Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 1, 2007 PZ Commission Minutes Meridian Planning and Zoning February I, 2007 Page 17 of 41 Newton-Huckabay: It would be page one. Hess: Commission Members -- Borup: It says they may. Hess: That, actually -- yes. That, actually, says the Commission may, if they so choose, make comment on-- Newton-Huckabay: Oh. Okay. Hess: -- the private street. Newton-Huckabay: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-057 and PP 06-056, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 1, 2007, with the following modifications to the conditions of approval. Bullet 1.2.8 -- or excuse me. Condition number 1.2.8, bullet number four, we will drop the last sentence, dedicate at minimum 53 to the public park of choosing by the Meridian Parks Department. We will add a bullet to 1.2.8 regarding the applicant coordinating like fencing with development to the north, west, and south. And that the micropath fencing will be in line with the current UDC micropath fencing guideline. Borup: Second. Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and second to forward onto City Council with a recommendation for approval of AZ 06-057 and PP 06-056, to include all staff report, with the aforementioned modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 10: Continued Public Hearing from December 21, 2006: PP 06-058 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 277 residential lots, 1 commercial lot and 27 common lots on 142.97 acres in existing R-2, R-8, R-15 and C- N zones for Jayker Subdivision by Treehaven, LLC - north of Chinden Boulevard and west of Ten Mile Road: Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to reopen on the continued Public Hearing from December 21 st, 2006, Item No. PP 06-058 related to Jayker Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Lucas: Thank you, Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission. The applicant has applied for preliminary plat approval of 277 single family residential building lots, 27 common lots, and one what we are calling a commercial slash common lot, which will contain -- that lot will contain the proposed community center. The site is located on the Meridian Planning and Zoning February I, 2007 Page 18 of41 north side of Chinden Boulevard. It's located on the north side of Chinden Boulevard approximately a half mile east of Black Cat Road, extending east to approximately Ten Mile Road. And Ten Mile Road does not extend north of Chinden, but it's where that eastern point would be if Ten Mile were to extend north of Chinden, that's about where this site terminates. Thank you. This area is -- basically, what we are talking about is this area right in here, not including this area down here in the southeast corner. This area was previously annexed and zoned as part of the Tree Farm annexation. As part of that annexation the property owner was required to enter into a development agreement in which it was agreed that this land would develop in general compliance with the conceptual plan that was submitted at that time. The proposed preliminary plat is located within various zoning designations, which include R-2, R-8, R-15, and a very small portion of C-N. Unfortunately, the map before you doesn't show these zoning designations. The way our maps are updated is through the county and, unfortunately, this -- this area has not been updated yet by the county. So, it's shown here as RUT. That's incorrect. What I will do is I'm going to move to the applicant's concept plan, which will allow us to kind of get a feel for what those zoning designations are. This is the area we are talking about. This would be R-2 up here, which the applicant calls estate housing. Much of this area in here is R-8 and, then, this area down here is the R-15, with one band of R-8 adjacent to this parcel to the east. So, I hope that helps the Commission know what the zoning looks like out there. It's -- unfortunately, we don't have a proper map yet, but that's, basically, what the applicant is proposing. The subject preliminary plat is the first phase of the Tree Farm and it's, basically, the first phase of this entire development, which is going to encompass all of that area described earlier. Let me go back now to our -- we could probably do it through the aerial photograph also. To the north of this site is the Phyllis Canal, as you can see here, which runs across the northern -- much of the northern property boundary. To the east is one acre lots in the Spurwing Subdivision, which can be seen here. And, also, to the south and east is the Westwing Subdivision, which has a line of one acre lots and, then, a large parcel that's currently used for agriculture. To the south there are several rural properties zoned RUT in Ada County and to the west is agricultural and rural residential, zoned R-R in Ada County. Much of the area to the west of this -- of the subject subdivision is currently being operated as a nursery, the Jayker Tree Farm, and that nursery will continue to operate until this subdivision and all the subsequent plats that will be put forward on this property kind of move to the west. Let's move on to the plat now. This is an overview of the plat and we have various detail sheets, if the Commission has specific questions on specific areas. As mentioned earlier, it's a little bit easier to see now that this is the R-2 area, the estate lot area, the R-8 area, and down here the R-15 area and that small portion of C-N is kind of located on what we are calling that community -- or that commercial slash common lot right here. There is a small portion of C-N, which is located there. But as stated it will be -- that lot will be used for the community center. As mentioned earlier, the applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval of 277 single family build-able lots. I'm going to break those down a little bit, so we have an idea. It's a lot of lots and a lot of different types, so we will kind of break it down. All the homes within the development are proposed to be single family and can be broken down to the following categories: 28.2 percent or 78 building lots in the R-2 zone up here. These are designed as estate lots and will contain Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1,2007 Page 19 of 41 large -- large homes. 33.6 percent or 93 building lots in the R-8 area, designed as single detached housing. The majority of that is located right there. And 38.2 percent or 106 building lots in the R-15 zone designed as lifestyle house, from which what I understand will include some attached units. But all of the lots are single family. There is a great range of lot sizes being proposed, with lots as large as 29,000 square feet located in the estate area, and as small as 4,000 square feet located down in the lifestyle housing area. The total acreage of the plat is 142.97 acres and the total gross density of the project is 1.93 dwelling units per acre. And approximately 39.1 acres or 27 percent of the site is being set aside for open space. And those open spaces can be seen as these large swaths of open space that run throughout the development. This is also a good exhibit to discuss the street system. Along with the building lots the applicant is proposing to construct various public streets as part of this project. Two collector streets are planned. The first would be Tree Farm Boulevard, which is this street right here, which will be the street that connects with Chinden. The other collector style street is going to be called Jayker Way and it's this street that runs up and around the subdivision there. And each of these streets, as mentioned, are designed as collectors and will not have front-on housing. A number of stub streets are also proposed for this subdivision. You can see numerous stub streets here. There is one there, which is Jayker Way, which stubs into a future subdivision connected to this development. Jayker Way also has a stub street to the north to the TICO One property. There are a couple of stub streets located to the -- that connect to the West Wing Estates Subdivision, one located here and one located here. As the staff report stated, staff is recommending that these two stub streets be shifted a little bit to better accommodate the development of this -- of this property. This one we are recommending be shifted down approximately 200 feet to somewhere in there and this stub street we are recommending be shifted over, so it does not align with an existing private lane that serves these one acre lots here. We are recommending that be shifted over to allow for this -- that undeveloped area to develop a little bit -- a little bit easier. I think we can move through these detail sheets. If there is any questions, we can always go back to these. This is the landscape plan as proposed by the applicant. In general the landscape plan provided appears to meet the minimum standards for a development of this size. The applicant is providing a large amount of open space and various pondS and pathways throughout the development. Furthermore, a community center complex with multiple facilities is included with this proposal. All of these elements combined meet the open space and amenity requirements for a subdivision of this size as described in the UDC. I'm sure the applicant may have more details than I do about that community center, which will be located on this site. Currently it's shown as just kind of an open field, but I know there are plans for this area to be developed into a community center with multiple facilities. Other than that, let's move on to the Comprehensive Plan. This whole area is designated medium density residential and low density residential and a small portion is designated mixed use community, which would be right down here, that small C-N area on the Comprehensive Plan. And along with the Comprehensive Plan, staff, when considering this application, also must look to the development agreement on the property and, in general, this is consistent with both the Comprehensive Plan, especially when you consider that both the Comprehensive Plan and development agreement, especially when you look at the concept plan as Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 20 of 4) provided by the applicant. As you can see, it's very similar to what is shown. The plat matches the concept plan pretty well. Other than that, there were no other major issues when it came to compliance with the Comprehensive Plan or the UDC. Staff did just want to bring up a couple issues that came up as we -- that are outstanding for the Commission. As currently depicted on the preliminary plat, there are several lots within the proposed subdivision that are split between two zoning districts. As mentioned, the zoning for this property was done at the time of annexation. It was very conceptual. They weren't exactly sure where the streets would go and where those lot lines would be and because of that when they drew the zoning lines, they did them the best they could, but when they came in with a preliminary plat and were able to do some engineering work, it turned out that those zoning boundaries didn't exactly match the center lines of streets and along lot lines as you would usually see. So, what staff is recommending is that through a development agreement modification that the applicant be able to submit a revised zoning legal description that would allow them to correct or clean up those zoning boundaries without going through the entire rezoning process. It's kind of a unique solution to this problem and staff worked with the applicant and with the legal department to try to come up with a way to move these zoning boundaries without going through that full rezone, because it's technically not a rezone, it's just a shift of those boundaries to try and match the proposed preliminary plat. That's one thing I just wanted to point out that was a unique thing in the staff report that if the Commission had questions on that I was willing to answer. And the other thing is that condition 1.1.11, staff is recommending that condition be amended to allow the ten foot wide pathway along -- proposed along Chinden Boulevard to be located within the preserved right of way area, which is that 100 foot of right of way required on Chinden. We'd like to see that pathway located instead of within the 35 foot buffer, as it says in the condition, to be located within that 90 to 100 feet or the first ten feet outside of the subdivision. This came about -- at first staff -- usually we have these pathways within the subdivision, outside of -- exclusive of any right-of-way areas, but after speaking with ITD, Sue Sullivan, and talking to the applicant, it became clear that, really, the intent of that first ten to 20 feet of the right of way is for pedestrian movement and so it seems to make sense to place the pathway in that area and ITD verbally confirmed that that would be okay and through that -- through their permit process the applicant will work with ITD to get the exact location on that. Other than that, staff is recommending approval of the proposed Jayker Subdivision, with the conditions as outlined in the staff report, and I'll stand for any questions. Rohm: Thank you. Good job. Any questions of staff? Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Justin, I just want to get my bearings right a little bit here. Where, in fact, is Basco Lane within this? Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 21 of 41 Lucas: Let's go back to the aerial photograph. Basco, as you can see, is about -- well, actually, I'm -- this gets me -- here we go. This shows Basco Road really well right here. The subdivision -- it kind of cuts down and swings across Basco a little bit -- just over a little bit on the other side of Basco Lane and so if we go to this area here -- this -- Basco would be somewhere around right here. That's not exact, but it's to that area. Moe: And, then, so it goes away? Lucas: Yeah. There is a condition in the staff report requiring that any easement or public -- any type of movement across Basco Lane be vacated through -- prior to final plat of this property. Moe: How do they, then, get to the north? Lucas: The northern property owners would use the circulation system provided by this subdivision to access their property. That's what I understand. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Borup: And that was an ACHD requirement also. Lucas: Absolutely. Rohm: Thank you. Any other questions of staff before we have the applicant come forward? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward at this time? O'Neill: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Derick O'Neill, 2242 East River Walk Drive, Boise, Idaho. Thank you very much for allowing us time to speak with you tonight. I'm going to give you a little history and go through a couple of things and, then, ask your thoughts. We have been working on this project for over a year and a half and you guys remember we were in front of you a year ago with the annexation and the concept plan development agreement. Since that time we have worked very closely with neighbors, with the highway district, with staff, including police department, fire department, parks department, et cetera, in the start of our preliminary plat. Our concept plan and development agreement was improved in September of '06, as Justin said, and our preliminary plat is consistent with our concept plan and development agreement. We made very sure that it was. We have had a ton of meetings with staff and I'd like to acknowledge them. They have worked through a really complicated application and done a very good job. In fact, to the point where we are in agreement with it, which is very good. That's not normal for us. But I'd like to compliment them for that. So, that's been very good. The other thing I'd like to mention is that we delayed this hearing with you guys a month or so ago, because we didn't want to come to you without the highway district having recommendations, because we know the stub street issue and the connection was a very important issue and still is an important issue, but we wanted them to weigh in and have closure to that issue. They have done that. They had their hearing last Wednesday night. They unanimously voted to approve the project Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 22 of41 as we have shown with conditions that you have in your staff report, I believe. And we think that deals with those issues. In respect of time -- I have got over 40 pages of slides that I could put in front of you, but instead of doing that, I think what I would rather do is if you have questions I can respond to them, let the public testify, and, then, I can come back and rebut. I have a ton of detail, but I think the staff report covered it. We are in support of the staff report as suggested, with the modification that he suggested at the end regarding the pathway being outside of the buffer strip that's consistent with the Department of Transportation's comments as well. We have come a long ways. There is some neighbors here that you will be familiar with that have some testimony. We have met numerous times with them and I think we are at the point where we have respectfully -- and I mean that -- agreed to disagree on a couple of issues. And they will bring those up and I will be able to respond to those, but compared to where we were and where we are today, I feel very good about this. I think it's going to be a great addition to the city, so I'm done. I'll answer questions and, then, I'll come back, but I do have a ton of information if you have specific questions. Rohm: Boy, that sounds good to me. Any questions of this applicant before we take publiC testimony? Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I'm just going back on what I remember when we went through this thing and I know that there was concern on -- I guess there was one lot that the ownership was still unclear as to who owned it. Just kind of looking at your project, do you go around that lot or just what happened? O'Neill: No, we don't. You might -- try the first slide and see what comes up. Maybe I can put it in perspective. Do you have a -- so, the lot in question was this strip that we call the gulch strip and it was not clear as to who had ownership and as you recall -- or I think it may have been at Council, one of the items was is that we figure out who owns it. We went through a quiet title process, which took quite some time and that's part of the reason we have taken longer to assure that we could find out who owned that. We went through the quiet title process, we have title to it now, we did that, because no one wanted to take title to it, but we said someone's got to do it, so we went ahead and did that. So, this area -- we did bring clarity to that. As it relates to that, the next question was, well, is there surety that there can be a stub and connection down to the Aldape property. That was the issue at hand. And what we have done is everything we can to assure that. One is we got control of the property, so we could have it and make sure we give it to the highway district. Two is we have agreed -- and this is coming a long ways from where we were -- we have agreed with the highway district that we will be willing to put in a road trust and it's a condition in there, the allocation or amount that would be responsible for us to build a road on that property and we have done that. Unfortunately, the highway district wants to collect -- not unfortunately, it's a smart thing, they want a collector road and a collector road will not fit on our property, it's going to Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1,2007 Page 23 of 41 take more property than that. So, it will require the TICO One folks, who have agreed to add the additional property, and we have agreed to pay for the road that can be set on our property. I don't know if that brings clarity to that issue but -- Moe: Yes, it did. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. I like your idea of -- we will take our public testimony and, then, invite you back up to respond. Thank you. Gary Hinkle. Hinkle: Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission, there are only a couple of items that -- Rohm: Could you give you name and address. Hinkle: Oh. I'm Gary Hinkle. 9109 West Burnett Drive, Boise, Idaho. With regard to our adjoining property that is to the east and south of the proposed development, which is identified as Lot 10, Block 1, of West Wing Estates, you will see that as the open space area to be this area right in here. Our main concern is to make sure that the alignment of the stub streets worked with regards to future development for our property. The current alignment of this street here we would like it to be far enough to the west of the east boundary, so it does not line up with -- with that private lane, which would be Double Eagle Lane, to allow us adequate access onto our property. You will see that we have a -- I had it there. You will see that we had -- we would like to see it no less than 430 feet from this property line over, just to get it passed this -- what is now the Double Eagle private lane. Those people are not wanting us to be a part of that subdivision right there. I even know that that open space was there to acquire their development at the time. So, anyway, we have had a chance to talk with those folks and they are not real comfortable with any changes out in that area right now. The other one would be the Silverlace and this is just something new that we learned from Justin. The proposed alignment of that street, apparently, Derick is considering shifting that further to the south, which was fine -- that's fine with us -- further to the south closer to Chinden would accommodate our needs better than what we originally were looking at there, so -- the other item that we are kind of concerned about here -- in the development agreement it states -- let me get it out here. The original development agreement. It states that the adjacent following parcels, which include ours, the Hinkle parcel -- let's see. Let me read it here for a second. Required are part of the preliminary plat approval. Basically, what we are looking at here is making sure that there is some verbiage in that to -- to regards to our current status on that property. We have a -- we have a farmer that's operating that property right now and he's going to need some access on that piece of property throughout this development process and we have talked to ACHD, they, basically, have given us instructions to apply for a driveway approach request. I'm not sure how that all is going to evolve, but if there was -- just for the record, I would like to have something possibly in writing there that would give us -- give us the ability to get that gentleman that currently operates on that property from an agricultural standpoint access in and out on that stub street, which would be Silverlace. That would be the most appropriate stub street to come in off of. Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 24 of 41 And to make sure that we have the means to get passed the -- as far as the -- the development agreement states where they put a -- basically a sign at the end of the road, we need to make sure that that sign can be breached or we can get through that area. Okay. As far as anything else, I think we are in good shape, so I appreciate your time. Rohm: Good. Thank you very much. Any questions? Commissioner Borup. Borup: Yes, Mr. Hinkle, I just wanted to make sure I understood -- you're talking about moving the stub street at least 430 feet? The north stub at least 430. And, then, the west one, the ACHD report talked about moving it to the east to connect to your property I think. Is that what they were saying, ACHD? Have you read their report? Hinkle: Well, there is -- Borup: I mean they said they did that at your request, I believe. Hinkle: Yeah. Well, that's what I'm saying, that the east -- I think the verbiage in that staff report, the directions may have been got a little bit confused. We don't want that street to be -- Borup: I'm talking about the second one. Hinkle: The second one. Borup: Yeah. Hinkle: Well, we are looking at -- we are looking at north to south here on the west side. Borup: Silver -- whatever it was. Silver whatever it was. Hinkle: Yeah. Silverlace, which -- Borup: Yeah. Hinkle: -- is this one right over here -- Borup: That's the one that ACHD had talked about really. To the east, I believe, wasn't it? Hinkle: Well, it's extending from the development, which, eventually, would go to the east, but it's my understanding, from what Justin mentioned, that they are considering at least -- Borup: Well, that's what I was getting to. That's a staff recommendation that that stub shift to the south. Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 25 of41 Hinkle: Yes. And that's fine with us. Borup: Which would make a preference either way. Does this way work just as well for you or -- Hinkle: Shifting it to the south would work better for us. If this stub would come down further to the south it would make us a lot happier. Borup: Okay. And, then, how does the individual farming the property now, how does he gain access to it at this time? Hinkle: Well, we currently have worked out a verbal agreement with Derick. There is -- before -- before this property down on this corner was purchased, the gentleman down there was -- basically it was the Eggers property and there is a gated entrance right here off of Chinden and -- Borup: So, it's going through this property presently? Hinkle: Yes. Right. And Derick O'Neill has agreed to give us the means to access through that gate down here until we get some kind access from a permanent stub street there, so -- does that make sense? Borup: Yeah. So, that's the way it was originally platted, it was a land locked piece of property that had no access? Hinkle: Well, my father, he owned all of this property at one time and he sold that off to that West Wing Estates and for some reason it evolved. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Hinkle: So, we are kind of stuck. Rohm: Thank you very much. Jerry Olson. Okay. From the audience he's just an interested observer. Sherry Ewing. Ewing: Commissioners, I am Sherry Aldape Ewing and I reside at 2934 East Lake Hazel Road and, first of all, I would like to say that the O'Neill -- Derick O'Neill and the TICO One group have really worked very very hard to get access down to us and we are very very happy with that and so our -- my concern is, though, that it goes to the river bank on the south side of the Phyllis Canal and not across the river, and so, actually, right now it's my belief that the Phyllis Canal actually owns the land in the Phyllis Canal, so their land comes to it, the Phyllis Canal company, the irrigation company, and, then, my father's land. So, what I would like to see is that they help us build half of the bridge to the -- to meet with our bridge and the reason that I think that you should help with that is because if -- on the river bottom the land will probably turn Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 26 of 41 into parks, green belts, wildlife preserves, sporting complexes, et cetera, et cetera, and the people in the Tree Farm will definitely be coming down into that area to get to the river. I mean everybody loves the river. So, that's one thing that we would like. And beings we are not pushing for two access points, which they definitely have enough frontage that they -- if it was on a flat piece of ground that they would have to give us two access points -- we feel like half of the bridge would be there. The other thing that I need to make sure that is in all of the verbiage here is that power, gas, and phone utilities are brought down to meet our -- my parents property and I don't know if that's in the verbiage or not. Right now we -- we, the property owners down below, are starting to work to get into Meridian's Comprehensive Plan and so at that pint we would also need water and sewer, but we aren't that far yet. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of this -- Moe: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Where do you gain utilities now as far as -- Ewing: Well, they are coming down that way now, but I want to make sure that they continue on after this whole subdivision goes in. I mean right now they are going straight down Basco Lane is how we get our water -- or not water, our phone and utilities and power. And with Basco Lane, you know, not going to be there anymore, I want to make sure that those utilities are still brought down to my parent's property. Moe: Okay. Rohm: I think just in short response, the utility companies have a requirement to serve all properties within their area of influence. Ewing: Okay. Rohm: So, Idaho Power and Qwest both -- they have to be able to figure a way to get into your property. That's just the utility agreement with the Public Utility Commission, so -- Ewing: Okay. Thank you. Any questions? Rohm: Thank you. John Ewing. From the audience John Ewing said he had nothing to add at this time. Tuck Ewing. T. Ewing: Commissioners, Tuck Ewing, 7200 Basco Lane, Meridian. I'd just like to start off by saying I commend the applicant. It has been a long road and I will agree with Derick that we have agreed cordially to disagree and I guess I'd just like to make the point that at this time I'm not totally happy with the agreement we have come up with. I hope that they are not either, so it's probably an okay agreement. So, we are good -- at least from my perspective good with it, me and TICO One. The only thing that I wanted to clarify -- and it kind has to do with -- and I think ACHD did a fairly good job of stating it in their report, was I believe that area between this development and TICO One's Meridian Planning and Zoning February I, 2007 Page 27 of 41 property, ACHD did take into their area of impact -- or their -- whatever they call that. What do they call that? Right of way. There you go. Because we do have a little bit of unknown at this time where the access points to the TICO One's parcels will be. I think ACHD has accommodated us there, but just for the public record, I do not anticipate the existing Basco Lane or whatever it will be called in the future going down the gulch being the main access to the TICO One property. I anticipate it being the access to the properties to the north, but potentially not being the access point to the TICO One, depending on, number one, what the applicant does with their adjacent property to the east and I think it creates a good separation and so I wouldn't want the separation limited to an access, if that makes sense. I can see some different types of zonings, I guess, from the west to the east, with the Basco being the separator and so I think the access points that you use to get to those should be separate. So, like I said, I think ACHD did a good job at trying to take that in for us, but just as a matter of record I just wanted to point it out and I know Derick thought I was probably going to have something different to say, but that's it. Rohm: Thank you. T. Ewing: Thank you. Rohm: Okay. There is nobody else that has signed up, but at this time the floor is still open, so if someone else would like to testify in this application, please, come forward. Lazaris: Commissioners, Linda Lazaris. I reside at 9948 West Targee Lane in Boise. And I am the sister to Gary Hinkle and I just -- I'm a little -- on this West Wing Estates, with the staffs recommendation, I didn't quite get that, how many feet down you're proposing for that westerly -- for the east stub street to go in, Caleb. What would -- what was the dimension on that; do you remember? Rohm: Go ahead. Lucas: Thank you, Chairman Rohm, Commissioners. I believe the recommendation in the staff report was to shift that stub street Silverlace Drive down approximately 200 feet where it would align with kind of the peak of this curve here. Lazaris: Okay. Is that 200 feet from the northerly boundary? Lucas: No. No. Two hundred feet from its current location. Lazaris: Okay. Lucas: Two hundred feet from its current location. There is also a discussion of moving this stub street over approximately -- a minimum of 100 feet, kind of leaving -- just as ACHD said in their staff report, so -- Meridian Planning and Zoning February I, 2007 Page 28 of 41 Lazaris: Okay. Yeah. I remember that that was what they said, but I didn't remember the Silverlace one coming down. Lucas: Correct. This was -- the movement of this stub street was not discussed by ACHD and it's not in their staff report, that's a staff recommendation from city staff. Just looking at the future redevelopment of that, we saw that as a more -- a better spot. The idea is creating more of an offset between the two stub streets and allowing for a little bit more of a clear circulation pattern through that site and avoiding, as the staff report says, any long blocks that would have to be required to get down to this area of that property. Lazaris: Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. I guess my other question, beings I'm not one hundred percent familiar with this process, is when you approve the preliminary plat, are those recommendations that staff makes, then, put into place in the development agreement at that point? Is that how that works? That's my question to you guys. Rohm: Our motion that we forward on to City Council for approval will include the staff report and any adjustments to the development agreement or any others in the aspect of the staff report. So, you will know what is going forward onto City Council. Lazaris: Okay. Okay. That's great. That was my main concern is I wanted to make sure that it -- it was somewhere in writing and it was going to be something that would be followed through in that regard. Rohm: Absolutely. As a matter of fact, in previous hearings that we have had tonight the staff has even asked that we clarify our changes, so that it could be tracked into the future and that's just as we will -- or would with this staff report as well. Baird: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Mr. Baird. Baird: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, just a point of clarification. The development agreement is currently in place and is not before you for modification tonight. Your recommendations are purely related to the preliminary plat. But what you just said does apply; however, they are enforced through the preliminary plat/final plat process. Lazaris: Okay. And so where does the verbage, then, go as far as -- is it on the actual plat map? Baird: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Go ahead. Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 29 of 41 Baird: Perhaps the planning department would be the better one to respond to this, but, basically, it's a checklist that they go through to make sure all the requirements have been met before they approve the final plat. Lazaris: Okay. So, the preliminary plat requirements are there and, then, when they go to do final plat those things have to be -- have met -- have been met before they can stamp it and say this is your final plat approval, basically the process? Borup: And, Linda, are you concerned -- are you speaking specifically to the location of those stub streets? Lazaris: I am. Borup: Okay. They will be drawn on the plat at that location. So, how they are drawn is what will have to be built. Lazaris: Okay. Okay. Borup: So, they will be redrawn from this configuration to that new location. Lazaris: And, then, these minutes are all -- Borup: And what's drawn and what's submitted at that point is what will apply. Lazaris: Okay. Borup: When the plat is redrawn or redesigned. Lazaris: So, where they say they are going to move it down 200 feet or whatever, then, that's documented and then -- Borup: Well, it will be redrawn and that will be the plat. Lazaris: -- their engineers redraw it -- Borup: Yes. And, then, that's the document there. Lazaris: -- and, then, take it in for a final approval? Borup: Those drawings will be the document, yeah. Lazaris: Okay. Okay. Great. Thank you for clarifying that, because I think I would have been disappointed had I not seen that and the development agreement changed. I would have been confused. So, thank you. That's alii have. Rohm: At this time would the applicant like to come back up. Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1,2007 Page 30 of41 Moe: Mr. Chairman, before the applicant, I do have a question of staff. Without folding out this set of plans and scaling down, can you give me an idea where 430 feet from the east property over on that north stub street would be? Is it where you want it or -- Lucas: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Moe, I think it's these -- these lots, it's almost hard to tell on this scale. These are huge lots. They are almost 20,000 square feet, a lot of them. This distance from there to there -- I don't have it exactly, but it's significant, and so I don't know what the exact distance is. The ACHD staff report comments call out a specific distance and I believe it is over 430 feet from the eastern property boundary. So, I don't think we are too concerned about that being located. I think it's going to be more than 430 feet is what I'm trying to say. Moe: Okay. Rohm: Thank you. Baird: And, Mr. Chair, if I may, I just wanted to make sure that everybody who wants to testify has had a chance before we get the rebuttal. I may have missed your call for that, but -- Rohm: All right. Is there anybody else that would like to testify on this application? Okay. I believe that now we are now clear. O'Neill: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Derick O'Neill, 2242 East River Walk Drive, Boise, Idaho. I will try to respond to the questions that were raised. As it relates to the Hinkles and the stub streets, it is very clear in the staff report and the highway district staff report where those stubs should be relocated to. In fact, we have already started the design process of changing those. So, we are completely comfortable with those conditions as written in the highway district and the staff report. And, for clarification, that is a condition on the plat and will have to be done before we can move our plat forward. So, that's going to happen and we are very comfortable with that. As it relates -- Rohm: Before we leave that subject. O'Neill: Yes. Rohm: Once you get that map redrawn, could I get you to -- O'Neill: Be more than happy to share it with the Hinkles. Rohm: -- share a copy with these folks here? O'Neill: Absolutely. Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1,2007 Page310f41 Rohm: Thank you. O'Neill: As it relates to the current access, Gary was right, they currently don't have access and we have agreed that in the interim or temporary period of time, until we have this stub street, we have agreed to work out an agreement where we will give them temporary access over our property down here. They are in the process and we'll work that out. As it relates to permanent access to the property, when we stub that in there that will be a public street and clearly they will have access to that. So, I think that issue is taken care of. As it relates to the comments on the bridge and the Phyllis Canal and whatnot, I have a few comments, but I will try to keep them short. One is we are putting in a traffic signal and well over two million dollars of infrastructure to gain -- to stub into these properties to allow them the ability to develop and we think that's a -- and, then, they are not contributing to that or participating in that. As it relates to the cost of the bridge, the highway district report is really clear that that is not a responsibility of ours. In fact, I have had to build several bridges across canals that the canal company owned. If I wanted to develop my property I needed to do that. So, I'm not sure that that's an issue. As it relates to the utilities, I think your comment was right and we are in agreement with that. As it -- I think that's really it. I think Tuck said it best is that if neither of us are happy with the solution, it probably means it's a good solution. And I think he's joking, I think we are ready to move on and beyond and get moving forward. I think it allows them the opportunity to further develop their property, it allows us to do it , and we are comfortable with it. So, I think there is a lot of work that's been done here and I'll leave it at that to answer questions if you have them. Rohm: Thank you very much. I appreciate your comments. Commissioner Borup, do you have questions? Borup: Not real specific, but just to comment. Both of you agreeing to disagree, I didn't really hear a lot of disagreement, other than the bridge. Is that pretty much it? O'Neill: I think so. And who is to build the gulch road and we have worked through that. Borup: Okay. O'Neill: So, maybe we were a little strongly saying disagreement, but -- Borup: Thank you. Rohm: I don't have anything further. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, do you have questions? Newton-Huckabay: None. Thank you. Moe: I have none. Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1,2007 Page 32 of 41 O'Neill: I guess I would be remiss to say that one condition at the end and Justin can move the pathway out if you can make sure that's covered in your motion. Rohm: Absolutely. I think we are all in agreement on that. Thank you. I think at this time we are ready to accept a motion to close the Public Hearing. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move to close the Public Hearing on PP 06-058. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on PP 06-058. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Okay. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: This project has been before us a number of times and I would have to say that I commend everybody that has participated for doing a great job of meeting in the middle. It's been a -- it's been a long road and I'd like to thank you for the Commission for all of your cooperation. And with that being said, I'd like to poll the Commission for final comments. Commissioner Borup. Borup: Yeah. I don't really have anything to add, in addition to the staff report. So, I'm in agreement with ACHD and Meridian staff on the report and how they word things, other than the comment on the pathway. I think, you know, that's -- staff's in agreement with that and it sounds like ITD is also, that that pathway can be within -- within their right of way. Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I have -- I just want to inventory the outstanding questions. Half the bridge for the canal. Is that the only -- the stub street alignment is already resolved, they are going to move them. And the right of way with the TICO One property, there wasn't an issue -- an outstanding issue to resolve there tonight. And Hinkles were satisfied. I guess I would -- I don't think that the bridge -- they would need to pay for half a bridge. Borup: Will, ACHD -- yeah. When I said I meant I agreed with ACHD report, that's part of it. Newton-Huckabay: That's pretty clear and I have to agree with that. So, I guess I have nothing of value to add. Moe: Not to belabor this. I would submit that I am very much in agreement with everyone that, number one, you guys have worked real hard to get a lot of this resolved and I do appreciate that as well. And, again, I also do agree with ACHD's report and whatnot on this project, so -- Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1,2007 Page330f41 Rohm: I think if it wasn't for the fact that we have a canal to cross it would be typical to any other project and the development takes their roadway right up to egress to the adjacent property and the fact that there is a canal at that location doesn't change the fact that they have taken their roadway up to the property line and albeit that I can certainly see the testimony from the public as in -- the canal is not theirs either and it's -- a hundred percent of the cost to cross the canal is being put on their shoulders when they are not the owner of record of the canal, it doesn't really seem appropriate, but I can bet you that the canal company is not going to participate in the cost of a bridge across it. So, all that being said, I don't have any substantial reason to disagree with Ada County Highway District's report either and so that kind of concludes my comments. And, again, I want to reiterate that I commend all of you for working together and this has been a long process and I think the product that's before us tonight is a vast improvement over where we were a year ago. So, thank you. Commissioner Borup, would you like to make a motion? Borup: Okay. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number PP 06-058, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 1 st, with the following modifications: On 1.1.11 change that, essentially, to say construct a ten foot wide pathway along Chinden Boulevard and maybe without getting too specific, that this pathway may be within the ITD right of way. End of motion. Does that cover that? I don't know that -- I mean the applicant may necessarily not want to put it in the right of way, but they have the option to do it is what I was thinking. Lucas: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, Commissioner Borup, maker of the motion, absolutely, I think it's appropriate to leave it open to allow them to do that, rather than requiring them to put it in the right of way, it's wise to just say that that's available as an option. Absolutely. Borup: Okay. That's what I was thinking. Okay. End of motion. Moe: I will second that. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of PP 06-058, to include all staff report, with the aforementioned modification. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. And thank you all for coming in. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: At this time I think it would be appropriate to take a ten minute recess and we will reconvene at ten minutes until. (Recess. )