Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 7, 2002 Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7. 2002 Page 55 of 84 Siddoway: And could we make that 50-foot, 50-foot wide? Centers: Fifty foot. Siddoway: For a standard Public Road access. Centers: You got it and then the -- so Item 8, which I covered earlier, is below that, obviously. Then you have 9 and 10, which were previously 7 and 8. I think anything requiring the cover crop and the fence we do on the CUP, wouldn't we? Yes, so that would be the end of motion, including all other staff comments. Rohm: I will second that. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Centers: Continuing on. I would recommend approval for CUP 02-028, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development with 327 single-family dwellings, one elementary school, and 27 common lots for proposed Havasu Creek Sub by Farwest, LLC, south of East McMillan Road and west of North Locust Grove, including all staff comments. In addition, developer to be required to maintain a cover crop on land not being developed or until the infrastructure for that phase started. Developer to work with adjoining landowners on the east, specifically Ms. Klaus and Mr. Graham, regarding a vinyl fence. If they can't work out their differences on a vinyl fence, at least will be required to install a six-foot wood with steel posts. End of motion. Rohm: I will second that. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Thank you. That concludes that application. Would the Commission like a short break at this time? Centers: Yes, please. (Recess at 9:50 P.M.) (Reconvene at 10:05 P.M.) Item 10. Public Hearing: AZ 02-023 Request for annexation and zoning of 6.06 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Moshers Farm Subdivision by CMD, Inc. - 895 North Ten Mile Road: Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7. 2002 Page 56 of 84 Item 11. Public Hearing: PP 02-021 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 26 building lots and 6 other lots on 6.06 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Moshers Farm Subdivision by CMD, Inc. - 895 North Ten Mile Road: Item 12. Public Hearing: CUP 02-031 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development for 25 single-family detached homes and 1 single-family existing home in an R-8 zone for proposed Moshers Farm Subdivision by CMD, Inc. - 895 North Ten Mile Road: Borup: Okay. We'd like to reconvene our meeting this evening and start with our next and final project. Items 10, 11, and 12 and open these Public Hearings at this time. AZ 02-023, request for annexation and zoning of 6.06 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for the proposed Moshers Farm Subdivision by CMD, Incorporated, 895 North Ten Mile Road. Also Public Hearing PP 02-021, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 26 building lots and six other lots on the same property and CUP 02-031, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development for 25 single-family detached homes and one single-family existing home in an R-8 zone for the same proposed Moshers Farm Subdivision. I'd like to open all three Public Hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The location of this project is on the west side of Ten Mile Road, is just south of the approved Berkeley Square Subdivision project in this location and Vallerie Heights. Sorry. Thank you. I was trying to remember the name of the project across Ten Mile Road to the east and Vallerie Heights project was -- had been previously approved on that property. This is the site photo of the existing property. You can see the existing rural building and out buildings on that property. This would be the proposed Preliminary Plat. The applicant has come tonight with the minor modification, which I will try and hit the highlights of, as I understand them, and then the applicant can go over them as well. The application is for 26 building lots, six other lots, and they requested R-8 zone. There is about a little over half acre open space in this area right here, it's .57 acres, and five landscape buffer lots, two of which are on Ten Mile Road, two of which are islands. The fifth one -- oh, this -- probably this island right here. This is also being requested through a Planned Development and they are requesting modifications to the base ordinance standards. You can see those detailed in the staff report dated October 21st. On the second page, it requested modifications to the setbacks, the lot size, the lot frontage, and the minimum house size, all of which are reductions from the current City Ordinances. The one special note that's highlighted in black, what that is referring to is even in the Planned Development Ordinance it states that you cannot reduce the setbacks around the perimeter of the property. Their rear setbacks are proposed to be 15 feet in a III ocations, except for t he 0 ne lot where the existing single-family house stands. I guess I don't have one that overlays that, but the existing single-family house is in this location right here. I believe it sits on this lot so they would be requesting a reduced rear setback for that property, because of where the house currently sits. My Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7. 2002 Page 57 of 84 understanding is the remainder of the lots would maintain a 15-foot rear setback along the perimeter. This note on Page 2 dealing with Lot 10, which is this lot right here, they have asked to -- they have asked for a reduction to the side setback for the subdivision in general as five feet, not five feet per story. This one in particular would have to keep the five-foot per story per the staff report. Just a couple things to point out in the staff report itself. On Page 4, Item G, the development would be required to install a temporary sanitary sewer lift station that would provide sewer service to these lots until permanent mains can be installed from the future Black Cat Trunk, which is not yet built, but it will be connected to that trunk in the future. If you go to the additional considerations on Page 6, this kind of highlights the items unresolved for the Commission to discuss tonight, the first of which is a pedestrian recreation easement. The original proposal was to -- well, first of all, to the west of this property is the Chaparral Elementary School. What was proposed at the time of the writing of the staff report was to connect for the children in this subdivision through this common lot and then across an easement behind these properties to get to the school there. Staff didn't feel that was a very safe or good arrangement. We'd much rather see just a simple connection between these two lots. The applicant has brought in a revised plan that everyone should have just received a copy of tonight, one that shows that stub micropath. Now, the main thing to point out here is the City's Ordinance for these micropath lots is a 10 foot - or, sorry, a 15 foot requirement with a five foot pathway and five feet on each side. As they are drawn on here, they are a 10-foot easement or 10 foot wide lot with a five-foot pathway and two and a half feet on each side. Given that this is a Planned Development, if the Commission -- first of all, this arrangement allows the developer to provide that access without losing a lot, which is why he desires to reduce the width on those. That reduction could be approved, because this is a Planned Development, if the Commission supports it, without a Variance. This may be a minor issue, but one thing that we would -- that we feel is we'd still like to maintain the standard requirement for, you know, the one tree for 35 lineal feet. Two and a half feet wide is not wide enough, really, to plant a tree. If we can meander that pathway just a little bit through it, you can get, you know, five feet on side here and there and still -- and get the room to plant a tree. You can still get the trees planted along there that you wouldn't be able to get if it was just a two and a half foot wide planter strip. Okay. The second additional consideration deals with open space. The location of the open space that's provided for this subdivision is on the south portion of this property. Basically, the problem that staff has with the location of it is that it's not visible from anywhere on the public right of way. The only place that it is visible from is the rear of the lots that back up to it. Staff would prefer to see the lot centrally located in a manner that's visible to the majority of the subdivision. We do recognize that the topography of this site is such that it falls from north to south and for drainage purposes that's the logical location for drainage to go at the low point of the property. However, if that drainage is also to be considered as the required open space, we would like the Commission to at least consider moving the location of it to a more central location. Site-specific comments on Page 7, Number 3, the pressurized irrigation system, they have not indicated the ownership of that. We would like to have that clarified tonight. If there is an existing well on site that could be used or what the intention is for the type of pressurized irrigation system that they will be providing. I think the only other one that I -- well, I got Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7. 2002 Page 58 of 84 a couple more. Okay. On Page 8, Item Number 8, simply point out the requirement to tile the Ten Mile Sub Drain, which runs along the southern portion of this property. Turning, again, to Page 9, Item A, the second paragraph there states that the submitted elevations for the homes that will be located within this subdivision will not fit on all the building lots, specifically we couldn't find a way for them to fit on some of these lots in the northwest corner of the subdivision. It's my understanding that the applicant was going to be coming with some additional elevations tonight that might fit, but I'll let him address that in his comments. I think that's all I need to go over specifically. We do recommend approval of the annexation upon resolution of those outstanding issues and with the requirements of the staff report and I would stand for any questions. Centers: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Steve, what is the required open space for a Planned Unit Development again, the percentage? Siddoway: It's a five percent minimum, plus two amenities. Centers: Right. Right. You were -- someone referred to that park area acreage as being over an acre, but it doesn't appear to be. It shows as 41,151 square feet on this revised plat, which would be less than an acre. Borup: But close. Centers: Yes. An acre is 42,560. Siddoway: Where are you looking? I have it as .57 acres. Centers: .5?? Freckleton: Commissioner Centers, I think the reference that you were talking about being a little over an acre, that was on the Havasu project. They were talking about that common area in the north that was a little over an acre. Centers: Well, this isn't .57 acres either. This would be about 7/8ths of an acre. Siddoway: I think we better let the applicant address with the correct -- Borup: The previous plat's got 24,900 is all -- no, 25,000 square feet on the first one. Centers: Really? This one has -- Borup: This one's got 41. Centers: Yes. Well, the applicant can talk about it. Siddoway: Yes. Mr. Chairman, the Preliminary Plat shows that lot as 24,911 square feet and this revised one tonight shows 41,151. It might be just an error, but we can get that resolved. Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7. 2002 Page 59 of 84 Borup: Commissioner Mathes pointed out that the previous revised one showed it 41, also. Centers: And we have 6.06 times five percent. Is that the simple math? Okay. Thanks. Borup: Any other questions from any other Commissioners? Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Ralphs: Thank you. Members of the Commission, my name is Rod Ralphs, I represent the applicant CMD, Inc., in regards to the approval of the annexation and the Conditional Use Permit for Moshers Farm. By way introduction, some of you may be familiar with the principal of CMD, Doug Campbell. He has developed many of the subdivisions here in West Meridian. You know them more readily as The Lakes at Cherry Lane, the Fairways at Ten Mile Grange, which are gated communities, and Dakota Ridge and Wilkins Ranch and Wilkins Estates. These developments also abut schools and Fire Department buildings. Where we have this track record with working with the City of Meridian, and developing this quality, that's exactly the kind of quality we want to bring to this small piece of Meridian here just northeast Pine-Ten Mile intersection. As you have noted from your review, Moshers Farm is a 26-lot subdivision with one existing single-family residence on 6.06 acres. On the west side of the property is Chaparral Elementary School and, as staff indicated, we have, on the revised plat, shown a pathway, which would provide complete access to Chaparral Elementary School for any elementary age kids or for the public to be able to access that site. We believe the proposed subdivision with this application contains all of the site approvals that we would ask for in going forward with this project. I'd like to go through point-by-point some of the concerns expressed by staff. Starting on Page 3 -- actually, Sub Part G on Page 4, where it's asking about requirement of installing a temporary lift station, the lift station will remain the ownership of the homeowners subdivision association. Then it would be able to enter into a Maintenance Agreement with the City of Meridian and it would stay that way until the Slack Cat trunk line would be able to service that subdivision. Turning your attention now to the additional commentary on page six regarding -- Borup: Could you clarify that again? You say it would remain in the ownership of the - Ralphs: Of the homeowners association. Borup: Okay. Ralphs: With the -- Borup: With a Maintenance Agreement with the city. Ralphs: Exactly. Right. Meridian PlannIng and Zoning November 7. 2002 Page 60 of 84 Borup: Okay. Centers: So you agree with the comments? Ralphs: Certainly. Now, going to the additional commentary found on Page 6 regarding the pedestrian easement. We have also addressed that with the revised plat you received this evening. We have placed the pathway in a common lot that will proceed there between Lots 11 and 12 on the west side, allowing access to the elementary school. T he pedestrian walkway that is between Lots 16 and 17 there to the south would remain, and then the access from the cul-d-sac there off of Brittany Court would also remain. We have added a third pathway in this revised plat, so instead of two 15 pathways, we are providing for three 10 foot. We believe we can get the travel and pedestrian traffic there on the five foot walkway and we would certainly be able to explore the meandering effect of that pathway by staff, to just see if we can accommodate the trees and make sure we get approval. The only thing we would like to point out that along all of these pathways there will be four foot open fencing, so as to eliminate a tunnel effect as you're going through these walkways. Any of property lines that are affected or abutting up to the walkways would have a four-foot clear -- or vertical slated fence that would be see through. Also as we have discussed some of the fencing -- Borup: The fence would be a picket type fence? Ralphs: Well, it would -- probably not a picket. There is a type of fence, actually, where the -- they have square type rails or slats. That's a one-by slat that they put in and they insert inside of the -- Borup: But you said it's see through? Ralphs: Right. It would have these pickets all the way through it, but when I hear the word picket, I think of the ones that have the points on it, but we would certainly do anything that you would be open to on that design. Centers: I think that's a requirement, if I'm not mistaken, that it has to be see through. Ralphs: Definitely. Yes. Borup: Well -- or under a minimum height. Centers: Yes. Ralphs: And I seen in the notes it said it could be four foot solid. Centers: I think it's both, because of small -- Borup: Isn't that correct four foot height, they can have it four foot solid. Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7. 2002 Page 61 of 84 Siddoway: I was trying to remember if it was three or four. I have the ordinance, I could look it up, but I believe it's -- . Borup: I couldn't remember ether, whether it was three or four. Siddoway: I know there is an option for either a three or four foot solid fence or a six foot open and this goes a step farther with a four foot open fence, which is perfectly acceptable to us. Ralphs: And as we discussed some of the fencing on this particular site, we would point out that in order to increase the visibility of the park area, we would have four foot -- this four foot see through fence all of the lots that butt up against the park. You would have that -- it would add a degree of openness to that. You do have visibility from both Ashley Avenue down the pathway into the park and then you also can't see it, but it's from the cul-d-sac. There will be a fencing requirement on the lot - it looks like Lot 22 back of the cul-d-sac where the placement of that house and then fencing would allow for increased visibility back into the park. We would actually tuck that house into the north part of that lot and then there would be requirements that this open-type fence would exist on the south of the house to create more openness. I wanted to address also the comments from the staff regarding the placement of the park in the other areas of the subdivision. We have looked at that, however, as indicated also by staff, there are unique characteristics to this particular piece of property. There is a rather significant gradient that we are finding on the property. From north to south, you have a drop of approximately eight feet and it gets steeper as it approaches the drain. In order for us to accommodate and even change the gradient draining for storm drain needs, we would have to bring in an excess of eight feet and taper it to the north. That is why we would request or ask that we be allowed to keep the park there in light of the open fencing that we would be willing to provide. We also wanted to just throw out for discussion here tonight -- we realize we were supposed to throw in a couple of pieces of recreational type amenities there in the park. Didn't know what kind of limitations or suggestions you would have on that, given the proximity to Chaparral and with the direct access to Chaparral and certainly open to any kind of comment from you on that. As we go to Page 7, Sub Part 4, I believe there are some comments in the staff report about the perimeter fence being solid all the way around it. I wanted to note that there along the Ten Mile Drain that we have down on our Preliminary Plat that it would be a six-foot chain I ink fence. I believe some of t he things that we ran into with N ampa- Meridian is if you go for any kind of solid fence, especially one made out of wood, their concerns are over combustibility when they go in to burn those weeds and won't lose that fence. I believe we noted in the staff report that it be solid around the perimeter, we would ask that along the drain that we would be able to go with a six foot chain link. Let me show you also -- there was an expression by the staff regarding the type of house that we could put on Lot 10 there in the northwest corner of the subdivision and I wanted to present you this as a sample. In each of your booklets, there were some tentative plans of different types of designs for the homes in this subdivision and here is another one we were looking at for Lot 10. This is a general concept that would fit the Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7. 2002 Page 62 of 84 footprint. Of course, the exterior would be - would meet that or exceed that as far as design but that one does have the necessary footprint to be able to fit on that particular lot. I did want to address also on Page 9, Sub Part A, where weare talking about different types of homes, we do want to have that decreased setback, at least for that particular lot, to accommodate the homes on that site. The comment about the ditch tiling, we wanted to note that the Ten Mile drain -- at that point it's a considerable size drain that comes through there. We note that it is not tiled ether upstream or downstream and as we go all the way out to Black Cat there is no tiling on that and we would ask that that requirement be waived. Borup: Have you talked with staff on how that would be handled? Ralphs: No, I have not. Borup: My understanding you would need to apply to the City Council for a Variance is that correct? This Commission cannot grant the Variance. Ralphs: I understand. Thank you. The other things that we just wanted to point out on this subdivision are to look at some of the extras that we have put in here. We have done a lot of work as far as placing Landscape Plans. If you look at the Preliminary -- or the adjusted plat that you received here this evening that indicates the green areas that we have put inhere. We have got t he common I andscaped areas there, 0 f course, along Ten Mile to serve as a buffer, we have got the island as an entrance, and then we have done islands on each of the cul-d-sacs. The radius that we have in there is for fire traffic. Understand that also one of the notes in the staff report regarded concerns about parking along those lots, that we would find back there in the west cul-d-sac and we would certainly be amenable to providing through the CC&Rs that there would be a prohibition against on-street parking in that cul-d-sac to allow for emergency service vehicles. I don't have anything else. If there are any questions, you would have of us. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Centers: Yes. It says in the application six other lots. With your amended plat, here I see one, two, three, four, and five. Maybe I'm counting wrong. I don't know. Ralphs: Actually, if you -- let's see. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Six, counting the new pathway? Centers: I counted that one. Borup: Oh. Both Islands? Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7. 2002 Page 63 of 84 Ralphs: We have got the two islands and then we have the one there in the center there in the entrance. Centers: I think we have an answer over here. Siddoway: Yes. I think I can point it out to you. Centers: Please. Siddoway: There are one, two landscape lots along the frontage. Centers: Right. Siddoway: There are one, two, three -- it's getting dim, but three islands. Centers: You're counting those little islands along the street? Siddoway: Yes those are -- Centers: Okay. That one. Okay. Siddoway: And then, the large open space lot on the south. Centers: One, two, three, four, five, six. Got it. Okay. I missed the island. You can certainly see where staff is coming from on that, the little park area. Boy, that is isolated but then, on the other hand, I can see why you want to put it there for the drainage. Of course, the lay of the land there. Was there ever thought about another pathway or two from Ashley Avenue down to it? Your lot widths would allow for it like you did on Lots 11 and 12 or -- yeah. Ralphs: We can certainly look into that as far as -- Centers: That's the only way to provide additional access. I mean I can see where it would be difficult-- Ralphs: You mean on 21 -- Centers: Yes. Right. Yes. Exactly. Right there on that -- on the bush right there but you know I can see why you want to put it there, without a doubt. I guess your salability of the lots is your business, I mean -- so I think it's kind of an esthetics thing, personally. You mentioned a couple items -- or you said for the PUD you had to provide two things. I forget the verbiage you used, but we look at them as more than two things. I mean five percent open space as mentioned, and then you have your choice. You say you were just going to put some playground equipment and - Ralphs: That's one of the options. The other one would be either like a half court basketball court or maybe a sand volleyball pit, something like that. Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7, 2002 Page 84 of 84 Centers: The pathways, in my view, are the open space, so I think you have only got one thing there, in my opinion. Playground equipment. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Commissioner Centers, the five percent -- the five percent open space is required separate from the two amenities. A possibility for one of the two amenities would be a 10 -- bumping it up to 10 percent or -- but the pathway connections to the school could count as one of the two. Centers: And while you're on that, how many square feet of open space does he have because five percent is only 13,000 square feet. Ralphs: We have 24,000. That was a typo there on Lot 24 for the park. Centers: Ten percent is 26,000 feet so he has almost 10 percent. Okay. Borup: But that 24 was the correct size for that -- Ralphs: 24,911. Centers: And you have big lots? Ralphs: Yes. Centers: You have more than 24,911, then. You have 24 in that. Ralphs: Yes in that particular lot. Correct. Centers: Right. Borup: Well, the definition is usable open space, so -- Centers: Pathways don't count as open space? Well, the front common areas count as open space. Yes. Siddoway: The front common areas, the street buffers, do not count. Centers: They don't? Siddoway: They cannot be counted towards the five percent. The ones on Ten Mile is that what you're talking about? Centers: Yes. Siddoway: Yes. The ones along Ten Mile cannot be counted. Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7. 2002 Page 65 of 84 Centers: What's the normal buffer? Siddoway: Twenty-five feet. Centers: For any subdivision? Siddoway: Along an arterial road, yes. Centers: Okay. Okay and that's what he's got. Well, the point is he's got about double of the minimum requirement. Okay. That's alii have. Thank you. Borup: Anyone else? I -- one that maybe - a question for staff. That was on a proposed reduced setback. Did you have any comment on that 10-foot side street setback? There was nothing in the staff comments, so apparently not. Siddoway: Street side 10 feet on corner lots. No, I don't think we have a problem with it as part of this Planned Development. Borup: Okay. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman? Maybe while the applicant's representative is up here we could get an answer to the pressurized irrigation question. Borup: Oh. Freckleton: As to the source and -- Ralphs: We do have a year around source in Ten Mile Drain. However, we would be-- the ownership of that system would be by Nampa-Meridian. Borup: Is there enough capacity in there? Has that been looked into? Ralphs: As far as capacity going off Ten Mile and the water rights on that? I don't have an answer for you on that. Borup: But it would be making use of the existing well on the site for secondary water? Was that the intention? Ralphs: Yes. Borup: Okay anything from the other Commissioners? All right. Thank you. Centers: Staff comments cover that if you require the staff comments. Ralphs: Thank you. Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7. 2002 Page 66 of 84 Borup: Do we have anyone that would like to testify on this application? Atkinson: I'm Irma Atkinson. I live at 1124 North Lightning Place, which is across the street, across Ten Mile in Thunder Creek Subdivision. I guess you all know by now I have been here before. Oh yes there. Okay. Down. Down. Yes. That's it. Okay obviously, I have been here before. When I look at a development, I think of pedestrian safety and auto traffic safety and the impact on the existing neighborhood. With this particular developmental I was glad to see the micropath to the school, because to get from Haven Cove and Thunder Creek -- if I was -- if I let my kids walk -- I think I used the words over my dead body -- they would have to go up Ten Mile and into Parkside Creek and around and then down into the school property. I was glad to see Berkeley Square put a micropath and I'm glad to see Moshers Farm putting a micropath, because then I could go out to the school district to get a crossing guard and a crosswalk, too, but - so I think that is a good thing. I question the amenity of the open space that isn't accessible, although Laura, who is probably going to speak next, will say it's great, because she can enjoy that view from her house off of Pine Street, so, sorry, Laura. I guess my concern is it doesn't -- I hear the applicant saying that he's going to make it more visible by requiring the properties adjacent to have four foot see through fences. As a mom and a pet owner, I'm just not sure how that would work in a single-family subdivision, because certainly, my dog can jump over a four-foot fence and a smaller dog could probably go in between if it was a slatted fence. You know, yes, it's there as an amenity, but I'm not sure if they are practical, but I also can see the problems with the layout of the property, too. My -- on the traffic concern, yes, this does meet the requirements of ACHD for how far the entrance is away from the nearest intersection. I understand that it's small enough that a traffic study wasn't required, but to go from probably the current vehicle trips of 10 up to -- I think the estimate was 250 on that road and t hat particular place. I can see the northbound traffic trying to turn left into the subdivision backing up and creating other hazards there for the traffic, especially the high school kids and I have a high schooler now. She's not taking Driver's Ed until she's 30, but we can work on that. I also feel that there should be some responsibility for Moshers Farms to address that intersection. I certainly -- and I'm sure the Fullers would you agree -- held them accountable for -- with Vallerie Heights that they needed to do something to address the problems that traffic would cause and although Moshers Farm is small, it's still adding, you know, 240 vehicle trips a day on that road and I think there needs to be some accountability there. Questions? Borup: Any questions from the Commission? Anyone else? Wilder: Hi. I'm Laura Wilder. I live at 3401 West Pine, which is the unpaved section that iswest of Ten Mile. It's the lot across from the Episcopal Church. Our property is within 300 feet of the Moshers Subdivision. We are not opposed to the Moshers Subdivision and we think that a single-family development there is fine. However, I do have some concerns and I have a couple questions of the applicant's representative that aren't clear to me as far as the sidewalk, as far as that southeast corner. First, I would like to echo Irma's sentiments as far as the traffic. The speed limit on Ten Mile Road is 35 miles an hour and anyone that drives that road knows that 90 percent of the Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7. 2002 Page 67 of 84 cars do not obey the speed limit. It's closer to 45 as far as an average. I'm also making a lift turn often on that intersection and I have witnessed a number of accidents. There was one on the 25th of October after school. It's a continual thing and I think that with that road not being a residential street, it's a major thoroughfare, even though this is a smaller development, having some kind of a center turn lane would be very beneficial safety wise as far as those people trying to turn in and out of there. I'm concerned with all the development on the northwest of the city, the impact that that will have on that road and the hazards, it will be to the residents of not only that subdivision, but to the rest of us that live nearby. The entrance to that subdivision is approximately 400 feet from the intersection. That's a very busy intersection, especially at school time and that is a concern that -- I know it's a difficult thing to deal with right now, but I would like to see center turn lanes in and out of these subdivisions considered on Ten Mile Road for the safety of all of the motorists and the residents. The question I have -- and I'll point out to the spot that I'm talking about. The question I have -- the diagram shows that the sidewalk goes up right to the edge of the Ten Mile Drain. I know that when the Episcopal Church develops that they will be responsible for the sidewalk up to the other side of the Ten Mile Drain and I would like to know whose responsibility it is to cover that little gap in between, so that we have safe passage in between that area. There is a very narrow shoulder on Ten Mile Road. Right now, there isn't room that people can really bike or even walk down there and especially where that drain is. That property where Lot Number 25, I guess it is, it really slopes down and then the road is elevated up where the -- above where the property slopes. I want to know is the sidewalk going to be along the road or is it going to follow the slope down into the corner of the property? That's one question I have and the other question is who is going to be responsible for side walking over that drain to make that safe, because it's a very congested area. It's very close to the intersection, it's very narrow shoulders there, I see that to be a very troublesome spot as far as the sidewalk right at the corner of that property, and I think that should be addressed. The other thing that I would like to say on the record is we have owned our property since 1985 and we currently have agricultural production 0 n 0 ur property. We have a s mall flock 0 f sheep, they pretty much are quiet, they don't bother anyone, and they can be compatible with the neighborhood. We haven't had anyone complain about them yet. However, with people that aren't used to animals living close to them, I just would like to let it be known on the record that there are times, such as weaning or feeding in the early morning hours, when there is some noise. Not very often, but a couple times a year we will clean pens and use organic fertilizer and spread it on the pasture. If the wind happens to be blowing that way -- we want the applicant to be aware and to please notify the residents that there is agricultural production within 300 feet of the development and that we would respectfully ask them to not complain. We were there first so I just would like that to be known. That brings me to the other issue that Irma brought up as far as dogs. I have read the covenants for the subdivision and it's very clear that the owners are responsible for keeping their dogs inside the fence. However, I, too, am concerned about those fences. W hen we have lambs, we can't have dogs around. We pretty much call the county and have them come and pick them up. We have a zero tolerance policy, because I mean any lose dogs around our livestock is a very bad situation and we would express some concern over t hose low fences and want to make sure that Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7, 2002 Page 68 of 84 people are going to be able to keep their dogs contained. Those are the concerns I have and we are not so much opposed to the subdivision, but I would like to have those questions answered and a little more clarity on that. Centers: And I understand what you're talking about there and the dogs with sheep. They are proposing a chain link fence along that back property line, which should really help that. The four-foot vinyl see through fence is within the subdivision. Wilder: Right. I understand that but dogs have a way of finding their way out of there. Centers: They do across the road and -- Wilder: And so, I just wanted that to be on the record that that is a concern. The chain link fence is definitely -- definitely will help and we have not had any problems with any of the other developments nearby. We haven't a problem with dogs at all since they have been there, but we have 40 ewes. During lambing time, we have about 80 lambs, and we keep yearly lambs over. Sometimes we have 140 head of sheep 300 feet from where that development is going to be and I just, you know, want them to be aware of that and hopefully we can work together if we have a problem, but I do think it needs mentioned. Centers: Good point. Wilder: That's all that I have. Centers: Thank you. Borup: Anyone else? Ketterling: I'm Kasey Ketterling, representing Leavitt & Associates, the engineer for Doug Campbell on this development. I just want to address the pressurized irrigation system. The proposed plan right now is to involve this development, as well as the development south of Pine Road and also the church that's being built in that same area, involve those three developments in a combined system. This -- we feel that putting these three developments on one system will be -- minimize the number of systems that are being cared for and taken care of. We also propose that we do a combined system for the sewer as well with this development and the development south of Pine Road and the church. Minimize the -- for the sewer we have to put in a pump station, so to minimize the amount of pump stations that are in this area and limit it to one to three developments. I just wanted to make that -- just to make that comment, just to reference that. Also if you could put the map back up of the -- showing the lots. One idea to increase the open space -- I just spoke with the developer. One idea is to take the Lot 22 and create a rectangular lot, which is deeper into the park and take the corner lot off the north -- the more southern comer, remove that and make the lot deeper. It would be a similar shape to the other lots and it would open up that cul-d- '" Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7. 2002 Page 69 of 84 sac ~o.~he park more, creating more vision through there. It wouldn't require as much prohlblttng of the fences and a clear line of sight through that cul-d-sac into the park. Centers: I'm not following you on that. I see Lot 22 up there and Lot 23. Now, what do you want to do with that? Borup: I think he's saying cut the property line here, Jerry, back and -- Ketterling: Make it deeper. Centers: Would 23 still be big enough? That would be great. Borup: It looks I ike it would so a II this section down h ere, which nonbuildable a rea, would become open -- would become park area. Centers: Yes. Ketterling: Exactly. Then there wouldn't be a problem with fences and it would - we could make that lot have the appropriate depth and width to accommodate the footprints Centers: Right. Right. Ketterling: -- as some of the other lots. Centers: I wish I had thought of that. That's a big lot anyway. Ketterling: If we had to require that they couldn't build in that southern portion, it may not be as desirable lot, so this may create a more desirable lot anyway. Centers: Yes very good. Borup: Anymore questions? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman? I have just got one, ownership of the PI. Are you leaning towards Nampa-Meridian as far as your regional pump station irrigation system? Ketterling: Yes, we are. I spoke with them as the source of available water and their thoughts are is if they have an available irrigation source, they would prefer that the water be pulled from there. If there isn't a supply available, then they will allow it to be pulled from the Ten Mile Drain and we haven't researched that any further than that. The water is available there from one of those two sources, so -- Borup: Okay. Anything else? Thank you. Ketterling: Thank you. Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7. 2002 Page 69 of 84 sac to the park more, creating more vision through there. It wouldn't require as much prohibiting of the fences and a clear line of sight through that cul-d-sac into the park. Centers: I'm not following you on that. I see Lot 22 up there and Lot 23. Now, what do you want to do with that? Borup: I think he's saying cut the property line here, Jerry, back and -- Ketterling: Make it deeper. Centers: Would 23 still be big enough? That would be great. Borup: It looks I ike it would so a II this section down h ere, which n onbuildable a rea, would become open -- would become park area. Centers: Yes. Ketterling: Exactly. Then there wouldn't be a problem with fences and it would -- we could make that lot have the appropriate depth and width to accommodate the footprints Centers: Right. Right. Ketterling: -- as some of the other lots. Centers: I wish I had thought of that. That's a big lot anyway. Ketterling: If we had to require that they couldn't build in that southern portion, it may not be as desirable lot, so this may create a more desirable lot anyway. Centers: Yes very good. Borup: Anymore questions? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman? I have just got one, ownership of the PI. Are you leaning towards Nampa-Meridian as far as your regional pump station irrigation system? Ketterling: Yes, we are. I spoke with them as the source of available water and their thoughts a re is if they have an available irrigation source, they would prefer t hat the water be pulled from there. If there isn't a supply available, then they will allow it to be pulled from the Ten Mile Drain and we haven't researched that any further than that. The water is available there from one of those two sources, so -- Borup: Okay. Anything else? Thank you. Ketterling: Thank you. Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7. 2002 Page 70 of 84 Borup: Anyone else? Fuller: Dave Fuller, 890 North Ten Mile. I own the property right across the street. Just want to make a few comments. I have been talking to the developers a little bit. There are some concerns on that corner and Keith knows all about it. Just to address a little bit about the intersection, one of the gentlemen told me that they are going to be working -- Ada County does have that scheduled here in a few years -- three years or something like that, which is good. You might keep in your thoughts and minds about tiling that ditch. I wouldn't think it would be necessary to tile the whole ditch along the property, but if they did tile a portion of it right there at that bad intersection and put some gravel over that pipe, it would sure create a lot safer deal while we are waiting for Ada County to get there. If they widened the shoulder a few feet, and I don't think it would be a very expensive deal to put in, you know, a couple sections of tile while we are waiting for Ada County to get their act together three years down the road. Other than that, I would like to say it looks like a pretty good development. It is a little bit of low ground. I'm sorry that we had to do the pump station, but you know you have got to do that on low ground. We are glad to see it come alive and get the whole area developed and, you know, we have struggled for a long time to see it done right over there and we trust you guys to get it done right. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Okay. Have you got final comments you'd like to make? Maybe address some of the -- go ahead and then we will ask anything else if - Ralphs: Just wanted to address a couple of the requested comments about some of the concerns with the roadway. If we can go back to the plat map. If you will note, that sidewalk goes all the way to the property line and the property line will butt up against the south property line, which is owned by the church. Inside that area is the Ten Mile Drain and so the two properties -- the two adjacent property owners would be taking care of any kind of sidewalk. I would -- Centers: Wait the church and yourself? Ralphs: Yes. Centers: So you're going to go halfway and they are going to go the other half? Ralphs: Well, to the extent the property lines abut. Centers: Okay. Borup: And don't they abut right there? Ralphs: Yes, they do so that's where they abut and so the church would have part of that and -- the property line goes right to the middle of that drain. Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7. 2002 Page 71 of 84 Borup: Right now where that sidewalk shows is out in the middle of the ditch is that correct? Ralphs: That brings me to our next point. We met with ACHD about two weeks ago and what they have asked us to do is place the sidewalks -- the funds that were going to be used for the sidewalks improvements into a trust, a road trust. Here in the next two or three years they will be widening that to a five lane from Franklin to Cherry Lane and so instead of us putting in the sidewalks and having them tear it out, they have requested that we bring the sidewalks to the curb radius, the edge of that radius on the plat. Then put the rest of the funds that would be used for improving that into a road trust where they would put it in at a later time. The sidewalks at that time would be reflecting a five-lane road and ACHD would be putting that in when they expand the road. Borup: And then, is that in their work project? Ralphs: That's in their work project when -- Borup: For what year? Ralphs: What year was that? It's in the five-year plan, but they indicated they were already moving it and, actually, November was the month that they were putting together a report. They have already indicated that as we go forward with the project they want that put in the trust because of that -- Borup: So they don't have an exact year anticipated yet, other than being in the five- year work plan? Ralphs: Yes. Borup: Okay. That -- I don't know. ACHD has asked for that in the past where it's going to be within a short time. That doesn't -- would you like to expand on the comment about pedestrian traffic along Ten Mile now and not being able to get passed that point? Ralphs: That was one of the chief reasons that we put that stub into Chaparral, so that -- our sidewalk to the north is going to end. I don't know how far Brittany -- or, excuse me, Berkeley comes down from the south, but the pedestrian traffic on Ten Mile right now, until ACHD gets the project done, they would have to use the existing shoulder. Borup: Right but I think part of the concern was at that point there is no existing shoulder to speak of, because -- am I correct? Ralphs: Well, we would landscape it and there would be some things there -- Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7. 2002 Page 72 of 84 Borup: Are you looking at maybe adding at least one pile right there, so you would be able to widen it out at that point? Ralphs: We hadn't looked at that, no. Borup: I think that was the concern, from what I understood, is that there is not enough of a shoulder here, because the ditch comes so close to the road that you -- Ralphs: Well, right there you have a drop off of eight feet. Borup: Right. Rohm: It isn't an area that's being used at all by pedestrian traffic. Borup: Right so the pedestrians have to walk out into the roadway. Ralphs: Which they have been doing. I don't have a quick answer for you on that one. Borup: Would there be any problem with putting a piece of tile in and fill in that so they could walk across it? Ralphs: I think we would have to check with ACHD before we proceeded on that one. We would be open to it, but we would want to make sure that it was okay with ACHD. Yes, we can do that or Nampa-Meridian, too. Borup: Well, yes. Probably -- like you said, it's probably only going to take one section. One or two, whatever it takes. Okay. Ralphs: And as far as the dog issue with the four-foot fences, you know, the City of Meridian has an Animal Control Ordinance and if animals are getting out and people can't control them, then the city has already got that taken care of. We would -- the other issue that was raised was about the notice to the homeowners that would be buying in there about the agricultural operations within 300 feet. We can certainly add that to the CC&Rs, make sure that they are on those and at least at this point in the approval, we have agricultural operations functioning that close to the project, so they would be on notice of it. People will complain, but it's a very short phone call. Centers: Well, I think that's good. You put them on notice. If they didn't read the CC&Rs, that's -- you could refer them to it. The lady has a good point. I have a question on the -- you know, the plat that we have has 26 lots and your amended plat has 26 lots, but you renumbered them all? Ralphs: Well, they number to reflect, as you go through -- let me pull that up. You will notice, for example, that the park area has a lot number. Centers: Yes. Right. Well, previously it was Lot 23 and now it's Lot 24. Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7. 2002 Page 73 of 84 Ralphs: To accommodate -- when we submitted this plat the walkways were actually an easement. They didn't exist as a separate lot. Centers: Okay. Ralphs: And we addressed that staff concern. Exactly right. Centers: Okay. Borup: It became Lot 12, so everything is sliding down. Centers: The gentleman that came up and offered to give away part of Lot 23 on your amended plat, how many feet would you propose there? Because if we are going to make a motion to take part of that lot, I think we need to -- either that or we need to revise the plat and you need to come back. Borup: Fifty-four, 55 feet wide? Ralphs: It would be 100 feet deep by 90 wide? Is that the first point? You will see there is a point down there 90 point 81. Borup: Well, no, the width would be -- it would be back -- it would be narrower that -- Centers: Yes you would be taking off the 90. Are you going to make it 60? Ralphs: Right the 90 would be reduced by the distance coming out. Borup: So probably 54 wide would be the same as 56. That would be -- Ralphs: Fifty-four would be consistent with what we have got. It would be 54 -- Borup: Fifty-four to 58. Ralphs: Yes and we have got 100 feet deep. Centers: So it's 81. Ralphs: Well, it is now, but after we adjust it, it would be -- we would be taking that off the south side there and adding it to the west. Freckleton: Would the 100 feet be measured on the north boundary? Borup: Or could we say just in line with the other lot there, which would be -- Ralph: Lot No. 21 and just put it there on the west boundary of Lot 21. Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7. 2002 Page 74 of 84 Borup: Actually, I guess it doesn't matter. Does that say a minimum of 100 feet? Freckleton: Just specify which boundary it is. Borup: The north boundary. Centers: Well, why don't you just kind of draw it in there what you're looking at? Excuse me. Borup: Okay. Was there anything else Commissioners felt needed to be addressed by the applicant? I think we talked about if they would file and get -- at least get a gravel walkway over the drain along the road there where it narrowed up. We talked about redesign of Lot 23. I think that certainly handles the area. I realize, you know, the staff comment is that it's not real central, but this is not a large project and everybody living here is going to know where the park is. Centers: Yes that's -- exactly. Borup: If they can't find it, then they have got bigger problems. Centers: Well -- and if they can't sell the homes because of the park location, that's their problem, too. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, if I could throw out a little food for thought. This -- maybe just a little bit of a concern that I have got. In reading, ACHD's staff report it talked about the five-year work program and they want the applicant to put up money for the sidewalk, the road trust. That could be three years. There is a lot of pedestrian traffic on this stretch of Ten Mile. I guess the thing I'm kicking around is whether the applicant could, in lieu putting up money into road trust. If they could install a separated sidewalk at this time and - you know, that way you would have a sidewalk now to get the kids off the street, a detached sidewalk that would be in their -- in their common area. It wouldn't be tore out when Ten Mile gets improved. and if ACHD - I mean if it's a matter of the applicant building the sidewalk now or putting it into road trust, he's out the same amount of money, so - Ralphs: We'd certainly be open to that. That's a great suggestion. Borup: Actually, from the figures I have seen, it would probably cost you less, instead of a road trust. Freckleton: Oh, yes because they are probably going to add some -- Borup: So would we want to make that as a requirement or either/or? Centers: Well, if we make it a requirement to put in the sidewalk now, are you going to be okay with ACHD, though? Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7, 2002 Page 75 of 84 Ralphs: That would be the one thing I would -- if you would -- that would be pending, the objection from ACHD, that they -- if they insist on us not doing it, then, that would be waived. Borup: But other subdivisions have gone in that way when the roads have been widened, they left the existing meandering sidewalks there -- Ralphs: And as we put it in, we would confer with ACHD just to make sure that the meandering sidewalk is completely of the proposed right of way. We would definitely go that route, but -- Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I believe that if the city required it, it would be done. Borup: ACHD would allow it. If your plan is right, if it's just within that landscaping lot, you're out of the right of way. Yes, you have got 25 feet there to get the sidewalk in. Ralphs: Okay. Borup: Okay anything else that needs to be discussed? Ralphs: Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Commissioners? Centers: For staff, we would want a new revised -- or a new Preliminary Plat prior to City Council. Freckleton: Yes. I would be comfortable with that. Centers: Primarily because of the reconfiguration of that park area. Freckleton: I think as long as your motion is very clear, we are fine with getting a revised plat prior to Council. Centers: And we will take them with -- you know, in approximate footage -- I mean give or take a few feet because I think it was a good idea and generous on their part, so that's good. I would move we close the Public Hearing. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Centers: Mr. Chairman? Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7. 2002 Page 76 of 84 Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: I would like to recommend approval of Item 10, AZ 02-023, request for annexation and zoning of 6.06 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Moshers Farms Subdivision by CMD, Incorporated, at 895 North Ten Mile Road, including all staff comments. End of motion yes end of motion. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Centers: Continuing 0 n, would like tor ecommend a pproval for Item 1 1, P P 02-021, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 26 building lots and six other lots on 6.06 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Moshers Farm Subdivision by CMD, Incorporated, at 895 North Ten Mile Road, including all staff comments. Siddoway: Mr. Centers? Mr. Chairman? Borup: Go ahead. Siddoway: I would -- if I can find it. Item 2, site specific comment two for the plat -- Centers: Page? Siddoway: On Page 7 requires that the common lot pathway be added with a minimum width of 15 feet. If you agree with the proposal from the applicant, you would need to revise those dimensions and we'd ask that you ask for the meandering version of that, so that the trees could be added as well. Centers: Right had that. Thank you. Bottom of Page 6, regarding the open space, the applicant has agreed to forfeit part of Lot 23 on tonight's revised plat, giving up approximately 45 feet of the southerly portion of Lot 23 and the revised plat showing that change should be completed prior to City Council. Page 7. Siddoway: Mr. Centers, could we have the dimensions of that lot in this notion? As I understand it, it would be 54 by 100? Centers: Well-- Borup: I think we left it 54 or 56 wide by minimum of 100 deep. Centers: The remaining Lot 23 would be approximately -- it would be 87 plus 20 - 128 feet deep on the north line -- Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7, 2002 Page 77 of 84 Borup: That's 81, not 87. Centers: Yes 81 is 27 is 128. Borup: Okay. Centers: And the width of Lot 23 would be approximately 45 feet. Does that describe it? Borup: Fifty-four? Freckleton: Fifty-four by 100 is what I have. Siddoway: I think 100 feet deep is plenty. It matches the other lots. Centers: He's going clear -- he drew it for me here, Steve. He drew it on my map. The applicant did. Okay? Borup: Well, I think are we fine with -- Centers: The north lot line would be approximately 128 feet deep. Borup: No, not 128, 108. Centers: Twenty-seven. You're right 108. Excuse me. Excuse me. I added wrong. It would be approximately 108 feet deep. Borup: Well, it was making sense what you were saying. Centers: Yes and the width would be approximately 45 feet. Borup: Or 54 he's dyslexic. Centers: Fifty-four. I can submit this with the motion, his drawing, if you like, and I'll give it to the Assistant City Clerk. Borup: Okay. Centers: Because the applicant drew it here for me. Anyway, the remaining part of Lot 23 would be part of Lot 24, the park area. Okay. Page 7. Borup: That would also eliminate the pathway, paved pathway at that site, I'm assuming. Does that need to be stated or is that -- Centers: Yes good point. Wouldn't have any need for it. Good point. That would be part of the motion that that pathway could be eliminated. Okay Page 7, Number 2 proposed pathways would be reduced to 10 feet wide -- a total of 10 feet with a five-foot Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7. 2002 Page 78 of 84 pathway, with appropriate trees, per city requirement. You had mentioned trees planted. Siddoway: Yes from the Landscape Ordinance, one tree per 35 lineal feet is the requirement. Centers: Okay. Borup: To accomplish that it would have to be a meandering pathway. Centers: Right. Number three I think we are okay. The applicant understands he must provide pressurized irrigation and identify the source and the ownership. Number 4, I would agree with the applicant and allow chain link fencing along the canal or the drain. I think we could add it here that the applicant should include in their CC&Rs that homeowners are aware of agricultural use surrounding the property and livestock, such as lamb, cows, chickens, and you're coming in at your own pleasure, but they are there first. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman? Commissioner Centers, I think just a reference to the Idaho Statute of Right-to-Farm -- it's the Right-to-Farm Act, It's an Idaho Statute. Centers: We understand that, but they want it in the CC&Rs so that buyers know that they are buying next to some people that have some animals. Freckleton: Absolutely and I want it on the face of the plat, too. Centers: And if the odor is there, then that's too bad so you want that on the face of the plat? Freckleton: Absolutely. Centers: So part of the motion. The applicant has stated that they wouldn't allow parking on the cul-d-sacs and I would say both cul-d-sacs no parking. To provide the sidewalk in advance along Ten Mile Road across the drain and, of course, tile the drain to accomplish that and work with ACHD to make sure there is no problem there but put in the sidewalk in advance. Borup: Outside the ACHD right of way. Centers: Correct. They better. As far as the -- you know, I think this is the place to cover it, the setback waiver on the existing home, per applicant's request, which fronts on Ten Mile end of motion. Rohm: I will second that. Borup: Motion and second. Any other discussion? Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7. 2002 Page 79 of 84 Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, can I just clarify a couple items? Borup: Yes. Siddoway: Thank you. Okay. Item -- since I have to write this recommendation. Centers: Oh, yes. You have to. Siddoway: Yes so Item 1 I have revise Lot 23 per the dimensions noted, approximately 54 by 100. Item 2 I had some question about the pathway. If you will look up at the Landscape Plan that was submitted, the proposal that was originally submitted actually connected the pathway through from one cul-d-sac over to the street. Centers: No, we are not eliminating that one. Is that what you're saying? Borup: No. He's saying there is a continuous pathway. Siddoway: There is a continuous pathway - Centers: Oh. Siddoway: eliminating? that connects all the way across, so I'm wondering what you're Centers: Well, this is going to all be park, Steve. Borup: We are looking at the new revised -- Siddoway: I know so you're saying it doesn't have to connect over to their cul-d-sac now. Centers: Well, it connects, because this all going to be park. Siddoway: Will they have a path through the grass? Borup: We weren't looking at the same -- Centers: They didn't have a continuous pathway on mine. Borup: On the landscape one they did, which we haven't been looking at. Centers: Oh. We were looking at the revised plat. Siddoway: We would like to have it connect through, per the Landscape Plan. Centers: Why? Because the lawn would get wore out with them walking across it or -- Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7. 2002 Page 80 of 84 Siddoway: Walking, biking I mean it can become a pedestrian amenity. Borup: The biking, maybe, I can see. As far as walking, it's nice to walk on grass. Siddoway: Roller blades and skateboards. Centers: What kind of surface are we talking about? Siddoway: Asphalt or concrete. Borup: Probably asphalt. It's on the Landscape Plan. It is on the Landscape Plan. Siddoway: The applicant wants to do itas an asphalt pathway. Borup: That is per landscaping? Siddoway: Per the Landscape Plan. Centers: Okay. The motion would be amended -- or to include the pathway that starts on Ashley Avenue and connects down to Brittany Court as a five-foot pathway. Siddoway: Okay. Then I would continue my notes of this motion to show that the micropaths would be approved from a 10 foot as proposed, but they would meander and accommodate the trees. Next, the pressurized irrigation system doesn't really sound like it changed to the staff report, but just a reiteration that they need to get that worked out. Centers: I think your staff report covered it. Siddoway: Yes you also reiterated the chain link fence as proposed along the south side is approved. Centers: Correct. Siddoway: We are adding a note regarding the Right-to-Farm Act on the face of the plat, as well as in the CC&Rs. Centers: Correct. Siddoway: We are stating that there is no parking allowed in the cul-d-sacs. Centers: Correct. Siddoway: We are recommending that the sidewalks along Ten Mile Road be built, and not road trusted, as detached sidewalks within the landscape buffer. Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7, 2002 Page 81 of 84 Centers: Correct. Siddoway: And that the applicant tile a section of the Ten Mile drain to accommodate that sidewalk. Centers: Correct. Siddoway: And then -- okay. I guess the question is are you requiring -- are you recommending that they require the tiling of the full Ten Mile Drain or just the one section of pipe that you were talking about earlier? Centers: That's a good -- you know -- and that was running through my mind. All the way or just -- you know, because I don't think it's fair to ask the applicant to go all the way when the church should do their half, you know. If they went all the way, you're still going to have an end -- Borup: I think you're talking about two different things here, aren't you? Siddoway: Yes. Centers: Oh. Siddoway: We are asking if you -- with regard to the tiling of the ditch itself. Borup: Which is a City Ordinance. Centers: Yes per staff comments right. Siddoway: So tile the full ditch is your recommendation along the south property line? Centers: Well, that was your requirement. Borup: I don't know that we have a recommendation. We realize the applicant needs to make application to the City Council to ask for a Variance is that correct? Siddoway: It will ultimately have to be approved by Council, but I think you can make a recommendation. Borup: We can make a recommendation -- well, then, maybe we should have got more information on what the diameter of that pipe is and what the existing ditch is east and west of here, et cetera. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Yes. Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7. 2002 Page 82 of 84 Freckleton: That is correct. It is a City Ordinance for tiling the ditch. You can make recommendation, Council, ultimately, is the one that will have to decide. This being a PUD, they can waive the requirement. It's not necessarily a Variance it's a waiver Borup: Okay. Freckleton: One thing that I would recommend that the applicant do is dig into this, get your ducks lined up, because they are going to want to know -- they are going to want to know what the flow is, what size of pipe it would require to tile it, and those sorts of things, so -- Centers: And in your staff comments, you had recommended tiling of the ditch, because it is -- Freckleton: It's an ordinance requirement. Centers: And I think we want to concur with that and then the applicant can address the City Council. Freckleton: Absolutely. Centers: So we will require that per your comments, but go ahead, Steve. Siddoway: 0 kay sot he recommendation i s tot ile the ditch p er staff comments a nd have the applicant address that with Council. Centers: Right. Borup: Our motion didn't even address that, other than -- because of staff comments. Siddoway: The final item, you specifically pulled out the rear setback of 12 foot for the existing family home. I assume that with that you're also approving all the other requested modifications for setbacks, lot size, lot frontage, minimum size-- Center: Per the -- Siddoway: -- per the request noted in the staff report. Centers: Right. Wollen: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, specifically Commissioner Centers, I just had one clarification. I also took notes on this and I thought regarding the Right-to-Farm Act, I thought it was in the -- on the face of the Final Plat it would have mention of the Right-to-Farm Act and in the CC&Rs it would have specific mention that neighboring property owners did have livestock that would be -- Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7. 2002 Page 83 of 84 Centers: That would be correct. It would be up to the developer to develop to wording in the CC&Rs, but -- you can talk about lambs, chickens, and the rest. That would be end of motion. Thank you. Borup: Good job. Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Mathes: We had a second and -- Borup: Oh, I'm sorry. Right. We did have a motion and second. That was the discussion phase of the motion that we just went through. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Centers: Well -- and then the stenographer has had to compare notes. All right and continuing on, I would like to recommend approval for CUP 02-031, request for a Continual Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development for 25 acres -- are we talking -- yes. Right because there is one there. Twenty-five single-family detached homes and one single-family existing home in an R-8 zone for proposed Moshers Farm Sub by CMD, . Incorporated, 895 North T en Mile Road, including all staff comments, and the applicant -- and Page 9 -- yes. That's what I want to do. Page 9, the applicant showed us footprints that would fit on the specific homes, we are satisfied there. I believe this would be the place. I'm satisfied with just the playground equipment meeting the PUD requirement, because of the pathways and the expanded open space. I think that covers it. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Thank you. Centers: I'm going to submit this to our Assistant City Clerk for the dimensions of that new park. Borup: Do we have a final motion? Rohm: I move that we close the session. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second to adjourn. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT