch, their ditch does come -- go west through our property. I did kind of discussed with them prior to the meeting a route that we could pipe it. It is our responsibility to pipe that, so, for the record, we will be working with Englishes to make sure that that wastewater is continued 0 n, that it is in pipe. That is 0 ne 0 f our latter phases. Another thing I'd like to make sure that you understand the project is about a seven to ten year project, so, you know, it's not like we are going to have instantly, you know, 400 and some odd homes going up. Concerning ACHD, we did get a new action from ACHD on August 7th. The Ada County Highway District acted on the application. What they did is they basically looked at the traffic study and adopted the previous conditions that were applicable to the first preliminary and applied them to this, including in the event that any additional impact fees are allocated and are instituted in this area, that it would apply to this project. We have been working with ACHD as we build this project to make sure that these roadways are upgraded. We kind of did a private-public partnership 0 n Ten Mile Road when we installed 0 ur center t urn I ane. We d id some rebuilds of the road at our cost. We also installed the turn lanes and in conjunction they came in and contracted with our paving company at the same time to go in and overlay Ten Mile and that was from the Creason about 400 feet short of the McMillan intersection, so we have a nice section of road there, whereas before we had a roadway that was rural a nd falling a part. So we have been doing a s we had promised in the previous meetings, working with these agencies trying to help bring this infrastructure up at our expense and trying to save public funds at the same time. I think that's it, unless you have any questions. Oh, concerning the streets. You know, I guess one last note on the stub streets, we spent a lot of money on these collector roadways and this is one of the few projects that I have had where we have continuous collectors and they are very expensive to construct and to landscape. We have approximately I think 54 acres of open space in this project in its entirety. When we start putting these stub streets, we do change the pattern of that traffic and we will create shortcuts out to Under Road for some of those pods, depending on the design of the vacant 40 acre parcels along Linder. If they have a very direct design out from Linder, it will become a shortcut, so, therefore, they w ill be underutilizing the collectors that we are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to build. So you do need to take that into Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 71 of 96 consideration. I do understand staff's concern about block length. We can create some additional interconnectivity through micropaths and we have done -- we are doing a lot of pedestrian pathways in this project and even along the Creason Lateral to the south we will have a pedestrian pathway that runs behind lots and interconnects it right here. And it will link in with your future Five Mile Creek pathway. So we have gone the extra mile to try to provide alternatives to vehicular access within our project. Thank you. Borup: I think we have got a few questions. At least I do. Back to what you were talking about on block length. Bowcutt: Yes, sir. Borup: Did you have any problem with the 1,500 feet at the previous application? I mean it was increased from 1,000 to 1,500. Was that acceptable at that time? Bowcutt: To be honest with you, Commissioner Borup, I don't remember the 1,500 feet. I guess Brad looked it up. I don't know whether I have spaced it or what. Or maybe it's just late. All I know is we asked for deviation from block length in the original planned development application, because we knew we would exceed it with this type of pod design, because we did not have a grid-type system where you're breaking those blocks up in less than 1,000 feet -- or at that 1,000 feet. It's tough to break them up at 1,000 feet, even with a grid, because you end up -- I mean you don't want to have excessive stub streets and you don't have to have streets that aren't necessary. I'm not sure where we got the 1,500. Where did they come from, Brad; do you remember? Hawkins-Clark: I had forgotten it as well, but I looked it up to write this staff report and I came across it. It was pretty clear in the finding. Bowcutt: So I guess I never -- I never went through -. you know, we measured some blocks, but that was when we did the PUD. I couldn't tell you off the top of my head what the distance is. It all depends on how you measure them, too. Borup: Right. I have still got some questions on that myself. How about the fire department's concern? Bowcutt: The fire department - it's a new issue that's just came up within the last probably 60 days, as far as secondary means of access. I have met with Joe Silva, we have talked about this secondary access concept on multiple projects. If we put them out the ped paths, then the ped paths -- I'm sure the staff does not want 20 solid feet of asphalt and then, you know, a fence on each side -- on the edge of that asphalt. You have to probably expand the ped path to a minimum of 30 feet so you could get at least five feet of landscaping on each side of the 20 feet. Borup: What was Joe's attitude on the divided entrance that-- Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19. 2002 Page 72 of 96 Bowcutt: I was told that he was buying off on that on other projects by -- I think it was Dave McKinnon. But, like I said, I can't tell you what project. I assume -- I didn't think we would get into it here at the Commission. It was probably an issue that I think the Council is going to have to make the call on. What Joe is doing is he's going off of the International Fire Code, which the city has not officially adopted and will not adopt until January. What's in effect at this time is the Uniform Fire Code, so he's kind of jumping ahead and saying, well, this is what we are going to be requiring, we may as well start now. I think the Council on some of the -- like decreased street sections, Heritage Commons, for example, the 29 foot street section, the fire department took a very hard stance against that and Council overruled them. So it's going to end up the Council's decision. So, you know, we could discuss this for an hour. Borup: Do you feel that meets a lot of the concerns on the divided entrances? Bowcutt: I feel it does. And if it's accepted -- it needs to be consistent, so if you have accepted it in some projects as a secondary means, I would hope that it would be applicable to this project also. Borup: So that would mean you have this entrance here that would not -- that does not have a divided entrance. Bowcutt: Yes. Because I have lots fronting right there on that neck. Borup: This one is a parcel? Bowcutt: Yes. It would have to be expanded and I do have the room to expand it, because, as you can see, I've got landscaping on both sides -- Borup: Right. Bowcutt: -- of that entrance. This one we could -- we could retro fit a median on that one. The problem -- Borup: Well, you have got a secondary access on that one. Bowcutt: Yes. We do. The problematic one is this one with the long neck, if we are looking at the median -- Borup: Do you know how many lots are in that pod? Bowcutt: Probably about 40 some lots, I would assume. Zaremba: Well -- and for me that would be answered if this were an emergency access, Bowcutt: Right here, sir? Melidian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 73 of 96 Zaremba: Uh-huh. Bowcutt: That would give you interconnection for emergency purposes. Borup: If this is something that, you know, I think needs to be addressed, there is probably three solutions, but -- you know, a divided entrance, emergency through there, or a stub street here. Either one of those three would address that. Zaremba: Well, the issue on a divided entrance here is that there is three houses on one side facing it and three on the other -- or two on the other. Those people would only have right in and right out to their driveways -- five different houses would only have right in and right out and always have to come up and make this u-turn, with some of them leaving and some of the arriving. Borup: What's J? Oh, I guess I could read. Bowcutt: That is the cemetery. Borup: Oh. Bowcutt: There is like a cemetery from the 1800s and it's pretty small. There is I think __ Borup: Are there graves there? Bowcutt: Six, I believe, and we allocated a substantial amount of area around it and we are going to go in and landscape it and make it -- protect it, but yet make it so it's not a focal point, I guess I'll put it that way. We are preserving it, because it is historical, has some historical significance. Borup: And that's why it's got such a long entrance? Bowcutt: Yes, sir. The cemetery itself takes up just a small portion of that area. Borup: I was just looking at a redesign, but the cemetery -- Bowcult: We felt that we didn't want the back yard that close to the cemetery. It was not appropriate. Zaremba: So you're saying the three solutions are in here, which I'm not so thrilled about. Borup: It looks like there is two. Zaremba: Making this an emergency access or putting a stub street out here, those are the three choices. I would be happy with this as an emergency access. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 74 of 96 Borup: And that doesn't address block length at all. Mathes: Can you put micropaths in, though, to break up lot lengths? Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Mathes, that has been considered an option in some planned developments. We have discouraged it. Mathes: Why? Borup: It usually hasn't -- depending on whether you're talking about the perimeter of a subdivision or internally, but Baldwin Park, which I believe is the other one that Becky was referring to, that the fire department allowed the split entry to be used, if you recall, that did use ped paths to break up block lengths. It has been admittedly a point that staff has varied on over the years. It's been in both cases. We have looked at it case by case. Borup: Are these the same block? Zaremba: Yes. According to his measurements. Bowcutt: Yes. The Ada County engineer, I think under state code, determines the block. It's broke up by a public right of way. That breaks the block and then it changes block number. Borup: Okay. Bowcutt: And that's how we do the final plat. Borup: So you can't number your own blocks? Bowcutt: No. Borup: What would be your preference, Becky? Other than leaving it the way it is. Bowcutt: Well, I think that's probably up to Frank. It's hard to think this time of night. Borup: Would staff be -- I mean the ped path really doesn't answer the block length. Or maybe it does. Is that -- is that something that they could work out with staff later? If it was, you know, one or the other? Hawkins-Clark: Can you remind me -- are each of the existing parcels -- the large parcels on Under Road does have a street stub; is that correct? Bowcutt: Yes. Meridian Plannln9 & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 75 of 96 Borup: Because the one parcel is owned by -- I mean two parcels owned by the same individual it does. Hawkins-Clark: You know, we try to look at -- on these -- I mean certainly the redevelopment potential, you know, comes into play and we don't have evidence tonight that those are owned by the same person. I guess I don't see why -- I can see not having both. I mean you have got three -- three large parcels here -- I mean should this one be developed -- yes. I guess this one, out west is that -- right here. Okay. So this one has a stub -- so this is the one that does not have the stub street yet. Borup: Right. Hawkins-Clark: So that's -- in terms of future redevelopment, they come in, how are they going to layout their subdivision, the ability to layout the streets and have their block length be met is a factor and this north -- this northerly one, you know, with the White Drain bisecting it and, you know, access to Linder and access up to the north and they are probably going to start down to the south, I can see where the redevelopment of that would work without having any kind of vehicular access over to the west. Borup: That was my feeling, because of the White Drain. Hawkins-Clark: Right. Borup: But I -- yes. There is a potential problem on the southern part, which is a good point. How do they meeting the thousand -- now they are not going to have -- they may not have the option of a 1,500 foot block length, because if they try to comply with the 1,000, they really will have a problem, won't they? Let's go ahead and get your name on th e record. Varielle: Frank Varielle. 4702 Fieldcrest View, Boise. My recollection on the 1,500 foot block length was we asked for that because of the pod design that we have and the measurement that we used was circular. What Brad is bringing up is a different interpretation. When this was being laid out that was not applied. So I think that that's where that 1,500 feet came from. Borup: So you're measuring here 1,500 feet from here and around? Varielle: Internally on each pod is my recollection how that was done. And, you know, going on the perimeter was not a -- was not something that we had looked at at that time, so -- and I'm not saying that he's incorrect, but thinking back at that time that was why we had requested it, sot hat it would facilitate this pod design. A nd a s far a s a preference as to whether to use the ped path or a stub street, the problem with enlarging those ped paths, even though we may put a bollard on them or whatever, is it's been my experience that they become traffic ways for everybody, you know, kids want to drive their car through there and it just turns into somewhat of a problem and you have to really -- you know, they go around -- drive on the landscaping, do whatever Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 76 of 96 you got to do just to get through there. So if I have to make a choice there, I would say that the sub street would be a preference, simply because of the problems that I think that are caused by trying to create a vehicle access there -- an emergency, and then trying to chain it off and do whatever, I think. Borup: Unless you enlarge them, they are really ugly. Varielle: They are. Borup: Horrible landscaping. Varielle: Yes. It's a real -- it's a real problem. I do -- you know, I think the discussion has been with the island that you have two ways in, that has been an acceptable design standard in the past and, again, that was taken into consideration when we did the pod design, that's why we brought those items in. And I think that in every case that we can apply that, I would prefer to see that and if we have no other means to make that work, then perhaps a stub street is our only alternative. Borup: Taking into consideration what you have said, then, if we -- you know, if we give them some leeway on this one, because of the White Drain, and we have got the divided entrances on all these others, that answers the highway -- or the fire department concern. Really we have just got the one pod that's a concern and that would probably be the one that gets the stub street. Varielle: Yes, Commissioner Borup, that seems to be a workable solution. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: So then the question would be should a stub go to the unproposed development to the east or should it stub back into -- Borup: Oh. To itself. Well, that's not a stub then. Then you're doing away with the pod design, because you have got different housing types here, don't you? This is in the -- aren't those different housing types on this pod than this pod or -- Varielle: That's correct. Borup: Yes. So you don't necessarily want to tie those together. Varielle: That's correct. Borup: So you're saying a stub street to that parcel somewhere. Zaremba: To the east. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 77 of 96 Borup: 0 kayo That would really -- I mean I think we answered -- I mean the divided highway I think answers the fire department concern and it sounds like adding -- adding one stub street to take care of the staff's concern, because of the White Drain and the northern portion. Zaremba: Well -- and on this pod making this island go all the way. Borup: Yes. Zaremba: That was the solution to that pod. Borup: Yes. Zaremba: Extending it. Borup: That doesn't answer block length, then, but it still -- it's got access to the out parcels. Zaremba: And I intend to buy into -- Borup: I think that's reasonable. Zaremba: I buy into the argument that the block length is originally intended and lends itself to solving a grid pattern problem. This being a different kind of a subject that may be the more important one for here is how many houses have one access. Borup: Right. If this is strictly block length, the access could be moved down and reduce that, but that's not really changing anything. I think that's a good solution, to add a stub street on the -- whatever street that is. It's on the second page. Maybe Becky can tell us. What's the name of that street? Bowcutt: San Remo. Borup: Where did you want to put the stub -- or however you want to work the design. Probably anywhere along this whole stretch I would assume. Well, no, that's -- that's not true. There needs to be -- from where that parcel line is down. So that puts it -- Bowcutt: San Remo. Borup: Yes. From Lot 31 south. Bowcutt: Correct. Hawkins-Clark: Is that what you -- Borup: Anywhere from lot 31 south. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 78 of 96 Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Borup: Well, I think we have addressed everything. Are we ready to move on? Actually, that was a lot of time for one issue. Zaremba: That's a big issue. Borup: It's a big project. Zaremba: This could have been five different subdivisions and it could have taken us months. Borup: Okay. Brad, do we need to include in the motion something concerning on the phasing latitude? Or does that matter? Somebody wrote a little note on here, it says motion item. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, I think we would, yes, recommend that that -- there just be a specific item on your motion that grants staff the flexibility -- and I wouldn't necessarily worry tonight about, you know, the wording on that, but I think because it is ordinance that phases, you know, are pretty strictly adhered to year by year and we have done that, I think -- gee, I think it would be helpful to have that in your motion. Borup: Okay. Is there anything else we need to add to the staff comments on the motion, other than -- I mean Mrs. English wanted to add some things on the wastewater ditch. That really pretty much goes without saying, so I guess it doesn't hurt to include it. Zaremba: What I would add there is not necessarily the specific solution, but at least the phrase that their service will not be interrupted. Borup: Well, she was more concerned about the wastewater ditch than -- Zaremba: Then we will do it for both. Borup: Because I don't think her water comes from this project, her water comes from the east. Is that correct? So she's worried about the waste that goes across the road onto this project. So her service can't be interrupted -- her water can't be interrupted, it's the -- Zaremba: Her waste drainage. Borup: Yes. Could back up and that would -- okay. Zaremba: Well, first, Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing. Mathes: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19. 2002 Page 79 of 96 Zaremba: On item 14. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Borup: Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES, Zaremba: All right. I will give it a stab here. I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 14 on our agenda, PP 02-014, request for preliminary plat approval of 439 building lots and 50 other lots on 209.01 acres in an R-4 zone in a Planned Unit Development for Bridgetower Crossing East Subdivision by Primeland Development, northeast corner of North Ten Mile and West Ustick Road, to include all staff comments of their memo of September 16th, with the following changes: On page three, additional considerations, under the phasing plan, staff shall have authority and flexibility to work with the applicant for minor changes in the phasing plan. Page four, items four and five, the White Drain pathway and Settlers Irrigation, the applicant shall resolve these issues two weeks prior to this going to the City Council, in conjunction with the owners of the White Drain, the Settlers I rrigation District. Borup: Is that feasible, Brad? Did you catch that? Resolving the issues with Settlers two weeks before it goes to City Council. Hawkins-Clark: The applicant has been working with Settlers Irrigation for two years. Zaremba: Well, it can't go to City Council without being resolved. Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Yes. Our Council has been pretty vocal about wanting issues cleaned up before they hear them. So I guess the motion needs to -- Borup: Isn't part of the solution is Meridian signing a resolution with them? The city signing -- Hawkins-Clark: A resolution that -- Borup: Or an agreement, the -- or am I talking about two different things here? Freckleton: You're talking about the liability? Borup: Yes. Hawkins-Clark: Yes. The liability issue for the pathways? Is that -- Borup: Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 80 of 96 Hawkins-Clark: That would be a direct agreement, I believe, between the City of Meridian and Settlers Irrigation District. Borup: Is that one of the things you intended to have cleared up before City Council? That's an action City Council has to take on the liability agreement. Zaremba: I would reserve that that item could be handled by the City Council upon discussion of this preliminary plat. Does that make sense? Where are we going? Let me restate that part of the motion. On page four, items four and five, White Drain pathway-- let me deal with the White Drain pathway. The applicant and the owners of the White Drain would work out an agreement that can be approved by the City Council -- a tentative agreement to be finalized two weeks before this goes to City Council and on five, paragraph five, that the applicant and Settlers Irrigation District work together and have th.eir solution by two weeks before this goes to City Council. In addition to that, the applicant has agreed to add one stub street south of Lot 31 on -- what was the name? Borup: San Remo. Zaremba: On San Remo and to extend the island -- don't have the names. I'm going on here. What is that name? Borup: I don't know. Mathes: Becky, what's the name of the -- Hawkins-Clark: Los Flores? Zaremba: What is the name of that little street there? Borup: Why don't you just say the entrance into Block 18 and 32. Entrance into Block 32. Block 32 is the block in the middle of that. That would probably answer that. Zaremba: Okay. The applicant has agreed to extend the island on Los Flores or just the entrance to Block 32. In addition, the applicant will continue to work with Mr. and Mrs. English in resolving the English's waste drainage to a resolution that will not interrupt their service. I s that it? Borup: I think so. Does staff have any concerns with that motion? Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? The ayes have it. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.