Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecember 19, 2002 Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 3 ol116 Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Yes. Zaremba: We have an Item 3-B. Borup: Oh, .I'm -- well, that was on the consent - I'm sorry. That was on the Consent Agenda. Zaremba: We don't have to make any motion on that? Borup: Well, I should have paid better attention. Was your motion just for the minutes or was it to approve the Consent Agenda? Zaremba: Just the minutes. Borup: Okay. Then we do need a motion on Item 3-B. Zaremba: Sorry and would that motion be appropriate to accept this or to approve it or what do we do with this? Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve the facts and findings and Conclusions of Law for denial of AUP 02-007. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: And that was on there just to kind of clean up what we had moved on previously, but finalized that. Item 4. Item 5. Item 6. Continued Public Hearing from November 21, 2002: 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: Continued Public Hearing from November 21, 2002: 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: Continued Public Hearing from November 21, 2002: 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-8 zone for proposed Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 4 of 116 Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision by CMD, Inc. - 4450 North Linder Road: Borup: Now Items 4,5, and 6. Again, these were Continued Public Hearings for the November 21st meeting, so we'd like to open each of these hearings, AZ 02-024 and PP 02-022 and CUP 02-032 and at this time start with the staff report. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I have got some overheads I'll direct your attention to. As you remember from the last time that I was at the Commission about month ago, we talked about this piece of property with frontage both on Linder Road and on McMillan Road, the odd-shaped piece of property. As you remember, this Site Plan is for 73 building lots and one existing building that's located down in the southwest corner of the property. As you remember, there was quite a bit of discussion about the dog bones and the pork chop islands in the middle. There was some discussion about adding a stub street, which has now been added. What we are looking at on the overhead right now is a revised Preliminary Plat. At the last meeting, there were a number of items that were requested to be changed on the Preliminary Plat and put back in front of you at this meeting. You should have a memorandum from myself dated today, discussing all the changes to the staff report. I will go over those really quick once I finish with the overheads. As you remember, we requested the stub street and the stub street has been added and the pathway for the pedestrian connection to the north has been added, that's Lot Number 13, and that will be a micropath connection at that location. The other changes were very minor. At that time __ again, this is what it originally looked like without the stub street. They are still keeping the park area, which is intended to be a pool area, a clubhouse for the subdivision. There are a variety of different housing types. There are some smaller lots in this subdivision. I provided those at the last meeting. That's what we have tonight. If you will grab the memorandum, I will go over really quickly the items that I have addressed. The first bullet point, again, on Page Number 8 of the original staff report, Item Number 5, final sentence should be deleted. That was that the application should address intended fencing design at the Public Hearing. He did address that at the last Public Hearing. We discussed the height of the fence to be a three-foot fence. Site Specific Comment Number 7 was the next bullet item on my memorandum. Please strike the requirement for the new public street. The applicant has provided that on a revised plat. The final sentence of that condition should remain. That was upon city approval the applicant has the option to convert the temporary stub street -- that was the stub street that was adjacent to Linder, the one that runs east and west, the small street in this location, that that could be changed to a 20-foot wide pedestrian connection with city approval. Site Specific Comment Number 8 was the 20-foot wide pedestrian connection. The applicant has added that. It's now Lot Number 13 in this location, the north-south connection. Please strike Item Number 8. Item Number 9 is the fourth bullet point that they revised the Lot 1, Block 1, and Lot 2, Block 1, landscape buffers. It's very hard to make out on the revised plat. You should have a copy of it that you can see how it kind of goes in and out, undulates, as we discussed it. Please strike that. Site Specific Comment Number 11, which is on Page 9 of the staff report please strike that in its entirety. That was dealing with the (Inaudible) Canal, which is up by Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 pege 6 of 116 Linder Road. There was no irrigation easement that was shown on the site at that time. In addition to that, there was discussion at the last hearing concerning the irrigation ditches that pass through the subdivision and the way we solved that was by adding the common lot and relocating the ditch into the common lot and then running an easement across the back side on the north of the property. Site Specific Comment Number 12 please strike that. The applicant has made the street name changes down on the south. He's made that to match with Baldwin Park Subdivision. Item Number 13 was that the applicant be required to increase the driveway width around the islands to 29 feet that has been done by the applicant. Please strike that. On to my second page of my memo the first bullet point on that would be Item Number 15 on Page 9 please strike the enter comment. That had to do with -- just strike that in its entirety. That had to do with some caveats that needed to be required that dealt with the swimming pool, common lot area, the water features, and the 25-foot wide street road widening that has been addressed by the applicant. Site Specific Comment Number 16, Bullet Point Number 2 that would be the new development note regarding the residential house size to 1,150 square feet minimum. The applicant has made those changes on his revised Preliminary Plat. Then, finally, if you could turn to Page 13 of the staff report, that has to deal with site specific comments for the Conditional Use Permit, that they have a 20- foot street side setback and we had changed that language to be 10 to 20-foot. If there is any structures located with 10 to 20 feet of a side yard setback, rather, than, the statement within 20. T hat was a correction that we made at the last meeting that I wanted to point out to you to make that correction in your motion tonight. Those are the corrections that we need to make to the staff report, according to the revised plat. If there is any other discussion or questions that you might have of staff, we would take them at this time and turn the time back over to you. Zaremba: Dave, I have just one question on their -- the new revised plat that we got appears to have addressed everything we talked a bout a nd I think you're confirming that. The only thing that I question - and maybe I'm not interpreting this correctly, but in the lower left comer of the new revised plat, it does show the existing driveway on the existing dwelling as coming out to Linder. I understood that that was being changed to not access Linder. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, you're right in the way that it's depicted on the map. The actual approval was that there would be no direct lot access from Linder. That's one of the site-specific comments, that there shall be no direct lot access to Linder Road, except those approved by the City of Meridian and that's not one of those. The applicant is here tonight and he might be able to address whether that was just an oversight in the change of the Preliminary Plat, which is what I assume that is. Centers: Mr. Chairman? Dave, Page 7, Number 2, other considerations, stub streets, would that still be applicable, based on the changes? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, the additional considerations are not items that are adopted as site-specific comments or requirements. Meridian Planning & Zoning December1g.2002 Page60f116 Centers: I understand that. McKinnon: They are just items of discussion, but, yes, it would go away. Centers: I understand that but if we approve or deny, it's always including all staff comments right? McKinnon: Right. It includes the staff comments, but those are not -- Centers: That's the way a motion is worded. McKinnon: Right. Centers: So, Item 2 on Page 7, does that still apply? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, you could strike that. They have met the requirement of that. That would be appropriate to strike that. Centers: Do you see where I'm coming from? McKinnon: I do. I totally see where you're coming from. Borup: And I think, Commissioner Centers, what he's saying, that the staff comments start actually on Page 7 under site-specific comments. Is that what you were leading to, Dave? McKinnon: The items that go into the recommendation do not include the additional considerations. Centers: We should remember that. Borup: Yes. Yes. If we feel that anything that -- in the lead up to the Statute- Centers: That should be in our motion. Borup: -- if you want them included -- Centers: Because we always -- Borup: -- and they are not. Centers: - say including all staff comments so if we are not going to strike them all, then, we need to get specific on - Borup: Definition of comments. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page70f116 Centers: Right. McKinnon: Correct. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, let's just address that really quickly. The reason for the additional considerations is that among all of the Findings of Fact and the requirements that are -- and the required findings, from time to time there are items that are not addressed in the required findings that we feel, as staff, should be brought up and are appropriate for you to discuss. The additional considerations are talking points, items of discussion for you, that we would like to bring before you and would like you to include in your recommendation, if you see fit, and that's what they are there for, there are not there be adopted as a recommendation. Centers: I understand that, but they are your comments. McKinnon: That's correct. Centers: And when we make a motion we state including all staff comments. See where I'm coming from? McKinnon: I see where you're coming from. Centers: All right. Borup: But sometimes staff comments are on both sides of an issue, too. Centers: Correct but I don't think you can have it conflicting. Yes that's alii had. Borup: Anything from any other Commissioners? Okay. Do you have anything else, Mr. McKinnon? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, I have no other comments at this time. Borup: Okay. All right. Does the applicant have a presentation they'd like to make? Come forward. Ralphs: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Rod Ralphs. My address is 2730 North Greenbelt Place here in Meridian. I am here on behalf of CMD, Inc., the applicant. As staff as indicated, we are here to have a rehearing on the Cobblefield Crossing, a 73 lot subdivision, with 72 lots buildable, and one existing home. We have addressed some of the concerns -- or all of the concerns we believe that the Commission had back in our November meeting. I want to just reiterate -- the first point would be the east-west stub street on the far eastern side of the project. We have placed that in at the request of Council. I also wanted to point out that we have removed the 20-foot easement or roadway that we have proposed up into the flag lot, because we have addressed the east-west stub street, and now we have the contiguous exercise path with the workout stations on it without interruption. The other thing I would like to point out is when we were here in November -- I want to discussion Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page8ol116 a little bit more about the Fence Plan. The fence along the flag would stay the same, but I believe what I had mentioned in that hearing at the time is that the entire subdivision was going to be surrounded with PVC or a vinyl-type fence. To the south, currently I believe we have in place a six-foot cedar fence from the adjacent subdivision. We are going to put here on Linder, on the front part, a matching type vinyl fence so between the two subdivisions it will be in harmony with that. Along the north and, then, where you see the dogleg, if you will, to the northeast and across the north, we would continue that with a six-foot cedar privacy fence in lieu of vinyl. Then, of course, there along the eastern boundary there -- all along there, with the exception of the stub street, would also have six foot cedar type fencing, privacy type fencing. One of the issues that staff had and the Commissioners had when we were here last was the source of the water supply. Since our meeting we were able to address that with Settlers. We would actually be pulling -- and I would refer the Commission to the flag lot on the revised plat that you have in front of you. There in the upper right-hand corner of the plat you will notice that there is a proposed pressure irrigation pump station, along with the 20-foot irrigation easement. That's that large Settlers Canal there that runs parallel to McMillan. That is actually our best water source with the grading of the land and that's where will be pulling from and we did get that from Settlers. We would be addressing our irrigation needs from that location. We did -- and I noticed that staff had pointed it out -- if we refer now down to the lower left-hand portion of the plat, we are in line to have a direct access for the existing home onto Linder. This is an access point that currently exists and we would not want to remove that. We would create a handicapped accessible sidewalk on both sides of that to continue on with that berm and we are currently in the process of getting that approval through ACHD. It was pointed out about the north-south pathway. We have used that space and that was the Commission's suggestion that we include that as part of our pathway, along with including part of the easement for that ditch along the -- right there, you see that corner on the north line and, then, before the dog leg to the northeast. Another point I wanted to bring up was we have reduced the size of the -- and we had some fun with this, the reference to the islands that we had, the dog bones. We have actually reduced the size of the shaft of the dog bones by one foot and that is to accommodate parking. We want to be able to put parking not on the ends of the dog bones, but there where it goes on the inside. Having said that, the rounded part of the bog bone, you have 20 feet there from the edge of the wide part of the dog bone type islands to the sidewalk and, then, with the sidewalk you have the standard five to seven feet with curbing and sidewalk. We do want to be able to use that space and that was different than what we had approached you with in November, being able to use the space around those islands for parking. There would not be any on street parking along the roads where the houses are, but we did want to make use of the space there along the islands. I believe those are all the comments that I have prepared in response to the comments made by staff, some of the things addressed with the revised plat, and if there are any questions from the Commission, I would field them at this time. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Meridlen Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page90f116 Zaremba: Yes the question that I asked of staff. You're saying now that you do want to remain the driveway access onto Linder for the existing house? Ralphs: We would like to and you will notice on the plat that it is a 15-foot wide driveway that would go and access through to the existing home. There was concern about the narrowness 0 f the s pace from t he front of t he existing home 0 ut to Linder being able to put a driveway through there in light of the landscaping setbacks and we have approached ACHD with that. We are resolving that with them to be able to use that existing driveway. Currently, there are actually two access points off of Linder for that existing home and we would reduce that to just the one and it would stay at the 15 feet. Zaremba: And how far is that from the intersection? Ralphs: Looking for a reference point and -- excuse me one moment. I'm getting an indication that it would be about 100 feet there from that north curb radius and that would be an entrance that would be entirely dedicated to just ingress and egress for that particular home. Zaremba: But you're seeking approval of that through ACHD? Ralphs: Yes, we are. Zaremba: What if they don't approve it? Can you still make a driveway up the side? Ralphs: We will have to make one. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? It seems to me that at our last hearing that we discussed that pretty thoroughly and I thought that it was agreed that you would put the driveway parallel to the lot and dump it onto the interior street of the subdivision. Ralphs: That's correct. Rohm: I'm pretty sure that's the conclusion that we came to. Ralphs: We wanted to explore the feasibility, Mr. Commissioner, with ACHD about whether we could do that. I believe at our last meeting there was also some discussion about how wide that would need to be if we were to do that and there were discussions at 20 or 25 feet and we found that we could go with the 15. We are -- we are just running that by ACHD and wanted to take your take on it. Rohm: Okay. Well, let's run it by this unit here as well. Ralphs: Certainly. Rohm: I think that there is - I'd like to hear staff comments on - at this point. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 10 of 116 McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, it's kind new -- it's something new that's been brought up at tonight's meeting. As you remember, at the last meeting, the reason that we allowed t hem to go - - t he applicant tog 0 to a 1 5-foot landscape buffer, rather than the 25-foot landscape buffer, was to accommodate the driveway. In no case would I allow the landscape buffer to go to 15 feet if we are not accommodating the driveway, the applicant would have to go to 25 feet for a landscape buffer if there is no driveway there. The only reason for that change that was required was because the driveway was not to be on Linder. At this point, we have no approval from ACHD for that and the ACHD report states that there shall be no direct lot access, except those accesses approved. It is our call to be able to make that a requirement, but if they are requesting that, I would request the condition be placed that they do a 25 feet buffer, rather than a 15, and not allow the in and out of the landscape buffer being proposed on the revised Site Plan. I'm not completely in objection to keeping the access, but if there were a way to eliminate the access and provide a full landscape buffer without any interruptions, I would prefer to see that and provide for a greater streetscape. Ralphs: I take it that's a no. Borup: Well, any comments on that? Ralphs: I appreciate that. Borup: That's the thoughts I had. You know, it's -- the reason for the reduced was to allow driveway access. Ralphs: Now, having said that, if we were able to get ACHD approval, but -- and part of the contingent on that would be to increase that landscape buffer to 25 feet, would we be able to explore either of those options or would you just prefer that we nix any access from that existing home onto Linder? Borup: Comments from the Commission? I mean it's a real awkward access. Zaremba: I think there will come a time when the homeowner will not want to access onto Linder, when that becomes a five lane road and a major thoroughfare, which isn't all that far away, they may not appreciate having to exit directly onto Linder. Centers: Well, I wasn't at the first hearing, but I think of other subs, including mine, and there is no access. As you know, that is cumbersome. I think the preference would be to eliminate the access. I can see why you're doing that, though. The garage is in the back there on that existing home. Do you have enough side footage there to run the driveway down and around back to that -- Ralphs: It will be really tight. What we did discuss would be coming in with an access off of the main road there in the subdivision. Thank you, Dave, and it would come along the west side of the home so it will be really tight, but -- Meridian Plennlng & Zoning December 1 g, 2002 Page 11 of116 Centers: Or turn the house. Ralphs: What's that? Centers: I think that would be the preference of everyone, including staff, and, then, you get it resolved tonight. Ralphs: Okay. Borup: I don't know if that makes for a very -- a very good-looking front yard landscape. The whole front of the yard is all driveway. Centers: Right and because I wasn't here, while there is a lull here, what's a workout center? Ralphs: You see them in some of the parks. I'm not sure we have seen them here in Meridian. Centers: They can stand and jog? Ralphs: Well, no. Yes, they have a walkway or a path that goes along there, but the workout centers -- I think we have them on the greenbelt in Boise, they have like pull-up stations or places where people can do sit-ups or that type of bouncing walk. I think we also have them over there at - I want to say Chief Joseph Elementary, they have some of those there in their playground area. They are just stations where as people walk they can - it's just an extra amenity that will go along that greenbelt area. Centers: Okay. Thank you. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Mr. McKinnon. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I have got a question for the applicant, if that would be okay. Rod, you addressed the fact that you guys have eliminated the ped pathway -- on the Site Plan that's up on the map right now, just for everybody's information. It's the stub street that was originally proposed. There was some discussion to whether or not, once we put in the new stub street, which is the stub street that now goes east-west, that if that stub street went in, the site-specific condition of approval would be that if that stub street went in, that you keep that access as a pedestrian pathway at 20 feet wide. Tonight you're proposing to eliminate it in its entirety? Ralphs: We have eliminated it in its entirety and just to make that pedestrian pathway run the entire length of the greenbelt. We have the undulated pathway to accommodate landscaping and for trees and things like that. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 1201116 McKinnon: Okay. Well, let me just point out one thing to the Commissioners, if I may. This is the Site Plan, the overall Site Plan. If there is no break, this would be the entire length of this little stove pipe or flag that runs up, there would be no break in that, there would be fencing the entire way up with no ability for people in this subdivision to access this subdivision. The reason for the staff comment for the stub street down at the east would be that there would be at least pedestrian access between the two subdivisions, if not vehicle access between the two, at the flag location. Staff would not support the entire elimination of the stub street, but would support a pedestrian pathway, if that's -- and it sounds like the applicant has a different interpretation tonight than what's in the code -- what's in the staff report tonight. Zaremba: I may have misunderstood, but I was expecting this plat to come back with that totally fenced and no cross pedestrian access. I felt it was a trade for the lower street that you put in that you didn't have before. Ralphs: And that was our take on that as well, Mr. Commissioner. Zaremba: I guess I remember it differently. McKinnon: M r. Chairman, Commissioner, if you remember it differently, that's great. We would need to strike Page 8, Number 5, the final sentence. The final sentence of that is that the applicant shall address -- wait. Not that one. It's the final sentence of Number 7. Upon city approval, the applicant has the option to convert the temporary stub street within the 50-foot flag strip to a 20-foot wide pedestrian connection. Borup: Didn't you already strike that whole -- McKinnon: Struck everything but that last sentence so if you want to strike that, add that strike. I don't see that it would be all that hard to create a pedestrian access in the middle of that. Essentially, it would fill the pathway that would go perpendicular to the one that's there, just a 20-foot wide easement, and if it's a three foot tall fence, it would be something easy to eliminate and it would allow at least some sort of interconnectivity between neighborhoods. Ralphs: If I could address that, Members of the Commission. The difficulty in placing that easement would mean that we would end up binding the two adjacent subdivisions to where we felt that easement would have to be and we have no idea when that easement would ever be granted or if that would ever be developed and by sticking it there, I don't know w hat kind of binding type of access we want to take on the next subdivision coming through, forcing them to have to maybe put something in that would work better elsewhere. We would just as soon wait on that and if there is a striking need to have that pedestrian easement across there, that when these parcels are developed, that the developer should approach the homeowners association that would, then, own that parcel and negotiate that with them Borup: Negotiate what? To have a pathway through? Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 13 of 116 Ralphs: Right. A pathway or a road or anything like that. They could negotiate that with the homeowners association at that time. I would be reluctant at this point to place that in there where we really don't have a clear crystal ball picture of what's going to happen on that flag lot. Centers: Mr. Chairman, wouldn't it be appropriate at that time for the adjoining landowner to do just as he said, when we see a project for the adjoining land, to require them at that time to approach these people? Borup: Then what requirement is there for this subdivision to comply with what they want to do? Centers: I know. That could be the -- Borup: You would hesitate to bind them to something, but once this is approved and we try to require them to do something and if the homeowners association doesn't feel that they want to and, then, we are not accomplishing what we are trying to do here either. Maybe we need a floating easement. Is there such a thing? Ralphs: I don't know if Mr. Wollen would agree with a floating easement. Borup: I just invented it. Ralphs: It sounded good. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, a question for the staff attomey. Could a blanket easement on that lot suffice for cross-access? Wollen: Well, I believe an easement would have to be just over a certain area that is solid to the easement, that you couldn't have just a blanket over a piece of ground that -- I guess are you saying to just have it over more ground than you intend the easement to actually sit on? Borup: Aren't you saying that -- the easement would be over the entire parcel, but when it's actually built, it would only be the 10 or 20 feet? Doesn't it need to be 10 feet? Is that what your statement -- McKinnon: The comment right now is at 20 feet. Borup: Twenty feet so it would be a 20-foot easement through there once it was settled on, but it could be anywhere along that whole parcel that was negotiated, and, then, that would convert to a permanent easement, I guess, and the blanket easement would be lifted. Zaremba: The new stub street that you put into the east there -- Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 1401116 Ralphs: Yes. Zaremba: Approximately what distance is that from McMillan? Ralphs: Well, we have -- it looks like we are at about 1,318 feet. That would be my read on that. I refer the Commissioners to the number there. It will be in the upper right-hand corner, the section there of your Preliminary Plat. You will see that number, 1,318 feet, and I would represent to the Commission that that would be coming from McMillan Road down to Sidney Avenue. Borup: That's to the avenue or to your southern border? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, that's to the southem border. Borup: That's what I thought. Zaremba: So this would be even less. McKinnon: Yes. Zaremba: So this stub street is fairly close to McMillan. I'm not inclined to think that the as yet undetermined subdivisions that could go in there really need a cross-access there. The only way they could do it would be to do two cul-de-sacs and, then, you, then, have t his little strip 0 f your pathway a cross and t hat brings up the issue I was thinking of last time that invites their access into your park. Ralphs: Exactly. Zaremba: They are not just going tog 0 straight a cross, t hey are going to use your facilities and your park that your homeowners are paying for and I do remember now, I specifically thought it was going to be fenced the whole way and no access. Wollen: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'd like to, if I may, get back to the staff's question and answer it the best I could. At this point I don't have enough background in the area to answer with absolute certainty, but it's my -- you know, my first inclination that an easement could be established for a larger piece of ground and, then, the portion of ground which the easement holder no longer wishes, could be given back to the landowner at anytime. Basically, the easement holder could give up his right to the ground. That would be my first inclination to this idea of a blanket easement, I believe, would work. Zaremba: Well, even at this point, whom would you give the easement to? Wollen: Another question. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 15 of 116 Zaremba: Do you give half of it to the unspecified developer on the left and the unspecified developer on the right? Wollen: Yes. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, it would be cross-access to the adjacent owners. It doesn't have to be anybody in particular it would be the adjacent owners and their heirs and assigns. Thank you, Bruce. Zaremba: Well, I could be wrong, but I don't have the feeling that Sidney Avenue is so far from McMillan that there really needs to be another one in there. That's just a personal opinion. Borup: It's a little over 1,000 feet is all. Not too far. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, however you decide tonight, please bear in mind when you make your motion to include the elimination or the continued acceptance of Site Specific Item Number 7 on Page 8. Zaremba: Well, I'm not stuck in concrete, but I would be in favor of not providing the easement. Borup: And there is a sidewalk through the existing streets to access the other property. Anything else you would like to add? Ralphs: No. Thank you, Members of the Commission. Mathes: I have a question. Zaremba: If I didn't say it before, I appreciate all the changes you did make to address all the things that we discussed. Borup: Commissioner Mathes. Mathes: If they park on the inside of that dog bone, does that give the people enough back-out room? Ralphs: I can address that, Commissioner Mathes. Mathes: Okay. Ralphs: What you have got there, even if you look at the widest part of the dog bone, is you have a distance of 27 feet and that's more than you would find in a typical parking lot stall. There would be more than enough room for someone to be able to back a vehicle out and, then, proceed down the road and access there. We did -- I think in our November meeting, if you will look there, the dog bone with the number -- well, let's see, Meridian Planning & Zoning December 1 g, 2002 pege 16 of 116 they are all numbered one, but the first one in there from the pork chop -- we have these great names, Commissioner Centers, but -- we had some fun with it. Our other plat they were actually at 29 feet, so we have increased that distance to accommodate parking and provide better access and egress through there. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Ralphs: Thank you. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, while Rod is still up here, just one item that wasn't revised that is still in the site-specific comments was that you guys were going to go to a detached sidewalk on Linder. Ralphs: That's correct. McKinnon: Okay. It's not shown that way on the plat, so we are still going to look for that. Ralphs: Yes. We will have detached on that. McKinnon: Okay. Thank you. Ralphs: Thank you again. Borup: Okay. Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? Seeing none, Commissioners? Centers: Well, Mr. Chairman, as mentioned, I wasn't here for the first meeting. I have reviewed the notes, the comments. It just appeared to me that the applicant was very imaginative with a small parcel of land and an irregular shaped piece of land and did a good job. That's what it looked like to me. Borup: Okay. Any concerns from the Commission? Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I'm still not clear as to what they want to do with the access from the one lot that's already got a home on it. A re they going to pursue t he Ada County Highway District -- Borup: And maybe we might need some clarification from Rod. My understanding is they have -- they have a request into ACHD to leave that access as is. Ralphs: That's correct. We do have an application in and we are pursuing that. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 170f116 Borup: And do you know when you expect an answer on that? Ralphs: Maybe in about a week. Rohm: And is this Commission going to go along with whatever decision Ada County makes or -- Borup: That's what we need to discuss. It's up to us to decide that. Rohm: I haven't got a clear indication from the discussion thus far what the balance of the Commissioners' thoughts is on that specific issue. Borup: That was one of the issues I thought that would be worthy of discussion. Ralphs: If I could interject. My perception or understanding would be that we would have -- assume that ACHD were to go along with it, then, staff's recommendation would be to widen that landscaping strip to 25 feet. If we were to pursue that and be granted that by ACHD, then, yes, we would have to go along with that recommendation. Rohm: Okay Dave, is that, as you understand it, then? McKinnon: You could make a condition that's an and/or, they could do one or the other, if you'd like. That's a condition that -- you guys make that as one of your conditions of approval that would be fine with staff. If you want to eliminate it in its entirety and not allow access, you could make that in your motion as well. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: Well, I certainly understand the homeowner or home occupant not wanting a new swath of asphalt all the way up the side of their house, but I'm awful uncomfortable with that access onto Linder. That's just -- I'm just thinking down the future, I don't think they are going to be happy with that access. Borup: Then they could -- Zaremba: It's going to be a difficult driveway to get in and out of. Rohm: It doesn't lend itself well to exit into the subdivision either. Zaremba: Yes. Rohm: Because you can't turn left out of that lot to exit the subdivision, you'd actually have to go around one of the bones to have access -- or exit so maybe exiting onto Linder is the lesser of two evils. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19. 2002 Page 1801116 Borup: And I agree they may not like it later, but I don't know if it's up to us to make every little decision on what's -- for us to determine what's best for someone else. If it is a problem, then -- Centers: Well, Commissioner Rohm has a good point. If you make them access from the subdivision street, they are going to be going out on the wrong site of the street. That's a good point. Rohm: I like Dave's idea of either/or. Borup: Historically, I don't think ACHD has approved it. In fact, I can't think of one. They probably have, but -- so they may have a fight there anyway. Rohm: Well -- and by moving it forward with an either/or, if ACHD denies, then, at least they know the direction from this Commission which way they would need to proceed, so -- Borup: Right. I think that makes sense. Rohm: Okay. Borup: Okay. Was there any other issue that we need to discuss? The pathway we discussed somewhat -- or I mean the future pathway easement. I think Commissioner Zaremba expressed how he felt. I don't know if you want to have any other comments on that. Is there anything else that any of the Commissioners feel we need to discuss? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move the Public Hearing be closed. Rohm: I'll second that. Zaremba: On all three items. Rohm: I'll second that. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing on Items 4, 5, 6. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Well, let's hit them -- let's go ahead with Item Number 4, which is annexation and zoning. I don't know that we had any questions on that. Do we have a motion? Centers: I wasn't here, so I'm -- Zaremba: You're deferring. Mr. Chairman? Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 19 of 116 Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 4 on our Agenda, AZ 02-024, request 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 and to include all staff comments. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Item Number 5. Zaremba: Okay. Let's put this one this way. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 5 on our Agenda, 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. To include all staff comments of staffs November 18th memo, as modified by staffs December 19th memo and -- Borup: Item Number -- Zaremba: -- eliminating the requirement for the cross-access walkway in the flag and placing the condition that if in the lower left the existing house does get approval by ACHD for access directly onto Linder, that the landscape buffer be increased back to 25 feet. Any other issues? Borup: Does that cover that item? Centers: Item 4. He said Settlers Irrigation District- Zaremba: And clarifying that the pressurized irrigation will come from the Settlers Canal at the north end of the flag and that access has been approved by Settlers Irrigation District. Rohm: I will second that. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Okay Item Number 6. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 20 of 116 Zaremba: All right. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 6 on our Agenda. CUP 02-032, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a PUD for 64 single-family detached homes, six single-family attached homes, and one single-family existing home on 15.4 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision by CMD, Inc., 4450 North Linder Road. To include all staff comments of the staff's memo of November 18, 2002, as modified by the staff's memo of December 19,2002. Rohm: I will second that. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 10. Public Hearing: CUP 02-038 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for an in home daycare in an R-8 zone for Kinder Kollege by Kathy Jordan - 410 East Edgar Court: Borup: Okay. The next item is Item Number 10, Public Hearing CUP 02-038, request for Conditional Use Permit for an in-home day care in an R-8 zone for Kinder Kollege by Kathy Jordan at 410 East Edgar Court. We would like to open this hearing at this time and start with the staff report. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members 0 f the Commission. I n front 0 f you tonight as you stated, there is an application for a group childcare home at 410 East Edgar Court. For reference, East Edgar Court is located just off of Ustick from North Arrow Wood Way. It's about a quarter mile to the east of Meridian Road. Kathy Jordan had recently been in front of you for a request for a day care at 1930 North Linder Road, as you might remember. At that time there was no action taken, but the application was withdrawn for a variety of reasons. Kathy Jordan, previously to that, has run a day care operation at 1131 Cherry Lane, under the business name of Kinder Kollege. We received this application tonight with the name Kinder KoUege on the application. The application should not be under Kinder Kollege, but father under Kathy Jordan. We, as staff, apologize for that -- for any confusion that may have caused. The applicant has previously had a day care at her home or a home day care, which was only for up to five children, not for the 12 children. That was from 1997 to 1999, according to her application. Currently, she has lost her lease for Kinder Kollege at 1131 Cherry Lane and she started operation of her day care faCility for 12 children at her home on December 2nd. She has no approval for this. She currently has no State License for this. Code Enforcement has visited her home to let her know that this is an illegal use that she has in her home right now. She has not taken any actions to cease operation at her home, even though she knows she's in violation. It's a violation that is punishable as a misdemeanor. I'd direct your attention to the staff report. I have basically gone over the summary, the location, and the surrounding uses. As you can tell, this is basically towards the end of a cul-de-sac, as you can see on the Site Plan. Item Number A under the standards for Conditional Uses, has a discussion concerning the