Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 21, 2002 Mertdian Planning & Zoning November 21. 2002 Page 12 of 65 southeast comer of East Overland Road and South Celebration Avenue. To include all staff comments and to include the know/edge that the Site Plan has been slightly modified in the decorated planting area at the building entrance. That the southern most parking area along East Galla Street, the center landscaped island may be eliminated, as long as the side landscaped areas are enlarged enough that only 12 spaces remain along that site. Rohm: I will second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Anyopposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 7. Public Hearing: AZ 02-024 Request for annexation and zoning of 15.4 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision by CMD, Inc. - 4450 North Linder Road: Item 8. Public Hearing: PP 02-022 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 73 building lots and 15 other lots on 15.4 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision by CMD, Inc. - 4450 North Linder Road: Item 9. Public Hearing: CUP 02-032 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a PUD for 64 single family detached homes, 6 single family attached homes and 1 single family existing home on 15.4 acres in a proposed R-B zone for proposed Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision by CMD, Inc. - 4450 North Linder Road: Borup: Okay. Let's see if we can slow things down a little with this next one. Zaremba: M r. Chairman, I, a ctually, wouldn't 0 bject to a bout a five minute break. I received staff's notes just as I was arriving this evening and wouldn't mine two minutes to review this. Borup: On this item? Zaremba: Yes. They were not in my box yesterday. At least not when I came. Borup: Okay. No, I don't think they were. I also thought we would probably have a little lengthy presentation that may give some time, too, or - Zaremba: All right. Either way. Borup: Are you okay with that? Does anyone else need some time? Let's try that. We do have three Public Hearings here that we would be 0 pening a II at t he same time. Item Number 7, AZ 02-024, request for annexation and zoning of 15.4 acres from RUT Meridian Planning & Zoning November 21. 2002 Page 13 of 65 to R-8 zones for proposed Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision by CMD at 4450 North Linder Road. Also Public Hearing PP 02-022, a request for Preliminary Plat approval of 73 buildings lots and 15 other lots on the same 15.4 acres. Also CUP 02-032, a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a PUD of 64 single-family detached homes, six single- family attached homes, and one existing home on the same 15.4 acres at 4450 North Linder Road. We'd like to open all three Public Hearings at this time and start with the staff report. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I'll try to give you as much information as you need. If you have any questions, feel free to interrupt me at any time. I'd like to start with the overheads first. There is a lot of information to go through and we will just start with the annexation information. The piece of property that's in question is a 15.4-acre parcel of land. You can see that it's somewhat odd shaped in size and we will spend a little bit of time discussing this smoke stack style piece of property that runs up north from the main part of the property. As you can see, the property is located just off of Linder and McMillan Road and as far as the requirements for annexation, the requirements for annexation would be fairly simple tonight. We would require that there is a Development Agreement with this annexation tonight, so that we have an additional document that we can tie the development standards that we are going to discuss later tonight to this piece of property. In discussing with Brad the reasons for the Development Agreement, we decided that a Development Agreement would be appropriate at this time, because on our current Comprehensive Land Use Map, this property is designated as low density residential. In the Comprehensive Plan, low density residential is up to three dwelling units per acre. However, as you remember, when going through the Comprehensive Plan, for those of you that weren't here when we did the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, we added a note at the bottom of the Comprehensive Land Use Map. It states in the effect that if you would like to move up one designation from low to medium or from medium to high, medium to low, you can do that without requesting a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Amendment. They have the opportunity to go to a higher density or a lower density, without changing the Comprehensive land use map. We made a finding in the annexation portion of the application that this does meet the intent of the Comprehensive -- well, it does meet the intent and the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan, because although. it is designated as low density, the note on the map says they can request a higher density. Therefore, the applicant has requested on annexation, rather than an R-2 or an R-3 density, they have requested a zoning designation of R-B. With the R-B designation, we now jump to the Preliminary Plat and you can see that they are requesting a large number of lots on this piece of property. These are longer, narrower lots that you would see accustomed to the R-8 zone. The gross density for this property -- for this - well, actually, the net density of this project is 5.71 dwelling units per acre, so it's actually much higher than low density residential. If I can get you to turn to Page 6 of the staff report, we can get into the additional considerations that are tied to the Preliminary Plat. The first item that Brad felt was necessary to discuss with you tonight was the setbacks. Because this is a Planned Development, as part of all three applications that are open right now, they have requested reduced setbacks and one of the reduced setbacks that they have requested Meridian Planning & Zoning November 21. 2002 Page 140165 tonight would be a five foot side yard setback, regardless of the height of the home. If you have a two-story home, under current zoning regulations, you would be required to have five feet of separation for each story. A 10-foot setback for a two-story home, five feet for a one story home. They are requesting a five-foot setback regardless of the number of stories in the house. This leads to a couple of items that we need to discuss tonight and it ties directly to the Fire Department and Fire Department's ability to service those people that would be on the second story of a home in case there was a fire. If we have a five-foot setback between two two-story buildings, that leaves 10 feet of space between the two buildings. If you put a six-foot fence in between that, it does not allow the Fire Department to put a ladder between the home and the fence and still get a man on the ladder up to that second story of the house. That was a concern that they had. In discussions with staff, we decided that there could be -- that could be handled one of two ways and you will see that Brad makes reference to that Site-Specific Comment Number 6 and I will try to explain that. In order to provide a 10-foot wide free and clear space, the applicant would have the alternative - one of two alternatives. One to not allow any fences between the homes, so there is ten feet of clear and free space, or they could have the homes set with a zero lot line and then have 10 feet of yard on one side and then on the other side of the house not have any yard. There would be the neighbor's yard. Then you have 10-foot free and clear and so that's something that needs to be discussed tonight and the reason, like I said, it's a life safety issue. We have allowed it in the past to go five feet with fences in between. It's not something that we haven't done before, but it was something that at that time, for example, Woodbridge and Berkeley Square, that it was a concern of the Fire Department and we decided it needs to be addressed at this time. That's your option, what you would like to do with that tonight. That is under Site-Specific Comment Number 6 in the Preliminary Plat. If you would turn to Page 7 now. We can talk about a couple of small stub street issues that need to be discussed. Mathes: Dave, real quick, I have a question. McKinnon: Sure. Mathes: If you have 10 feet on one side and zero on the other, aren't you still oniy getting 10 feet in there? McKinnon: You need 10 feet, not five feet. Mathes: I know, but if the neighbor is zero and they are ten, you still have 10 feet right? Zaremba: There wouldn't be a fence in the middle of it. Borup: Right and the fence wouldn't be there obstructing the ladder. Mathes: Right but they said no fence. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 21. 2002 Page 15 of 65 McKinnon: You could have one or the other. You could either do the 10-foot with a zero or you could just say the way we have got it platted tonight and allow-five feet on both sides of the home, but not allow any fence, period. Essentially, that's the same -- Mathes: The fence in between everything. McKinnon: Okay. Mathes: Thank you. McKinnon: Sorry about that. Going on to the stub street, additional consideration. Initially, we talked a little bit about the stovepipe issue. Let's go directly to that. The northeast portion of the property, the applicant has proposed a stub street that connects to nothing and connects to -- well, it connects to property, but it doesn't connect to any developed property. They have requested that they put that there for the use of ACHD to be used as a stub street within the next five years. If there is nothing built on either side of the stub street within five years, the use of the land would revert back to the subdivision. We didn't feel comfortable with that as a staff and we determined that there should be a connection to this property to the east. If it doesn't happen in the next five years and we lose this piece of property right here, we didn't feel that that would be acceptable. We felt that it would be appropriate to put a stub street to the east in this location, somewhere in between the lots on the eastem side of the property, somewhat in the central, but no further than 1,000 feet to the south of McMillan Road. That was the first stub street issue. The second stub street that we had at issue was not necessarily a stub street per se, but we do have a block length that's rather long -- and this is under Item Number 3 of the staff report -- of the additional consideration on Page 7. We felt that there should be a break in the property here. This is over 1,000 feet, in violation of our block length. We felt it would be appropriate to put in some sort of break in the block, whether that was a pedestrian path or a stub street. Staff recommended that that be a pedestrian path, rather than a stub street, because that would be a fourth stub street in a piece of property that's only 15 acres in size. A pedestrian path -- or, if you prefer, you, as a Commission, can make the recommendation that there be a stub street to provide access to the property to the north on the western end of the property. If you can go down to Item Number 4 nQw, townhouse lot reconfigurations, the property within this area, centrally located in the property in between this block, these long, narrow parcels are to be set as town homes and the applicant has provided small landscape islands in this area. However, they did not meet the requirements of the Ada County Highway District and did not provide a 29-foot wide street section between the landscape island and the front of the lots. There needs to be a 29-foot street section in between that. That can be accomplished one of two ways. One would be to eliminate the island or the second option would be to come in at a tighter turn, come back 10 feet onto these properties and make t hem less deep, provide a larger street 0 ut in front. That's one 0 ption that they could do so those are Just a few 0 f the issues that Brad wanted to point out to you specifically. If I could get you to turn to Page 8 now. It will be Item Number 5. Our landscape -- not our Landscape Ordinance, but our Subdivision Ordinance requires that we have a fencing plan submitted request with the Preliminary Meridian Planning & Zoning November 21, 2002 Page 16 of 65 Plat. However, it's been common practice of the Planning and Zoning Department to require that at Final Plat. However, if you could read the last sentence of Item Number 5, it says the applicant shall address intended fencing design at the Public Hearing, particularly how the 50-foot flag lot strip -- that's that strip that runs all the way up to McMillan. How they would fence that because right now they have agricultural uses on either side of that. Rural agricultural uses so there needs to be some type of fencing placed there at this time and we'd like the applicant to address that tonight. We have talked a little bit about the stub street, Item Number 7 on Page 8 that makes reference to those stub streets. If we go to Item Number 8, that's the reference we talked about earlier for a 20-foot wide pedestrian easement to the property to the northwest. On to Item Number 9 is a topic of discussion that needs to be addressed tonight as well. The applicant has proposed a 15-foot landscape buffer 0 n Linder Road. The Landscape Ordinance requires that on all arterials there is a 25-foot landscape buffer. A 15-foot landscape buffer is not the full width. They would have to do in addition to that they would have to move the sidewalk, which is in that buffer to be a detached sidewalk, which is not how it's shown on your Preliminary Plat. The property to the south of this project, Baldwin Park Subdivision, that was recently approved, did show that they have a 25-foot wide landscape buffer and so, essentially, what we would have is a 25-foot landscape buffer from the south coming and then pruning into a 15-foot wide landscape buffer, so they wouldn't match with each other. Part of the reason for adopting a Landscape Ordinance is so that we would have a uniform appearance to the street and this would eliminate the uniform appearance to the street. The reason why this needs to bed iscussed tonight is not so much the issue 0 f whether 0 r not the 0 rdinance is applicable, but, rather, there is an existing home on this piece of property in the far southeast - southwest corner of the subdivision in the south side of the home where the garage is located. If we require them to go back 25 feet and they eliminate the driveway to the existing home, it would take access off of the new road going into the subdivision. One thing that Brad and I talked today while discussing this application, would be to start out at 25 feet and then narrow back down close to the driveway and then come back out to 25 feet, since there is some uniform appearance, and that the 25 foot landscape buffer be required north of the street. There are just some issues that still need to be worked on, on this application. Item Number 11 on Page 9. There is some discussion concerning the Lente Canal in the final sentence of that item that there are two other ditches that are evident in the subdivision. There was nothing provided by the applicant to detail how they would be handling these ditches. In the general comments, it is a requirement that all these ditches be tiled or covered or abandoned and that's the way they need to be handled. Now if we could go -- Item Number 12 is fairly self- explanatory. Item Number 13 is something that we have already discussed concerning the 29-foot street section between the townhouse lots on Block 4. Item Number 14. This addresses another setback issue that is requested part of the Planned Development. I 'II just go a head and read this toy ou and t hen I will explain a small change that we would require and the justification for that. I'll read it into the record. If the companion CUP PUD application is approved to allow 10-foot side setbacks -- street side setbacks, a condition of this plat shall be that all structures constructed within 20 feet of the side street shall provide at least one window of at least six square feet in size. If we could have you add the following language at the point where it ends with Meridian Planning & Zoning November 21, 2002 Page 17 of 65 constructed within, please add: Less than 20 feet, so the wording less than needs to be placed between within and 20. The reason for this is the closer you bring the building out to the street on a side street, the more likely it is that you will feel that you're in a corridor area, rather than being brought up closer to a living area. Such as if you have a garage that's closer to the side setback, instead 0 f having a wall of masonite siding that's been painted, you have sort of break in that and there would be a window to give it more of a -- more of a feel that this is a residential use, rather than a commercial use. If you could make that change to that requirement. Item Number 15. If you could look at Item Number B. It's not shown on the Site Plan or on the Landscape Plan, but the applicant has stated that rather than having a playground facility as proposed, they would be having a swimming pool located within the subdivision in this open space lot. As you know, the requirement of the Planned Development Ordinance is that they provide two amenities. The two amenities would be this pathway running up to McMillan, with the exercise equipment and a swimming pool for the subdivision. That would be their two amenities for the Planned Development. If we could move on to Item -- Page 13. Item Number 3. There is a potential conflict between the Fire Department's Condition Number 11 requiring standard building setbacks and proposed setbacks of five for two-story construction. The requirements of the Uniform Building Code are not necessarily more restrictive than - the Uniform Fire Code is not more restrictive than what has been requested with the five-foot setback. There really is not a potential conflict I just wanted to point that out in case you thought that there might be a potential conflict. The Uniform Building Code would allow for closer than five feet from property line for construction, with restrictions, with certain fire wall restrictions. If you could tum to Page 14 of the recommendation you will note that staff strongly supports what we have tonight. This project is very similar to the Baldwin Park project that is just to the south of this. It's a similar type of housing development, similar size lots. The swimming pool is what the staff would agree to be an amenity for the subdivision. It's located in an area that we feel should have higher density than what the . Comprehensive Plan initially stated. We do support this, however, based on the number of issues that I have had to bring up tonight and those issues are listed in A through F on page 14. We felt that it would be appropriate that rather than make a recommendation tonight, we, as staff, are recommending that you - you have your Public Hearing and make comments to the applicant and that the applicant should revise their plat based on the recommendations and the conditions of approval tonight and have that presented back to you. You actually have a finished product to look at, rather than just recommending it to Council without actually knowing all of the changes and so we would ask you to continue that tonight and give some indication to the applicant as to the changes that you would like to see prior to the next Public Hearing. With that I would ask if there is any questions. I know I went through a whole lot and there probably might be some and I would be happy to answer those at this time. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Rohm: I guess the question that I have off the top is from low to medium density, this five homes per acre, is that pushing on high density, is that right in the middle, or where is that? Meridian Planning & Zoning November 21. 2002 Page 18 of 65 McKinnon: Commissioner Rohm, the answer to that question is in the Comprehensive Plan for the land use designation. The Comprehensive Plan states that low density is less than three dwelling units per acre, medium density would be between three to eight dwelling units per acre, and high density would be more than eight. Rohm: Okay so this is right in the middle of -- McKinnon: Right in the middle. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Borup: Anyone else? Zaremba: Yes. When I looked at the plat -- or the plan that we have, it didn't immediately strike me that there is enough open space there. Is the flag pole part of it -- I suppose that's counted as open space and the area that's in the islands in the roads, that's open space? McKinnon: That's correct. T here a re a couple items - - I went through it really fast. There are a couple other items to point out that are of interest for you. I don't know if you have had a chance to review your packet, but the applicant has proposed to have some meandering path through these little islands and he's proposed to have water features installed. Whether that's fountains or a waterfall, the applicant needs to be let us know what that is. That's one of the things that Brad requested tonight but there would be water features and small pathways within the small islands. Yes, the stovepipe or flag that runs up, both of those would be -- all of those and the islands would be considered open space. Mathes: But after five years if that lot goes away, do they still meet open space-- whatever they have to meet? McKinnon: See if I can try this again. The flag lot will not go away, but what would go away would be the stub street. Mathes: Oh. Okay. McKinnon: The flag lot would remain forever. Mathes: Okay. What are workout centers? McKinnon: Small workout centers, if I understand correctly -- and the applicant could probably better explain -- it would pull-up bars and sit-up type of equipment that you see along the greenbelt. Mathes: Just looks like little squares, so that would be -- Meridian Planning & Zoning November 21.2002 Page 19 of 65 Borup: Okay. Is the applicant here and would like to make their presentation? Ralphs: Members of the Commission, my name is Rod Ralphs. I represent CMD, Inc. My last -- name spelling is Rod and the last name spelling is R-a-I-p-h-s. I live at 2730 North Greenbelt Place in Meridian. I'm here tonight on behalf CMD, Inc., and we are the applicant here in this proposed subdivision known as Cobblefield Crossing. As the staff report indicates, it is a 73-lot subdivision that we are proposing. It would mean -- I think that would be helpful if we could go to that other slide. The types of homes that we are proposing in there are - the thought being is that we wanted to create a neighborhood feel similar to what we would have in the north end of Boise. It would just be a unique neighborhood type of feel. The amenities -- you heard staff refer to the pool. We will also have a cabana and we just really wanted to create a neighbor feel at this location. One of the questions that staff had -- if we could go back to the one where we show the green color in the flag lot. One of the questions that staff had regarding the fencing along that greenbelt, it's a fairly long strip of property, and it would have a meandering sidewalk three feet wide, fairly narrow. It would be bordered by three foot high fencing, the see-through vinyl fencing, it would have vertical slats in it that would be see through and it would be visible. It would tie into the workout stations that staff described, is exactly what we are proposing, would be things like inclined bars and benches, to allow people to walk along and enjoy that, as well as do pull-ups and sit-ups in any of those work stations. That greenbelt then ties into the common park area where we would have a pool cabana area and we noted on staff recommendations that we would, of course, get any applicable Building Permits in putting that in. We feel that would be a very nice amenity coming into the subdivision and it would be applicable -- or accessible to anyone in the subdivision who is a resident or their guests. Referring now to some of the questions about the greenbelt areas. You will notice that we have some fairly significant islands there, not only here in the square block area, but then also coming in. These Islands coming in, they look somewhat like dog bones. We refer to them as hammerheads they are 30 feet wide. They are almost the width of a typical street and the hammerhead winds out, there will be meandering pathways with water features and by water features, what we mean is that you would have a gunite lined pond to prevent any leakage or environmental concerns. Then there would be small bubblers in there that would - we would anticipate projecting water three to five feet in the air and you would just have this w~ter effect as you entered into the subdivision. Going through, now, some of the points raised and the concerns raised by staff on the setback. We have no objection to providing in our plat and in our -- or not the plat, rather, in the covenants, that no fencing can be erected along the property line between the two lots, so we can address that. There would be that 10-foot open space between the lots, regardless of whether it was a one or two story structure. Borup: That would be your choice, rather than zero lot lines? Ralphs: Yes, it would be. One thing we are proposing, however, is that the developer would be erecting a white or a baize vinyl type fence that would be tied into the front elevation or the front plane of those homes and so as you drove down the street there would be a consistent frontage of fencing all the way along it. Behind that fencing, there Meridian Planning & Zoning November 21, 2002 Page 20 of 65 would be absolutely no obstruction. When we wondered about whether or not the firemen would have access to it, we likened that to what we have already with many subdivisions in the Meridian area, where you would have a 10-foot, or a 20-foot section of cedar six foot fencing. If there is no gate on that, they are still going to have to jump through it or ram through it with a truck. Knowing that that they can get to it, that there is nothing blocking the space in between and they would have ample space to put a ladder up against a two-story structure if they had it. We feel that that would be an adequate way to address that, but we would like to have the vinyl fence there on the front elevation and the developer would be providing that, so it would be a very uniform look throughout the entire subdivision. We would also note that there were some other questions about the fencing. I'd just refer you, again, to the flag lot, that would be a three-foot high vinyl, and then we would also be proposing a vinyl fence along Linder, the roadway there. Staff's recommendation about having the size of green area there along Linder Road taper and get back up to the 25 feet is certainly acceptable to us. We have no objection to that. Yes, there are concems with the existing home and providing access to it and we feel that would be an acceptable and suitable way of addressing that. Borup: The garage that's shown on the existing road now, does that garage continue through to the building -- all the way through, so it's got garage on both ends of the - or is the drawing accurate on what's shown on the plat? Ralphs: If I could approach and just kind of refer -- Borup: My question -- I guess what I was wondering, is this the garage here we were led to understand is a garage with -- Ralphs: That is correct. The garage, if you will refer to your plat in your packets, the garage is attached to the existing building and it is on the south side of the home and it's -- I believe it's a two-car garage. We wanted to -- moving on to the next point, if there are no other questions about the type of fencing, I know that staff -- or, excuse me, the - Zaremba: I do have a question on the f~ncing. Ralphs: Okay go ahead, then. Zaremba: I'm still not clear what you're talking about, fence along the front elevation. Are you going to have fences along the sidewalk - between the sidewalk and the house or- Ralphs: If you take the front elevation of anyone of these houses -- and if I may, what you would see as you proceed down the road here coming into the subdivision, you would see these front elevations. You would actually see a fence of uniform quality and consistency throughout the subdivision across the front plane of each house and so it would tie the front of each house to the next one. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 21. 2002 Page 21 0165 Zaremba: Just connecting between the houses? Ralphs: Exactly but there would be nothing running down the length of that property line, so it would allow the Fire Department or emergency services to get back in there if they needed to. Zaremba: Would that fall into the requirement that that has to be set back five feet from the front? Isn't there a requirement that fences can't be right flush to the front of the building? Borup: I don't believe so. Fences need to be back 20 feet from the property line. Zaremba: Okay. McKinnon: That's correct. Commissioner Zaremba, there is no requirement that the fencing be set back from the home. Zaremba: Okay. Ralphs: Were there any other questions about the fencing that we -- okay. I know the Commission has received a letter from one of the homeowners asking about the type of fencing that abuts one of those ditches, that there was some concerns about fire -- being able to burn ditches and whatnot. We know Mr. English runs some horses through there. We would be putting up a vinyl fence or a similar type of acceptable perimeter fence on there, but as far as leaving it as a barbed wire or wire fence, that would not be suitable, unless -- do you want to go chain link? We would just submit that we would go with a standard vinyl fence that is fire resistant, but it does not -- I just noted that Mr. English had raised that concern and wanted you to know that -- Borup: Are there ditches along the north property line? Ralphs: I believe there is a ditch there -- and I'm not really sure - if we could go back to the actual plat where -- one more back. Yes. Exactly. I believe Mr. -- Borup: Is this his property here? Ralphs: No. That belongs to Mr. and Mrs. Converse. Borup: So Mr. English is here? Ralphs: Yes so you're looking at one little corner there. Borup: So this is the only section that abuts his property, then? Ralphs: Exactly. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 21. 2002 Page 22 of 65 Borup: And what ditch was he referring to do you know? Ralphs: This little bit of an S curve you see coming through the middle of the property that actually follows along that property line and then proceeds out to McMillan. Borup:. And which side of the property line is it on? Is that ditch going to be left open? Is it on your property? Ralphs: We would be tiling it, but he would still have the same access that he does now to the water. The water would be provided to him. Borup: All right. There is no weed burning to do along the ditch bank there, then, because it's tiled. Ralphs: Yes. Borup: Okay. Ralphs: And I know that that was another point that Mr. English had raised about having access to water and, of course, we have no intent to interfere or impede in any way with any water delivery with any of the adjacent property owners here who are currently drawing water from that. We can also - just retuming one more final point on the fence. It would be that we believe we could address that in the CC&R's, that fence running between the buildings, prohibiting that. We can put that in the plat as well, but I think we can adequately address that in the covenants and through the homeowners association enforcing it that way. The next point I want to address, Members of the Commission, would be the stub street proposed by staff. You will note that we have placed the proposed stub street there in the flag lot and we placed that at a distance of approximately 110 feet. Now why did we do that? The cOncern that we have is that we wanted to provide for east-west progress across that area. We have little idea at present how those two adjacent properties are going to be used. The biggest concem we have with removing that stub at this point would be that after the developer is gone and that entire flag lot becomes the property of the homeowners association. If we go with a stub lot, instead, a stub lot down f!lrther into the subdivision, versus on the flag lot there, it could be that the adjacent landowners at some future date will run into a great deal of difficulty from the homeowners association relinquishing any kind of a right of way or a stub street. We would like to plan for it now and there are different ways we can do that. We can prep it now and work with ACHD as far as providing sidewalk and curbing and gutter, so that our homeowners are on notice, it could be in the covenants, and we can prep it that way. One of the other concerns, I believe, as staff expressed it, that there is a fairly small -- well, not small, but there is a five year window of time, there would be some concem about reverting back to the homeowners association. We can expand that time frame. There is zero problem making that a 10 year or whatever it would take, but as you can see, by placing that stub street where we are, it would allow for the developer there to the north of the project to be able to place in a row of houses right there along there that would be similar to the houses backing it there. If you look Meridian Planning & Zoning November 21 , 2002 Page 23 of 65 at the north property, line running east and west. You can see that we do have one stub street going right there below that north-south indicator and whoever develops this next piece, whether it's us or whether it's some type of developer, they would be able to place comfortable another row of houses right in there and it would be fairly consistent with our east-west property that way. Borup: Have you had any discussion with the present property owner? Ralphs: Yes, we have. Not on that particular issue, but we have been discussing with him how we can address any kind of needs with that flag lot. We have had discussions with ACHD about the right way to handle that and we can extend the time period. We can prep that site and that stub street can be there and put everyone on notice that that's where it's going to be. Borup: Is that owner intending to develop his property? Ralphs: The answer is yes and -- Borup: So was the stub street location discussed with him? Ralphs: No and as far as any kind of Preliminary Plat or possible layouts for the use of this property, the answer is no. Borup: How about the property to the east? Ralphs: Same story. Again, no discussion with them about where that would go. However, if we don't go that route, then that property will revert back to the homeowners association and those two property owners will have to deal with them at some future date. After that greenbelt is in place, I c an foresee how they could encounter great difficulty in giving up that piece. In conclusion, on that particular point, we would request that we be allowed to place that stub street there for the reasons that I have outlined. It does provide the east -west access, it also presents a planning opportunity, and a planning solution well in advance of what these two other properties would be able to do. I would also -- w ell, spea~ing about potential greenbelts or stub streets, refer the Commission now to the far west side of the property on the north property line where staff has recommended placing some type of a greenbelt pathway somewhere along there. T hat's approximately 900 to 1,000 square feet, depending on how you measure it from the dead center, either 0 ut to Linder or over here to the street that comes out to the north. You're looking at a 450-foot walk of a person living dead center. If you wanted to access the north, you go out to Linder, you could go out to this other street. Our concern about requiring some type of a 20-foot greenbelt piece is you are at that point creating a greenbelt that currently goes nowhere. You would be placing some type of a limitation or a guideline on the next property owner that, depending on the placement, it may not match up with any future project that they have got. We would ask that that requirement be waived, because we think that 450 feet is not that -- too great of a distance and it can be addressed by the green and the detached sidewalks Meridian Planning & Zoning November 21, 2002 Page 24 of 65 we have over here on Linder, as well as on the street coming out the north. I'd like to go down and now address Number 4 on Page 7, the townhouse lot configuration. If we could go to the slide of the structures. Actually, that's a good place to start right now. You will notice that there is four fairly long, deep lots there in the middle and what we have proposed to put in there would be attached town homes. With the landscaping, the islands, and the type of roof elevation, I think that we are looking at -- and if we could go to the next slide, please. I'd direct the Commission's attention there to the box representing the single-family town homes. That particular illustration is a two-story town home, however, we would also avail ourselves to a single-story, but kind of a country club type of an atmosphere where you would have a home or a structure that's fairly well removed from the main street, but they would be attached. As far as the staff concerns about the width of the streets not being sufficient enough, we have zero objections to expanding that to 29 feet. Going to Item Number 4 on Page 8, as far as the applicant indicating that we have a pressurized irrigation system, we are currently working with Settlers Irrigation District. They have the water rights at the site as far as the seasonal water and also on that existing home that are there at the property. We do have access to a well, and we are currently working through that, so we don't have any final answers for you there, but we recognize the requirements that the city has on the pressurized irrigation and the year around access to that kind of water. Item Number 5 there on Page 8 where it talks about a detailed fencing plan, I described that tonight and I can go through it again if you like. I did describe a little bit about how that 50-foot wide flag lot would be addressed. It will be a three-foot see-through vinyl fence. If you go down now to the Item 7 and 8, we objected to, for the reasons -- regarding the stub street and then also the pedestrian walkway. Going down to Number 9, the minimum street buffers, I think we have addressed that as well, as far as addressing the current needs of the current structure on the property and then tapering it back out to what is required by the city. Oh and if we could go back to the street plat. Excellent. Thank you. There was a point raised by staff regarding the street -- or the side street setback and refer Council to the different side streets that we have and I will -- if I may, I will approach over here. The lots that have a side street setback issue would be these right here located on Linder. This is actually a frontage elevation on the house. There would be these two lots here coming into the south from the -- the subdivision to the south of us and then we would also have side street setbacks here, here, and up here. Over here, we do have a greenbelt area. Now when I point out any of these that are attached to stub streets, there is already a 20-foot landscape berm between the street and the lot line. Actually, you have got 30 feet between the streets and the closest that house could get to the street. Really, the only homes that we are looking at altering that setback would be these three lots here in the center square portion of the development, one at those points. We can address that with any questions you have. Zaremba: Did you have any comment or objection to the thought that any house that has the side facing a street should have something that breaks up the side, like a window? Ralphs: No objection at all and we can write that into the covenants and also address that with anyone purchasing the lot when they submit the home for approval to the Meridian Planning & Zoning November 21, 2002 Page 25 of 65 Architectural Committee. I have nothing further. If you go to Item F there on Page 14, treatment of existing ditches crossing the property, we would be tiling those and we would also be working with the Settlers Irrigation District there on that major canal there to the north end of the flag lot that abuts up there against McMillan Road. I have nothing further and any questions you have I'd like to address. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Rohm: Yes. I have a question here. On these islands right here, it appears as if people backing out of driveways might have a little bit of trouble pulling out onto the street. What are your thoughts on that? Ralphs: I think we have the minimum required that the city asked for, so I think we are at least at the 29 feet where you're backing out, so we meet the minimum guidelines of that. However, if the Commission would like that narrowed up a bit, we would certainly welcome that. Currently as you see that, there is enough there per the guidelines of the city, but we can certainly narrow that. Rohm: Well, it just looks tight. Ralphs: Itdoes but, actually, if you look atthe size of the road and the size of the berms -- actually, of course, they are not built yet, but looking at the plat and the size, the distance is there. Zaremba: On those islands, I really like the idea. I think it's a neat idea. Ralphs: Thank you. Zaremba: The one thing that makes me a little bit nervous is that there would be pathways through there. Is that likely to attract children to be playing on those -- in those areas and, therefore, crossing back and forth -- that's your entry roadway and I'm a little concemed about children finding that an attractive place to play. Ralphs: And I agree that's a valid conGern. I think anytime that we have these green island type areas and where we have children, they are going to gravitate to that anyway. The sidewalk, if anything, would keep them hopefully contained on there. Probably not the best thing, but anytime you have islands - I could say if we have an island with or without a sidewalk, it wouldn't keep the kids off. I think that kids are going to gravitate to those areas anyway, just because it's a park-like setting. I think that's why we have those islands is just for looks and an area to walk and enjoy that area. Again, if the Commission finds that they don't want walkways, we are open to that suggestion as well. The walkways we have proposed for those hammerheads would -- they would be meandering, you wouldn't have a straight shot down it and it would just meander through trees and landscaping. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 21. 2002 Page 26 of 65 Borup: Any other questions from the Commission? Back to Commissioner Rohm's question on the distance, what is the distance between the wide parts of the dog bone? Ralphs: I believe those are 29 feet and, I apologize, I don't have the plat that you have, but I do have our engineer here from Leavitt Engineering, Kasey, and he could address that distance. Borup: And there is not a -- I don't have a scale with me, but it looks to me more like 20 feet, that's why I'm wondering. Twenty-nine at the long part and -- Ralphs: That's 20. Borup: Oh, that's close. Zaremba: Well, I think it is indicated if -- let's see which one was I looking at the Preliminary Plat. T he I eft dog bone 0 n the top 0 fit just before the C in C obblefield indicates to me that the narrow part of the dog bone was the 29-foot roadway and the bump out is nine feet, which is subtracted from that. Borup: That's where the 20 came from. Ralphs: Commissioners, we can narrow that down to meet that, if that would be agreeable. Zaremba: Well, I think Commissioner Rohm's question is where ever the driveway is where somebody is backing 0 ut 0 f their house, may, 0 r m ay not be right where that narrow spot is. If that's not right where the driveway hits the street, it may not be as much of a concem. Rohm: Could you just eliminate the dog bone effect and just have it symmetrical? Ralphs: Okay just almost like an oval type approach? Rohm: Yes. Ralphs. Okay. Rohm: If you're getting the 29 feet from here to here, then if you just make that the same width all the way through, then you will always maintain the 29 feet. Ralphs: We could certainly do that or just reduce that -- that hammerhead in to the 29 and then maybe bring the island in a foot or two, so we -- we do like the look of the hammerhead, but we could still get you the 29 feet. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 21, 2002 pege 27 of 66 Borup: The other aspect of that hammerhead, it's going to slow the traffic down. You're not going to have traffic speeding through there as much as you would otherwise. You also have five-foot side -- we are five-foot sidewalks, aren't we? Ralphs: Yes. Borup: We have a five-foot sidewalk, plus a foot of curbing, so that would, essentially, give you 26 feet from the end of the driveway to the hammerhead. Assuming a two-car driveway, you're going to have some width there to allow some turning before you're in the street. Ralphs: We can certainly address that in any way that- Borup: I like the idea of the hammerheads slowing down the traffic. Zaremba: It would give a calming effect to the traffic. Are you anticipating that people will park right against those islands or -- Ralphs: No. Parking will not be allowed and we could address that in the CC&Rs as well. Zaremba: Okay. Ralphs: There will be no parking allowed - in fact, I can't remember if we had that discussion with staff or not, but we would not allow parking on the street there abutting any of the islands and that would include those here in front of the townhouse lots. You see those two islands in there there would be no on-street there to allow for emergency service vehicles. Exactly. Borup: Anything else? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Yes. Freckleton: I have a question for the applicant, if I could. The treatment of the existing ditches, Rod, we -- I picked on two that kind of cross the property. There is one kind of down in this area. There is another one that comes across here and then runs up this boundary and it looks like it turns and goes over here. First of all, I'd like to know are they users lateral ditches or are they controlled by Settlers? Ralphs: I believe they are users ditches. We do have one of the property owners here tonight. What kind are they? Borup: Well, we either need to get it on testimony or-- Meridian Planning & Zoning November 21, 2002 Page 28 of 65 Ralphs: Can I just consult with him and I can give you an accurate answer? Borup: Sure. Ralphs: Commissioners, I will approach the map here. There are two - there is actually a ditch here to the south that is there -- right there where the Baldwin Subdivision comes in. That one will be tiled. The first ditch here you picked up on, Bruce, that's just a user ditch. The larger one here that kind of does this S curve effect, then borders here along the northwest, and then goes off to the north, that's a lateral but all of those would be tiled. Freckleton: Okay are they under the control of Settlers or are they -- this one here, is it a Settlers Ditch or is it a users lateral ditch? There are two there? Ralphs: And those are Settlers. Freckleton: Okay. If they are Settlers ditches, I assume there is an easement existing through there, too, for their ditch. We need to have those shown on the plat when you resubmit. One of the concerns we have that we always deal with is the tiling of ditches on back lot lines and the fact that basically access is cut off. you know, with the fence and that sort of thing. We have talked a lot about fences tonight, I don't know that it's going to be such an issue, but what we typically require is that ditches are in a common lot when they are piped like that. The Settlers easement is going to need to be -- like I said, it needs to be shown, so we know where it's at, and then your proposed method for dealing with those ditches, the routing of the piping and that sort of thing. If you can route t hem a long t he front 0 f the lot lines, it makes ita lot easier f or a ccess for the irrigation districts so we need those kinds of details provided for us. Ralphs: We would be happy to do so. Freckleton: Okay. Borup: Any other questions or comments from staff? Anything else, Rod, for right now? Ralphs: No, I didn't. Thank you for your time. Borup: 0 kayo Thank you. Who else do we have that would like tot estify 0 n this? Come forward, please. Excuse me. Go ahead. Yorgason: That's fine. My name is Dave Yorgason here representing Capital Development. We are the developers of the subdivision to the south called Baldwin Park. When we first came across the notice -- actually, we heard about it through the Highway District, quite surprised to see how many small lots were on the plat. I had a discussion with one of the members of the partnership here, which I think is also in the audience tonight. Since that time and watching tonight's presentation, we are much more relieved -- not entirely, but much more relieved to see some of the amenities they Meridian Planning & Zoning November 21. 2002 Page 29 of 65 are offering, I would think may justify some of the density they are asking in the R-8 zone. A few questions I just have and maybe you could ask the applicant and I certainly anticipate talking to them later in the future. First of all, there was a lot of discussion on vinyl fencing and we also have planned doing a vinyl fence along Linder Road, which we were glad to see their presentation there. What height and color, we can work with them, if they'd like, to our style, which is a sand color, it's a very common color, and we have a five-foot vinyl fence on top of our berm. There was discussion about the width of the common area along the frontage of Linder and just rely on staff. I appreciate the reference of matching the width, that's -- we agree that's appropriate along your major roads throughout your city. I don't know if I'm 25 or 35, but whatever it is, we appreciate the match there. One of the comments I would like to emphasize tonight, I believe it's on Page 8, Site-Specific Condition Number 2, we'd like it to match or similar to the language that's referenced in Condition Number 1. We are in the process of working on a Latecomers Agreement for not only sewer, but also water, that we have provided some significant cost for providing sewer and water to this area. As Condition Number 1, it talks about reimbursement and Latecomers Agreements, we request that it's also mentioned not only for sewer, as it is for Condition Number 1, but they will enter into a Latecomers Agreement for water as well. I believe that would be referenced in your Condition Number 2 for your Preliminary Plat. The pathway in the islands, I have a lot of comments there. You can -- this is their plat. I just think they are doing a pretty good job trying to find some amenities. I think the wider the islands when you put the little dog bone at the end I think that's a plus to slow down the traffic. I applaud their effort in that effort. Pathways or not, I think that's nice to slow down the traffic. In the R-8 zone, I'd refer to staff again. I don't believe townhouses are allowed in the R-8 zones, so I think they are asking for quite a bit. Though they have some amenities they are providing tonight, I don't think it's enough, in our opinion, to justify townhouses in the R- 8 zone with that Planned Development. Borup: You mean attached? Yorgason: Attached homes. Thank you. Phasing I don't know -- I may have come in late and missed it. Are they doing one phase or multiple phases? I would be curious to know. The reason for that question is we are in the process of designing future phases. Our Phase 1 is not next to their boundary, but future Phases 3 or 4 or some number like that, 2 or 4, are going to be common to this boundary. There are some questions I have as far as sharing fencing, if they are putting their fence in first or if we are putting in some fence that's common, but not to all of their boundary. It would be nice to have a common fence throughout that area and phasing is part of that question. Those are the comments I have. A few others, but I will hold them for another day and stand for any questions you may of me at this time. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Zaremba: If you -- I'm sure you have gone this far. Along what would be your north boundary, what are the widths of your lot sizes? Meridian Planning & Zoning November 21, 2002 Page 30 of 65 Yorgason: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, I appreciate your asking. That's one of the things I won't hold judgment on now. I would hold my tongue. The R-8 zone, as I understand, the minimum lot width is 65 feet. Our minimum lot width is 66 feet on our entire north boundary. We have no lots less than 66 feet wide on our north boundary. Some are wider and when they have corner lots, we tend to make the lots a little wider to allow for a greater setback. Those lots are more in the area of 80 feet -- approximately 80 feet wide, the additional 15 feet to make the same size house-building pad, but 66 feet is our minimum lot width on our north boundary. Thank you for asking. Borup: Any other questions? Thank you. Yorgason: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else that would like to come forward? Seeing none, Rod, did you have any final comments? There were a few questions from Mr. Yorgason. I don't know if you got those down. Ralphs: I didn't, but I can go through some of those. I did about - the question about phasing. It's a single phase, so we won't be doing any phasing. We would certainly welcome the idea of having a common type fencing between Baldwin and Cobblefield there running along Linder, so we have a consistent look. Borup: Have you picked a vinyl fence color? Ralphs: No, we have not yet. Borup: Okay. Did the -- he had mentioned the street buffer fencing and I assume the whole subdivision same color or not necessarily? Yorgason: Along Linder. Borup: Along Linder would be a sand color five-foot vinyl fence. I don't know if you stated what you had in mind for-- . Ralphs: We are going with a vinyl fence of suitable height. I understood him to say five feet and -- would five feet work? We can do five feet and there is no objection to being consistent with what Baldwin is doing on that end. Borup: Along Linder? Ralphs: Yes. Borup: Okay. I guess the only other question was the attached dwellings in an R-8 zone. Was that part of the PUD -- or I mean the- Meridian Planning & Zoning November 21, 2002 Page 31 of 65 McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I would probably be the best to answer that. Borup: Please do. McKinnon: This actually applied to two recent ordinances that were recently adopted. One of them is referred to as the attached Single-Family Dwelling Ordinance, which would allow attached single-family dwellings to be permitted uses in the R-8 zone. Further, in the new PUD Ordinance, under 12-6-4, it says a variety of housing types may be included in a single Planned Development, including attached units, detached units, single-family, multi-family, regardless of the underlying zone classification of the site. If it was -- and then it goes on provided that the overall density limit of the zone is maintained. As long as they are under the eight per acre, they can have any different type that they would like under a Planned Development. Borup: Okay. Any other questions for-- Zaremba: I actually like the variety idea. That is fairly appealing. I was kind of expecting Mr. English to be here to speak, although we do have his letter, which has been mentioned before. You addressed most of his concems but do you have any objection to having a statement about the Right-To-Farm Act on the-- Ralphs: Oh, absolutely not. Zaremba: It should be on the plat and probably on your-- Ralphs: If we get a phone call, I assume that it will be a short one. Zaremba: We typically have been asking people to put that on the plat. Ralphs: We will certainly do that. Zaremba: Make sure it's known to the buyers of the property. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission that is a site-specific comment in the staff report. Rohm: I just had a question of the staff. Didn't you mention that you wanted an additional stub street on the east line, I believe? McKinnon: That's correct. If I could just address that really quickly. There are a couple of issues that need to be brought up with that. This block length is going to exceed 1,000 feet, we typically don't allow blocks lengths to exceed 1,000 feet without breaking those, and so we felt it would be appropriate to put in an additional stub street someplace in this location within 1,000 feet of McMillan Road. Mr. Ralphs had addressed a number of issues that needed to be addressed concerning the small stub Meridian Planning & Zoning November 21, 2002 Page 32 of 65 street in north part of the flag lot, that, you know, they could keep that in parapet, you know, forever until the rest of those projects develop. However, we would -end up with development that would start at this location -- oops. Sorry about that, run up and around, and then back up, which we actually have a block length that would far exceed 1,000 feet, if we did not require a stub street at that location. We would still prefer to see a stub street at that location. Borup: Do you know whether - is that a single parcel? Our plats don't show that area. Do you know, Rod, is that a single parcel to the east? Ralphs: The east parcel is actually one piece, yes. McKinnon: And the staff comments conceming the flag lot portion here, that this could - - if they provide a stub street down here, they could eliminate the stub street here and make this a part of the pathway at this time, rather than leave that open. We would leave that open to the option of the developer as to whether or not you would like a stub street there or a continuation of the path. Rohm: Well, I don't think that this has a whole lot to do with any of this and it seems to me that i f,i n fact, you have 1 ,000 feet, you need a stub street in there somewhere, whether you leave this one or not. It just -- and I think that you had mentioned that you were objecting to having to put a stub street in and just need to ground that out while we are here. Staff would like to see something here. What would you suggest? Ralphs: Again, I would revert back to my comments earlier, that, yes, it exceeds the 1,000 feet. However, we are providing to the east that's up through the homes there in the next subdivision. If we lose one. of those lots, because of the need to put in a stub street, then we would probably remove that stub street there on the flag lot and I guess in the future that would be something that the homeowners association and the adjacent landowners can arm wrestle about. Borup: What would they have to arm wrestle about? Ralphs: Well, our stub actually goes from our property all the way up to McMillan. There is that -- Borup: Right. Ralphs: And so they would have to work that out with the adjacent homeowners. Borup: Oh, if someone ever wanted to get through? Ralphs: If a -- for example, a developer would to come in there on the north or to the east and recommendations were made because of lot lengths to put in a stub street east-west, then that would not be available to them. At least once, it's been removed by Meridian Planning & Zoning November 21, 2002 Page 33 of 65 the developer and they would have to go through the homeowners association to get that. We are one person, as opposed to 72. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if I could address the comment that was just made. The reason the staff report for requiring that stub street to be within 1,000 feet of McMillan, was so that this block length from where ever the stub street reaches to McMillan, could be less than 1,000 feet. There may not be an east-west connection north, but the block length from McMillan to this stub street would be less than 1,000 feet in length. Borup: And that is 673 feet, it looks like. McKinnon: So if they put in a stub street at this location you could have a block length that would exceed - Borup: 370 feet from there -- south of your north property line, which is well in the middle of the block, isn't it? Zaremba: I generally am the one that's in favor of having more ways out just in case of emergency. If it were up to me, I would probably make the choice that I would rather see a stub street somewhere in this area and give that one up, if it's got to be one or the other. I certainly understand your reasons for providing the one through the flag lot and that's very kind of you to think of the future development of your neighbors. Ralphs: Do I get points for that? Zaremba: A lot of points for that but it shows a great deal of consideration. I probably would opt for one that's in amongst the houses here somewhere, instead of that one, if it had to be one or the other. Personal opinion. Borup: That affects the usability of that pathway if you have a street in the middle of it, too. Zaremba: Well - and then the other thing is if that is going to have a street through it that connects to a subdivision to the northeast and to the northwest, you're inviting people that - you wouldn't have a fence across the street. You're inviting people from other subdivisions into your park, which you mayor may not -- the homeowners eventually mayor may not want to be providing park facilities to non-association members. Having the stub street not there and having it fenced all the way would make that a little bit more difficult. Ralphs: Thank you, again. Any further questions? Borup: At this time I think maybe some discussion from the Commission on the direction we'd like to go. I mean staff has recommended continuation. I think it behooves us to make sure it's clear on -- Meridian Planning & Zoning November 21. 2002 Page 34 of 65 Zaremba: What the continuation would accomplish. Borup: Yes and what items you want to have addressed. Zaremba: Well, I think we do need to have the Settlers -- sorry. Borup: Do we have a comment or - go ahead, Bruce. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I just wanted to address Mr. Yorgason's comment about the water latecomers fee. He would like to have that added to it. Basically, staff cannot support that. It's been our policy on Water Latecomers Reimbursement Agreements that we -- we set the service area at a quarter of a mile each direction from the frontage of the main. For the Baldwin Park project, Mr. Yorgason extended a water main quite a distance up the road here for his development, but his -- the water main he extended stops right at this boundary. Therefore, what we would consider for a service area for the Water Latecomers Agreement would be a quarter of a mile each direction from the frontage of this main. It would stop at that line right there so that's the way these agreements have always been drafted and the policy that we have established. It's pretty hard to -- with sewer, you can kind of set a boundary based on the serviceability of that main. With water, since it's pressurized, you have to basically draw a line in the sand and say this is where we are drawing the service area boundary. Mr. Yorgason will be able to recoup his cost from the properties that develop in the service area between, you know, his boundary and where he started the line up the road. Borup: So the service area goes parallel to the water line, not -- Freckleton: Correct. Correct. Borup: It goes parallel to the water line, not -- a quarter mile parallel, on the end of the quarter mile, then? Freckleton: Right. Right so it's along the frontage of the main. I just wanted to throw that out. Borup: Okay. Okay. What items would we like to discuss? Shall we start down -- staff has added a list and there may be a couple others that we would like to add. We have just discussed the stub street on the east boundary. That's Item Number A. Anything you would like to add to that? Zaremba: Well, I would support a stub street between the houses, as opposed to a stub street through the flag. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: I would appreciate seeing that. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 21, 2002 Page 35 of 65 Borup: So we are going by the staff recommendation there? Do we all agree with that? Rohm: Yes. Borup: The second item is a pedestrian connection to the property to the north and I have always been a real big advocate of pedestrian pathways and connections, other than maybe one that doesn't go anywhere. Zaremba: Well, I am, too, and at this point, it wouldn't go anywhere, but just in imagining IT that next lot is developed, how they are going to have to develop it, they -- if it's only the one property that's developed and not in conjunction with other properties, they are going to have one cul-d-sac. I can't see how they could do it much other way. Borup: Because of the width. Zaremba: Yes and I could see the value of them having a connecting pathway to a pathway that would be here. It maybe would only connect those two streets and not go anywhere else, but -- Borup: That's a good point. I hadn't looked at that. Zaremba: I can't see that they can get much more than one cul-d-sac in there. Borup: It looks like that property is narrower than the frontage on this and this just has one street down it, so -- Zaremba: I would be in favor of leaving that a walking connection. Borup: Okay. The next item would be the street buffer along Linder Road. Zaremba: I think the applicant addressed that, is wnling to make it 25 feet, with a little bit of adjustment where the -- Borup: Where driveway is. Yes. Zaremba: I'm not sure that would mess with the appearance all that much. Staff seemed to think that it would work out. Borup: There are -- could be other options, too. Dave, do you have a comment on that? I mean one option is to just tear the house down. The other option is to have the driveway come in from the other side of the garage. McKinnon: Members of the Commission, I didn't bring an aerial photo with me. I spent some time with Brad today discussing and we pulled the aerial photo of this. It doesn't appear that they would have enough room, based on -- got to scale this out right now. When we were looking at the aerial photos today, it didn't look like they would be able to Meridian Planning & Zoning November 21, 2002 Page 36 of 65 come in on the east side of the garage or the east side of the home and have enough room. Borup: So the plat is probably not accurate then? McKinnon: My aerial photo may not have been accurate. . It's not exactly a true scale when you do aerial photos, but it didn't appear that it would be a whole lot of room there. Let me look at the scale - Zaremba: Did I hear that the existing house faces Linder? It fronts Linder? McKinnon: That's correct, Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: So the road we are putting in doesn't exist at this point. McKinnon: That's correct. Right now, you can see the small outline of a home in this location. The garage is in this - Fisher: Can I address that? Borup: Yes just a second. Zaremba: The Public Hearing is still open, I believe. Borup: Were you finished? Go ahead and finish, Dave. If it's to scale, it scales out to 26 feet or so. McKinnon: It's about 21 feet and - I guess you could put a driveway that would wrap around the backside to the garage and then put the garage door facing the opposite direction and put your roll-up door on the other side. That may be an option, but when you start dealing with the -- Fisher: My name is Frank Fisher. I live in the house. Borup: Okay. Frank. Fisher: I live at 4450 North Linder, which is in the house. The backside of that garage has two rooms on there and they are attached to the house through a hallway through there. Borup: Okay. I was going to ask a question earlier if the garage went all the way through. Fisher: No, it doesn't. There are two rooms on the back and that's why I was answering you. The only access to that is through the front like it is right now. I don't Meridian Planning & Zoning November 21. 2002 Page 37 of 65 believe there is enough room coming around, if you wanted to come around the other end of it either, the south end of it, because of the way it's built. Borup: Okay so this plat must not be completely accurate, then, as far as dimensions? Fisher: I don't know the exact dimensions. Borup: It shows about 26 feet between the house and the property line. Fisher: In the back? Borup: At the narrow point. Fisher: That very well could be. On the east side, you mean? Borup: Right. It shows about 25 feet. Fisher: Yes. There is on back -- the east side of the garage there is rooms back in there, so it's -- you would have to tear out the rooms to enlarge the garage. Borup: All right. Thank you. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I was trying to figure out a way that we could provide some false depth 0 ver there. I f there was an increase in the number of tree plantings at that location, you have the -- I looked it up and you have additional trees in that area. Instead of having a flatter area, you could raise the area by introducing more trees at a higher, I guess, density, and the foliage in that area. Borup: You mean around the driveway? McKinnon: Around on the driveway. That would be correct. Borup: Is there a safety factor, then? - Zaremba: I would be concerned about getting in and out of the driveway. Linder is getting busier and busier. McKinnon: You wouldn't put the drive - they are not going to be able to back out onto Linder, they are having to come in from this area right here. There is actually an existing driveway. They are not allowed access to Linder. Borup: Then why are we talking about making it down there? McKinnon: The reason why is if you extend that 15 foot buffer to 25 feet, all of a sudden they have no access. The additional 10 feet would prohibit them from being able to drive in to get to the garage. Right now, they would have to -- they are going to access Meridian Planning & Zoning November 21, 2002 Page 38 of 65 the property going from the north part of the property to the south part of the property and then pulling in the garage. If you add an extra 10 feet there you reduce the width so much that they can't have that driveway anymore and so it would have to be a narrower than 25 foot wide landscape buffer, because of the existing location of the home. There has to be some way of getting some landscape buffer in there and trying to make it match up with everything else. Essentially, what would happen is that Baldwin is going to come in with their 25 or 3 5, whichever it may be. We cano nly require a 25 but if they come in, they are going to reduce it down to 25 from the 35. If that's what it is, and then your fence going up and it's going to come into 15 feet where the driveway is and come back out, it goes back out to 25, up on the north side it would be 25. Where that driveway is, in order to maintain access, it has to be narrower. Putting in that fence will help, but when you bring that fence closer, it's really easy to see that distance. You need to find some way to camouflage that. One way you could do that is by increasing the amount of trees, the density of trees, maybe some conifers, instead of deciduous trees that have more base to it. Borup: Well, that's in -- I think it probably applies to commercial and that's already in the landscaping ordinance to allow -- McKinnon: Yes, it is, but-- Borup: -- the higher landscaping. McKinnon: -- the direction I'm going is the higher density of trees, rather than the one to 35 feet that we require, increase iUo one to 25 in that area and you can create some artificial depth. Borup: Well, that would be an option that would solve some of that. Would that be a recommendation of staff -- I mean of the Commission is to increase the landscaping in that 15-foot area? Rohm: Well, that seems to address the issue and I would be in support of that. Zaremba: Well, the other thing that will increase it a little bit is at the point where you go from 25 and then bump out to 15, there is going to be -- instead of the fence being parallel with the road, it's going to be not quite perpendicular, probably. If at that point there was more landscaping to hide that piece of the fence that does the bridge between 25 and 15 -- I'm probably not making myself clear, but - Borup: Well, that's why we have a landscape detail that would detail the fencing and the landscaping and we could live with that. Zaremba: Yes. Well, I'm just recommending coming up at that point, so the bend doesn't show. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 21. 2002 Page 39 of 65 Borup: Well, it mayor may not have a bend, depending on how you place the fence, if it's centered or off to one side. That's what the Landscaping Plan would show. They may be able to go without. We don't know at this point. Okay. Number D, redesign the townhouse lots, and go to 29 feet. What was that main concern there, Dave? On your Item Number D, was it the street width? McKinnon: The street width and the little island. I think the applicant addressed that. They would be willing to do that. If I could digress and go back a little bit to the entryway area. Bruce and I started looking at the -- I guess if these are dog bones in the middle, that first one could be a pork chop, that little one right out in front. It started to give me more heartburn when I started thinking about this one right there in the center. These two are going to have to be pulling in right there, then they are going to have to pull directly right out again, come back around it. In addition to that, anybody living in this home at this location is going to have to pull in right here, pull a quick U'ee, and come back in. I'm wondering if that's appropriate. I think ACHD would allow that but I don't know if that provides the safest access at that location. I'd love your opinion on that. It meets the standard, it meeting the requirements, but I don't know if that's the best use of an entry island at that location, especially when you have one, two - I guess I count one, two, three houses that directly front onto that. That's coming in off of Linder at the speeds of Linder, rather than at subdivision speed. Borup: Well, a u-turn - I don't know if a u-tum concerns me. It's a wide enough distance there to do that and it wouldn't be a hard -- a hard turn to make, but Commission, any comments on the driveway entrance right there? Anyone have any thoughts? Zaremba: I don't have a problem with the islands being there and, particularly, since that's where they plan to put their subdivision sign. I agree that ACHDhas standards of how close a driveway can be to the intersection and that does look like it would be pushing it, but somebody with a foreknowledge of ACHD maybe can measure that. Borup: H as there been any discussion, Dave, maybe with t he applicant 0 n the turn around on the existing house, so that cars would not be backing out, they would have -- they would be - that's a long driveway to be backing down. Zaremba: Make that island a little bit narrower, maybe, so t hat somebody could go around the car that's coming out. McKinnon: Bruce and I were having a parallel conversation to the question you were asking, trying to figure out a way we could put some sort of turn around on there, maybe narrow that island down, stead of backing out into oncoming traffic. Borup: I would think it would be easier to put a turn around coming out of the garage. McKinnon: Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 21, 2002 Page 40 of 65 Borup: Then no one would be backing out at all. McKinnon: I think that's - there is an existing driveway at this location right here, so if we hold it back at 15 feet, they have got enough room, I believe, that they can back fully. out and then onto the driveway. The aerial photos actually showed a driveway coming in off of Linder at this location and then running north and south almost to where this new access road is into the subdivision. They could back right out of the garage onto that existing driveway and then pull forward onto the other driveway. I think that that's actually accomplishable right now. The owner is here and he's shaking his head saying that that is accomplishable, so if we maintain that existing driveway, then we will be able to back up and turn around, that gets them going straight out. Borup: There are subdivisions -- I know Boise where they have streets on a major road, require backing turn arounds on each lot. It was part of the requirement, but we are only talking one lot here. McKinnon: Yes I think just one lot it's -- we essentially got it accomplished already, as long as they utilizing the existing driveway backing up to the 15 foot buffer, I think they can make that turn. Borup: I think maybe -- do we want to have a detail showing that, have it part of the submittal? McKinnon: That would be great. Borup: They could include that in the landscaping detail, probably and what was the final one? Oh. Zaremba: On the same subject, my question would be the lot across the street from that, Lot 2 in Block 1, their driveway is going to be closer to the intersection than ACHD allows. Isn't there something like 100 feet, 65 feet, or so? I forget what it is. Borup: I don't think on a residential driveway. Isn't that for commercial? Zaremba: Only commercial? Borup: Is that correct? Freckleton: Dave's doing some looking. I don't believe that the residential driveways are applicable. Zaremba: Okay. Freckleton: That is one area that Dave and I were -- we were sitting here discussing. I know in the subdivision I live in there is a similar situation and what was required there was a common connecting driveway between the two lots that basically gave them a Meridian Planning & Zoning November 21, 2002 Page 41 of 66 horseshoe shape, so that they could back out into that and then they could head out, maneuver, so that they weren't backing out onto the road. Zaremba: It was a driveway that did something like - Freckleton: It would give them turn around room that they could go head out just food for thought. Zaremba: Well, again, for safety reasons and because it appears to me that the distance between the island and the curbing is, again, down to the 20 feet, I would think that would be -- either making the island narrower or doing something like that is a good idea. Borup: You know Lots 2 and 3 are going to be conflicting with traffic exiting the subdivision. Zaremba: Right. Borup: So they already should be going slow and they have gone down - that may be a good idea to share a turn around. Right. I don't have as much concern on those as the one that's across the street with the traffic coming into the subdivision, not being able to see w hat's a head of them, where t hose exiting would have a - - should have good vision of what's coming, hopefully. If we could maybe, have the applicant take a look at that and see if they have any recommendations. Do you want to add that to the list? Zaremba: I would add it as something to think about, not necessarily -- Borup: That's kind of what I was suggesting. May want to look at the -- Zaremba: I'm not necessarily ready to make it an absolute requirement it just would be nice. Borup: The driveway on Lot 2 and 3, perhaps Lot 1. Zaremba: Block 1? Borup: Yes for them to maybe look at options for a back out plan to -- Zaremba: If not doing that, I would at least put the restriction on Lot 2 that their garage and driveway has to be on their east boundary. Borup: Yes. Well, again, I don't know if that makes any difference where it's an exit. How would that affect it? Either way they are -- I mean you cut 30 feet off. I mean just because of the island is the only reason that would have a -- not have an effect there, in my mind. Let's just have them look at the whole thing. E, pending design issues Meridian Planning & Zoning November 21. 2002 Page 42 of 65 relating to side yard setbacks, I think that's been answered and. they said they would have no fencing. The d itches, they have already stated that they would be tiled, so there is probably nothing to really -- Zaremba: But they would have to show the easements. Borup: Right. Well, that was the next thing I had. Zaremba: Yes. Borup: Was G, which I guess would be a new F, if we -- showing the Settlers Ditch easements. Anything? Zaremba: Okay. We didn't really resolve the access to them. Settlers is going to want to -- Borup: Oh. Right. That should be addressed along with showing the easements on the -- Zaremba: And the solution is to make it a separate common area lot. Borup: Right. As Bruce stated, that's been the normal -- there is a couple of options that they would have to address the accessibility. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, part the concern is that it doesn't appear that Settlers even responded to our application here. I don't have anything - I have a note on my transmittal that there is nothing from them, so -- Borup: So they don't care? Freckleton: I hardly doubt that. Ketterling: My name is Kasey Ketterling and I work at Leavitt and Associates. I'm working with Doug Campbell. I receiyed a phone call from Settlers Irrigation, just alerting me that we were in their area and to take that into consideration. They are aware of it and I think they are willing to work with the city and didn't indicate there was any problem in putting a subdivision there. They just said to make them aware of what we were planning on doing, so -- Borup: Well, yes, and the city did send a transmittal to them asking for their comment, so -- Ketterling: Yes. I was just putting that on the record that they did contact us. That's all. Borup: Okay so you prepared to get their existing easements- Meridian Planning & Zoning November 21. 2002 Pege 43 of 65 Ketterling: Yes. Borup: - either discussed or - Ketterling: Yes and we will get- Borup: -- whatever is necessary or whatever would need to be done. Ketterling: Exactly no problem. Borup: Thank you. Zaremba: This is a question for staff and discussion amongst ourselves. If we are going to stick with the idea of having a walking pathway and there needs to be some kind of an easement over the tiled Settlers, can we make the suggestion that at least for this portion that it can be realigned to run maybe there. Then have a 20 foot space between those two lots that would have the walkway that would eventually could connect anywhere into that other subdivision? Borup: That would solve two problems. Zaremba: Two problems at the same time. FreckJeton: Commissioner Zaremba, we are totally on board with that. I mean that's the alignment of that ditch. It's more or less right up between these two lots right here, it's a nice big lot that flares out towards the rear. You know, I think they probably have extra room there. Zaremba: Make it a common area and make it a walkway through. It appears the applicant is nOdding in agreement with that as well so let's make that suggestion. Borup: Okay. Is there anything else that needs to be - Zaremba: The only other thing I had on my list was to make sure that the Right-To- Farm is on the plat Right-To-Farm Act reference. Mathes: Dave, I have a question about the three-foot fence along the flag. Is three feet high enough? McKinnon: Well-- Borup: The ordinance says six foot off perimeter. Is that kind of an exception now? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, it kind of comes down to two things. When we deal with pathways we don't want to create a six-foot tall fence in a 50-foot wide area that would create a corridor that's six feet tall and 50 feet wide and Meridian Planning & Zoning November 21.2002 Page 44 0165 600 feet deep that nobody can see into, unless you're on either McMillan at the end of it, or swimming in the pool. We want to make sure that people can see into that. One other item that needs to be addressed for the size of the fence would be whether or not there is livestock on either side of the fence at this time and I'm not sure -- I see some nods there is livestock. A three-foot fence might not be enough to have the livestock in there. I'm sure that the property owners adjacent to that have some sort of fencing right now to maintain the animals in their own -- a three-foot fence would be something -- a three-foot fence requirement would be something separate from that. Addressing Chairman Borup's issue concerning the six-foot tall perimeter fence, that's a requirement of annexation and the Conditional Use Permit and the plat. In our ordinance, it doesn't address the requirement for a six-foot perimeter fence. It requires fencing that is appropriate. It does not specifically say a six-foot fence, but that typically is what would be appropriate adjacent to that to keep the -- to keep the -- it's just been determined by staff to be typically appropriate. The three-foot fence may be appropriate. There is livestock on the other side. There is existing fencing to keep the livestock in and it's on the opposite side or on the other property -- the other side of the property line. A three-foot fence probably would be sufficient. That's a great question and I will wrestle with that for a little bit. Borup: Initially, I think it's a good design. Anything else? Maybe just - on the Settlers Irrigation, there is a copy of a letter in the packet, written to Mr. Kasey Ketterling on September 19th where they said, they reviewed, - they made some of their standard comments. Was there anything else that we needed to add to those items? Rohm: I just wanted a clarification on the pressurized irrigation system and during that time where the pressurized system is down, the make-up water is to be provided by an existing well at the existing residence, is that where the water is coming from? Is that what was -- Borup: Well, they said it was available. It's either got to be that or city water, normally. Or drill a new well. Rohm: Well, I guess what my point was, if that's an existing residential well being utilized by an existing residence, is that, in fact, adequate to supply water for the pressurized system? Borup: Would it have enough capacity? Rohm: Right. Yes, that's what my question is and I'd like to hear a response from that. Ralphs: Commissioners, what our intent is with that well is when we bring that subdivision on line, we will hook that house there on the south entrance to city services and so no one would be drawing from that well for residential purposes. Borup: Right. I think his comment was is that an existing six-inch well, we assume. Is that something that will handle the irrigation for the subdivision? Meridian Planning & Zoning November 21, 2002 Page 45 of 65 Ralphs: And the issue surrounding the water system in the Settlers Canal, that's going to have to be brought up. I don't have exact measurements on that for you tonight. Borup: You don't know what the capacity of the well is? Ralphs: I don't know what the capacity is tonight. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, with a domestic well, Rod, you will need to check with Water Resources about the viability of using that well for irrigation. I'm sure that it's permitted for a residential domestic use now. To be able to convert it for irrigation backup, you will want to check into that water right and talk with Water Resources about that. Ralphs: Okay. Rohm: That's exactly where I was going. Thank you. Ralphs: Yes and I appreciate that. Then in the event that that well is not sufficient, then will the Commission propose that we -- would it come off city water then? Borup: Is that the only viable choice? Freckleton: If there are no other alternatives for shoulder season water, we do require a connection to the city water. It's a single point connection that would be at your pump facility. Ralphs: Okay. All right. We will note that. Rohm: That would be last resort, though. Ralphs: Exactly. We don't want to go that route either, but I just wanted to explore if that well was not a sufficient size that -- Zaremba: There are no other wells on tbe property that you know of? Ralphs: Not that I'm aware of. No. There is only that one. Rohm: Okay. Ralphs: Thank you. Borup: Okay. Anything else? Rod, we have seven items that the Commission has had down to be addressed, so -- unless there is anything else that needs to be added. Okay. Ralphs: We will address those and we will see you again. Meridian Planning & Zoning Novernber21,2002 Page 46 of 65 Borup: Okay. Zaremba: I'm not sure what the sense of the group is, but we are continuing the hearing on these items. Do we have a date? The materials will need, of course, to get back to staff at least 10 days before that hearing date would be - typically, it's the second meeting of the month. Do we want to put it off to our second meeting in December? Borup: How much time do you feel you would need, Rod a couple of months? The second meeting - or second meeting in December? Ralphs: Yes. We will go with the second meeting in December. Borup: And do you have time to get that to staff ten days prior to that? Ralphs: You bet. Zaremba: Let's see. Am I right that that's the 19th? Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move that we continue the Public Hearing on the three items, AZ 02-024 and PP 02-022 and CUP 02-032, to our meeting - second meeting in December, which is December 19th, assuming that they have all the materials to staff 10 days before that. Mathes: I'll second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Commissioners, do you want to continue on or would you like a short break? Rohm: Let's take a break. Borup: We will take a short break at this time. (Recess at 9:10 P.M.) (Reconvene at 9:28 P.M.) Item 10. Public Hearing: CUP 02-036 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a multi-building office/restaurant complex and Krispy Kreme drive-thru facility in an I-L zone for Treasure Valley Business Park No. 1 by Clark Development -- southwest corner of North Eagle Road and East Fairview Avenue: