Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 2, 2003 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2. 2003 Page 34 of 57 Siddoway: I just wanted to clarify that a note on the plat and not a -- Zaremba: If it's the hammerhead on this property, then, a note on the plat is satisfactory for that. Siddoway: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. I believe I have done it. Centers: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Anyopposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 10. Public Hearing: /IZ. 02-028 Request for annexation and zoning of 81.54 acres from RUT to R-8 and L-O zones for proposed Cedar Springs North Subdivision by Howell-Murdoch Development Corporation - south of West McMillan Road and west of North Meridian Road: Item 11. Public Hearing: PP 02-027 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 197 building lots and 33 other lots on 81.54 acres in proposed R-8 and L-O zones for proposed Cedar Springs North Subdivision by Howell- Murdoch Development Corporation - south of West McMillan Road and west of North Meridian Road: Borup: The next two items, Public Hearing AZ 02-028, a request for annexation and zoning of 81.54 a cres from RUT to R-8 and L-O zones for proposed Cedar Springs North Subdivision by Howell-Murdoch Development Corporation, south of West McMillan Road and west of North Meridian Road. Also, Public Hearing PP 02-027, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 197 building lots and 33 other lots on the same property by the same applicant. I'd like to open both of these Public Hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The vicinity map before you shows the location of the proposed Cedar Springs North Subdivision near the intersections of McMillan Road and Meridian Road. The project that we were just talking about is southeast of here and across Meridian Road. The approved Cedar Springs project is to the south and the Baldwin Park project, which was also discussed during the last Public Hearing, is to the west of the proposed project. You have a request for annexation and zoning of 81 and a half acres, as well as a Preliminary Plat for 197 building lots and 33 other lots. This is the layout of the proposed Preliminary Plat. On this orientation north is to the right. This would be McMillan Road and the entrance -- the main entrance comes off of McMillan Road. Up in the northwest corner of the property they are proposing an office park and there is a large remnant parcel on the northeast corner of the property for a future single-family attached project for which Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 35 of 57 they are requesting conceptual approval for of the use without a proposed layout tonight. The remainder of it is a single-family detached project. You can see the open spaces patched in. Let's see. You should have a staff report dated December 31st and most of the issues for discussion are in the additional considerations. On the annexation there is only one and that is regarding a Non-Development Agreement on the large future single-family attached project out along McMillan Road. That project is going to have to come back for future approvals before it's built on. We would request that as part of the Development Agreement on the property there is, in this case, a Non- Development Agreement for that lot until such future approvals are granted. Specifically, the staff report asks that that approval go through the Planned Development process and the reason that was added was to try to insure that this project also has adequate open space and amenities that may not be granted if -- or provided if the project does not go through as a Planned Development. That said, I had a conversation with the applicant this afternoon and proposed if -- it is feasible for a single-family attached project to come through as a permitted use. If we can come to some kind of an agreement tonight as to what -- how much open space and what type of amenities should be provided on that future project, we could simply add that to the Development Agreement and strike the requirement for the Planned Development, unless it's otherwise required by ordinance, of course. It wouldn't necessarily be required if we can conceptually say that, you know, 10 percent open space and a tot lot will be required or something, you know, whatever that ends up being. That was the thinking behind the requirement for a Planned Development on that parcel in the future. Borup: Are you saying for annexation for the Preliminary Plat? Siddoway: That would be a condition of annexation. Borup: Okay. Centers: He'd still have to come back, though, Steve. Borup: With a Preliminary Plat. Siddoway: He still has to come back with a Preliminary Plat it may not necessarily have to come back with a Planned Development. Centers: Yes. Yes. Right. Siddoway: That's why I was thinking about the amenities that would provide -- be provided in that higher density area. They do have quite a bit of open space for the project as a whole. It's -- I think it's over 10 percent for the project as a whole with those three large park parcels and we'd just like to make sure that the higher density area received the same treatment -- it would actually be in more need of the open space. It's important for them. Okay. Moving on. On Page 6 at the bottom, the additional considerations for the plat itself. The first one just talks about lot dimensions and setbacks. This has not been submitted as a planned development today, it is just a Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2. 2003 Page 36 of 57 straight plat, so I was just pointing out that we are not amending any of our standard ordinance requirements with this application. That said, on Number 2, one of the issues is the block length. On three of the blocks they -- it exceeds the 1,000 foot limitation and our recommendation for how to solve that is in Item Number 3 and 4 under micro paths and stub streets. Staff would support a Variance to the block length if the micro paths and stub streets, as described, are provided and I will point those out to you now. Block 9 is this long block that runs along the west and, then, turns to the east. We are recommending that a micro path be put in to connect somewhere in this location to break that block up. Lot 7 through here also exceeds 1 ,ODD-foot block length. It already has a proposed micro path and we would just simply support that as proposed under a Variance. We have also asked that a micro path be punched in at the end of this cul- de-sac to provide access for these homes a round the cul-de-sac to the p ark behind them. It would currently have to come out, around, and in this way. We felt that it would be a good addition to punch in a micro path at that location. Block 13 is the other one that is beyond 1,000 and it's this block around here. This would be a future connection for the residence of this future higher density project to get to this open space. We have requested that a stub street be added somewhere along here to both get people to the park and cars to be able to go between the two phases of the project. It's also necessary to have two points of access, as we discussed in the last hearing. In a conversation with the applicant this afternoon, they were -- one request they have is to - _ if they can get a second access onto McMillan Road from -- from the future project. They would like to have this connection be reduced to a micro path and not a stub street and if they cannot get a second access, then, it would have to be a full street, but I think it's enough said on that one. The next issue is on the Lemp Canal Easement. There is shown a 60-foot canal easement that runs along McMillan Road. In the Bridgetower Crossing East hearings that were recently held for that project, the Settler's Irrigation District changed their easement requirement for the Lemp Canal in that location from 60 feet to 40 feet. We have requested that that be clarified and corrected, if necessary, on the plat. They are also requesting not to tile the Lemp Canal and that will be -- have to be a waiver request that Council will grant. However, we would state that the Commission could at least consider that and make a recommendation as to whether that should be allowed to remain open. They also will be leaving the White Drain open on the south side of the project, which was allowed to remain open during the Cedar Springs hearings. For the right of way, the layout of this project was done by giving additional right of way to ACHD, which they have since determined t hat they don ot need. They intend to -- on this south side of McMillan Road to leave the existing edge of pavement where it is and take the additional right of way from the north side of the street, so that the Lemp Canal does not have to be relocated. That was the agreement that they came to with Bridgetower Crossing East further west from this project as well. That said, there would have to be some revisions to the -- to the plat to revise that right of way and show the Commission how that area will be treated. Which brings -- goes hand in hand with the next one, which is the street buffer landscaping. That street buffer is, obviously, going to shift with those changes. The primary concern of mine, however, has to do with the -- the way that the Settler's Irrigation easement for the Lemp Canal and the street buffer are coincident with one another and those Settler's Irrigation easements typically preclude all trees. While there is a nice Landscape Plan Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 37 of 57 that's been submitted in compliance with the Landscape Ordinance, there is some serious doubt in my mind whether it could be built if those two are, in fact, coincident with one another. That's something that we need to resolve. Our recommendation would be to either have the applicant get a License agreement with the Settler's Irrigation District to allow the tree planting to take place as shown or to modify the landscape buffer ass hown 0 n the plat to have that street buffer extend beyond that easement to allow for the planting of trees along McMillan Road. Zaremba: Just a question, if I could interrupt at that point. I can certainly understand their hesitancy to have trees if it's tiled, but do they also prefer not to have trees if it's left open? Siddoway: They do. Zaremba: Okay. Siddoway: Item 9 is dealing with storm water integration and you're going to be seeing this more and more. We have had problems recently with storm water ponds that have been incorporated into required open space lots in that after they have been approved as such, DEQ or ACHD has a requirement to have that -- the surface of those detention ponds solidified, if you will, with Bentonite, usually, or some other subsurfacing that prevents the percolation of that storm water, because of the depth to groundwater being insufficient for it to receive proper treatment by their standards. In such instances, our open space areas have become swamps. They surface -- they hard surface the area to try to comply with their landscaping which, of course, dies when the water can't infiltrate. They end up graveling it or just leaving it as a bog and we our setting the policy in place and have for a while that if that happens in the future, that those areas will not be allowed to count towards the required open space and they will have to find somewhere else to do the required open space. I simply raise that issue tonight and I know they have had some preliminary groundwater studies. I would like to have the applicant talk about whether they anticipate that being an issue here. Zaremba: While you're there, let me ask about the mechanics of changing that sometime later. If a Preliminary Plat is approved and, then, this situation arises, what leverage is there to say the plat has to be revised to have more open space? Siddoway: A note like this that says that they would -- it would have to be revised -- basically, building lots would end up being turned into open space lots at that point, but - Centers: If they weren't built on. Siddoway: Yes. Centers: That was my question, too. How are we going to go back-- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 38 of 57 Zaremba: By the time we discover this is a problem 0- Borup: Well, as soon as DEQ makes that a regulation we would know it's a potential problem, wouldn't we? Siddoway: It's usually discovered during final plat. Sometimes it comes afterwards, but before -- certainly before it's built out. Borup: It does come afterwards sometimes? You have said we have had -- has there been some recent problems on subdivisions we have approved? Siddoway: Oh, yes. Borup: The last couple years? Siddoway: Bruce has taken representatives from DEQ and ACHD on a little field trip and shown them some of our problems. I think he came up with more than half a dozen. Borup: I didn't realize they were packing that with Bentonite. Siddoway: Yes. Centers: Well -- and you mentioned, Steve, a recent test, and maybe the applicant can address it, but the 0 nly thing I saw was a I etter to Marty Goldsmith from Associated Earth Sciences, dated September of 2000. It's over two years ago and if there isn't anything more recent than that, I guess I would be compelled to see something more recent than that. At a time -- this was done at the end of the irrigation season, the date of this letter. Freckleton: Commissioner Centers, I will address that. The monitoring was done for Mr. Goldsmith. Common practice is to install piezometer, which is a monitoring port that you can go and check the water level at intervals. Typically Glen -- for instance, Glen Logan, Associated Earth Sciences, will work with them on a schedule of monitoring, a report has to be generated, and that sort of thing. I did ask for that report in my comments. I asked for the updated data for that monitoring program. I'd like to see -- we would like to see a full year cycle, so that we can see the influence of the irrigation and that sort thing on the groundwater so we have asked for that information. Borup: Any other questions from the Commission? Centers: Well, just from Bruce. Where did you a sk for it, Bruce? P age? Page 9, Number 11? Freckleton: Page 9, Number 11. I have got one of these drainage ponds in my own subdivision that we have been dealing with. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 39 of 57 Centers: So do I. Freckleton: They are great. Siddoway: Shall I move on? Borup: Yes. Siddoway: Moving on to Number 10, office park common areas. The way that the platting of some of the open space landscape islands was shown on here, so that they were split between the common area and the building lots so you can see a little sliver of building lot being shown coming out onto this one. We allowed this situation to happen on another project and have recently been out to do some inspections. We are running into issues where they are only landscaping half of an island, for example, because that's all that's technically theirs. It would just make a lot more sense in the long run to have those islands, if they are landscape islands, to just belong to the common area and that's what we would suggest. The parking lot layout, Number 11, as shown on the plat, had insufficient islands shown, but that is corrected on the landscape plan that was submitted. I would just like to point that out and would either like to have it corrected on the plat or just simply remove the striping from the plat, because it doesn't necessarily have to be there. The last one is Number 12, the irrigation easement. There is a note right in this area saying that the 1D-foot irrigation easement ends -- the note says that it exists along the entire perimeter. We just wanted to have that clarified. Then, Site-Specific Comments 12 through 15 were just corrections or additions to the plat itself that need to be made regarding some notes, some lot dimensions, some labels, and missing phase lines. The recommendation on Page 11, we do support the project and its mix of uses, the density shown, et cetera. We do have these additional considerations that need to be addressed and some of these may affect the design and layout, especially along McMillan Road. Our recommendation is to continue the Public Hearing to get a revised plat back on this one and to address on that revised plat those items bulleted underneath at the bottom on Page 11 and the top of Page 12. With that, I would stand for any questions. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Centers: Yes. Steve, on the micro paths on Page 7, when you were referring to them, I think you referred to three and on Page 7, Number 3, and then Sub Number 1 you -- 1 and 2. You just mentioned 2. Siddoway: The third one is already in place. That's why it's not mentioned. Centers: Okay. Siddoway: The micro path to break up Block 7 is already shown on the proposed plat. Centers: Thanks. Meridian Planning and Zon1ng Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 40 of 57 Zaremba: My only comment, I guess, is a question. You mentioned in calculating densities that the currently unplatted section of it, if considered by itself, would be over the density, but if considered as a part of the whole fits within the R-B very nicely. Siddoway: Yes. Zaremba: If t hey are going to plat that separately, is there some way to say in the Development Agreement that that will still be -- the density will still be averaged into the whole? Because I'm in favor of the higher density, that portion, I like that idea, but we need to somehow establish that we agree that the whole density can be averaged over the whole thing. Siddoway: That certainly could be added into the Development Agreement and for that lot. We are in favor of that added density as well. At the same time, it may not be that large of an issue if -- I believe it's still valid -- their application states that the lot sizes for that area will be from 4,000 to 7,000 square feet. Based on the new single-family attached ordinance, those lot sizes can go down to 4,000 square feet and they are not proposing anything smaller than what our ordinance already allows for. That's a round about saying of, yes, I think it's fine and I think it also would be fine to add that language to the Development Agreement. Borup: Okay. Anyone else? Does the applicant have any additional comments? Fluke: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, thank you, again. My name is Daren Fluke with JUB Engineers, 250 South Beachwood in Boise. Well, let's see, Steve described the project for you pretty well, so I'm not going to go through the gory details on what we'd like to build here. I will address the issues that are in the staff report and ask for your indulgence in sending this along to the City Council. On paper it looks worse than it is and I think I can probably set your mind at ease on a lot of these issues just by telling you what we intend to do or what we have already done. I will just go down the list. Starting with the Development Agreement, which we are in agreement with, that whatever we do with this parcel of ground would have to come back through the development process. We simply ask that you make the language more broad and state that something to the effect that development of that lot will be subject to the appropriate development application in Public Hearing prior to development. The reason being, that the zone on the property will be R-B, like it is for the rest of the property, and a Planned Development application may not be required for what goes in on the property. In other words, if the applicant wishes to develop that parcel with 4,000 square foot lots and attach only two dwellings at a time that would be allowed by right under the ordinance. All wewould be required to dowould be to do a plat, so you would see it again in that event. If they wanted to do something of higher density, they would either have to ask for a rezone to the next zone up, R-15, or they would have to ask for a Planned Development at that time and all of that would kick in when that application came in. We are in agreement that we have to come back in, it's just a matter of language, and we don't want to be tied down to that Planned Development. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 41 of 57 What we did, instead doing the Planned Development, was we provided almost 14 percent open space in here where we were required to provide five by the ordinance, thinking that wet ook the entire project a saw hole a nd that because this was in the boundary of the project it could utilize open space within there. That was our thinking in doing it that way and we would just ask that that language is put down in a more broad manner. Centers: What page are you on? Excuse me. Fluke: Well, I'm dealing with -- Centers: Were you going to take it issue by issue or -- Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I can point it out. It's Annexation and Zoning Comment Number 2 at the bottom of Page 5 right at the end of that paragraph where it talks about a condition. Centers: Right. Fluke: Thanks, Steve. Centers: But in reference to -- let me address your open space. You said you had 15 percent and the requirement was -- Fluke: We have 13.9 percent. Centers: Yes. Are these low areas? Fluke: Are they low -- are they intended to accommodate drainage? Centers: There you go. Fluke: Gary, do we have drainage in those lots? They will have some drainage, but they will be sodded and usable for open space. Centers: How much lower than the grade of the lots are they? Fluke: Two to three feet. Centers: Two to three feet. Okay. Thanks. Fluke: Okay. Borup: Did we end up with some verbiage for that Development Agreement? It sounds like you're saying that it's in compliance with the present City Ordinance, that it does not require a CUP or a PUD? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 42 of 57 Fluke: Well, I would just say that development of the lot would be subject to the ordinance at the time of development or something to that effect. I would tell you this, there is nothing we can do on that lot that the applicant would do without an application to the city. I mean basically all we will be allowed by right, once this is approved and platted, would be one single-family dwelling on that -- on that 12 acre lot, 11 acre lot, or perhaps a duplex and I can guarantee you that you will not see a duplex on this 12 acre lot. Whatever they want to do with it, you will see another application we just don't know that it will have to be a PUD. Zaremba: Well, the part that I wanted to add to that, so that you didn't have to come back and make that one little thing an R-15 or something else, is the allowance of averaging the density over the whole project, even if we see that as a separate plat. Fluke: Okay and we are fine with that, Commissioner. We -- in our narrative we talked about that. If you calculated density for the entire property, subtract out what we have already got for detached single-families, we would be allowed up to I think 112 units on that parcel and we will not exceed that in any way, shape, or form with attached single- family. Zaremba: Well, what I was going for some kind of wording in the Development Agreement that would accomplish that without having to rezone it. Fluke: Sure but we would just ask that you put it at the upper end. I mean I don't think we are going to get -- with 4,000 square foot lots on there, we are probably not going to get more than 60 or 70 units, but we ask you to probably put it in that 100 range, just so we have got design room. Okay so, then, on Page 7, Number 2, of your staff report there on -- dealing with block lengths, we did realize that we had some longer block lengths. We are amenable to placing a micro path here and here to break those up. Sometimes we just have a really difficult time, based on w hat's going 0 n a round us, complying with that 1,000 foot. We did provide three stubs to the west where Baldwin Park is here and I think we connect with them at least here. I can't remember if we do here or not. Siddoway: You do. Fluke: So they do have two stubs. Okay so we connect with Baldwin Park at those two spots there. Borup: And, then, the other one is still undeveloped property? Fluke: Correct the one on the north there. With Issue Number 4, also on Page 7, the stub streets, that's dealing with the stub to this parcel here. We can fit a stub here. I would recommend that the location be here, because we can do that without losing any lots, I think. We played with that today. What we simply -- and we are amenable to that, if we cannot get a connection to McMillan Road and we would like to explore that Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2. 2003 Page 43 of 57 option first. The reason being, that we don't necessarily want to dump a bunch of vehicle traffic from this into this, which is going to be a relatively tight neo-traditional type layout, is how we intended that to be. Probably it will have narrower streets and, obviously, much smaller lots. We would just - we just don't see any benefit to putting cars in there. Now, it is a good idea to provide a pedestrian connection and we propose to do that right in between these two lots right here. On that, we'd simply ask that you write a condition saying that we provide a secondary access to that parcel, whether it be from McMillan Road 0 r f rom a stub street provided here, to bed etermined at - - you know, later on when we go through the final platting process and the layout the design of this. Regarding Issue Number 5, the Lemp Canal Easement, we have shown it as 60 feet, which is what the Settler's Irrigation District indicated to us they'd want. If it can, go down to 40, so much the better we would fully approve of that, and we will work to make that happen, so we don't see that being a big issue. Although I don't think we can get it solved at the Preliminary Plat stage, that's typically something we would have, you know, finally figured out with the license agreement and the easement in place at the time of final platting, so we'd simply ask to do it at that point. We will begin working with Settler's right away, however, we just won't be able to have anything in place by the time you're done with this. As far as the tiling of ditches go, Settler's Irrigation District did request that the White Drain remain open during the platting of Cedar Springs, which is right here. We anticipate that will be the case here as well. We also anticipate that that - that they would rather have this ditch open and that's why we have done that. We will get the necessary documentation from the district and we will ask for that waiver from the City Council. Regarding the right of way -- Borup: Could you expound on the landscaping on that area? Fluke: Yes. We -- in working with Settler's on Cedar Springs, we did have a License Agreement with them that allowed us to have some trees, as long as we stayed a certain distance away from the edge of the ditch. We don't anticipate that we will have a problem with them in this, particularly if t he easement goes down to 40 feet, we will have plenty of room. If the easement goes down to 40 feet, you know, we have shown 60 we are also picking up 23 feet of right of way that we thought we had to give to the Highway District when we originally laid this out. We have 23 feet right in here that we are going to be able to play with as well. Borup: So you're saying your intention would be to leave the layout as it is and the additional 20 and 23 feet that you gain would go into landscaping, then? Fluke: However it lies out. It's possible that the lot could get a little bit deeper here, but whatever we need to do we will do. We have plenty of room to play in there right now. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Is there any pathway along that -- the Lemp canal that's going to be a featu re? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2. 2003 Page 44 of 57 Fluke: There will be a sidewalk along McMillan. The Irrigation District right now is requiring that we build a road for them on the south side of that and so that's going to be a design challenge for us as well. We may have to have our landscaping, you know, begin right after the road that's next to the canal. Regarding the right of way, we sort of talked about that already. ACHD, because of the location of the ditch and the very large power lines that's along here, has decided that they are going to take all the right of way from the north. They are going to end up with 70 feet of right of way and within that, they will build a three-lane road section with two bike lanes and detached sidewalks. That does comply with what Steve's asking for a little bit later on here in the report and we will get to that in just a second, but we are able to work that out. It only works in our favor that we don't have to get a new right of way, because we have planned to do that, so -- Borup: ACHD made that decision awhile back, didn't they? Or did they? I mean back when the power line went in. Further to the east the power line was on the north side of the road and for some reason they jumped and came to the south side. Fluke: Yes. Borup: Maybe I'm wrong. I assumed that that had been worked out with ACHD back when they did it or maybe not. Fluke: It might have. I'm not sure when the requirement came in. I guess when we laid it out we went for the standard 96-foot arterial road there. We will be able to comply with the right of way requirement in Number 7 and as well as the street buffer landscaping. I mean I just -- we have to wait and see what Settler's wants and what ACHD wants, so that we can lay that in there and know how much ground we would be able to pick up. Going on to Page 8, the storm water integration. This has become a problem in areas with high groundwater dealing with DEQ and the Irrigation Districts on discharge. In Cedar Springs No.1, our landscape architects, they will come up with a scheme that -- where they allowed us to infiltrate the water by filtering it, essentially, through a sand filter. What they did was cap the sand filter with a certain amount of loam or peat in there where plant material was able to grow, but it still drains and filters the water and that's likely what we will do here. I just point out that this is not something that we can have solved by the time the Preliminary Plat is approved. You know, obviously, we don't design these things. We don't do the hydraulic calculations until we have got a project and so this is really something that we just have to deal with at the final platting stage. Borup: Have you had any projects where they required the Bentonite? Fluke: I couldn't tell you which ones they were. Dealing with Item Number 10 there on the same page, the office park common areas. I apologize, this is -- this was a drafting error and we certainly didn't mean to split these islands. In fact, all of this should be hatched outside of those little building pads that are shown there. It's open space and landscaping that's provided for that office area and these landscape islands are -- all Meridian Planning and ZonIng Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 45 of 57 should be hatched and that change has been made already. Same deal with the parking lot layout. We did correct it on the Landscape Plan, it just didn't make it over to the plat drawing yet, and so that change is in the process of being made as well. Then, on the irrigation easement on Item Number 12 there, what he's speaking of is a 10-foot irrigation easement that we would dimension to right here and what we needed to do was just make that a little bit more specific. That's for the McKinney Lateral, which serves, I believe, two properties to our west, including Baldwin Park. What we need to do is just to make that note a little bit more specific and it doesn't need to extend beyond there, because that ditch turns and goes west at that point. That's why the easement ends right there. It looks like a lot of stuff, but, really, there is nothing there that's too major, that's a project killer. We'd just simply ask that we work on language of the Development Agreement and on a condition for the -- for the street buffer and landscaping. We think we can get all those made and we'd request that you just have staff review that for you. If you're not comfortable with that, we can certainly bring the plat back for you to look at with those changes on there. Centers: Regarding that Page 9, Item 11, do you have that specific groundwater monitoring data to be able to submit that because, as Bruce stated, he'd like to see it from 9 of '00 to present? Fluke: Yes. Centers: Do you have that? Fluke: I don't have it in hand, no, but-- Centers: But you can get it? Fluke: Yes. Centers: And does it cover four or five periods of the year? Fluke: I would have to - Centers: Or one specific period? Fluke: We will have to get in touch with Glen Logan and get that data. Centers: I guess I'd like to see that, too. Zaremba: I have a question about the unplatted area. I see by your Landscape Plan that you have at least thought out one possible scenario, which looks to me like it would be workable, except it only has one access. How likely do you think ACHD is to approve another McMillan access? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2. 2003 Page 46 of 57 Fluke: Well, at this point in time we don't have any conflicting driveways or intersections for offset and so we are going to have to offset from this road a particular distance, 125 feet perhaps. I'd have to check the number but we have plenty of area here to offset from our own drive and I'm not aware of any other conflicting drives or intersections. Zaremba: Would it work to make that a right in, right out, so that you steered most of your traffic to your entrance that's over here? Fluke: Well, I'd prefer to not be locked into that now until we knew what we were going to do. Zaremba: Yes. Fluke: But if we had to do that, obviously, we would. I just don't know that it would be necessary, because I think we are going to comply with all the minimums. That distance is a quarter mile -- a half mile across there? Zaremba: Probably. Yes. Fluke: It's a quarter mile across so, yes, we are probably, what, 650 feet or something from here to there. Zaremba: Well, we go back and forth almost every meeting on what is a significant change to a plat and what isn't a significant change to a plat. I think my feeling is I tend to agree with staff on this one, that we probably need to see a revised plat. That being said, my question would be how close would you be to including the unplatted section to plat it? Fluke: Well, technically, it's not unplatted it's a lot within the development. Zaremba: Yes. You said you could build one house on it. Fluke: We would have to re-plat it and I don't know. You know, as you're aware, there is a good number of lots that are in the pipeline in -- within a few square miles of here, so that's really my client's call on when it's time. Zaremba: Okay. Fluke: It could be soon or it could not be. I don't know. Zaremba: So you wouldn't want to hold up the rest of the plat for that decision? Fluke: Absolutely not. Yes. Zaremba: Okay so a resolution to having the second access would be to have the two- point option, I guess. If you get approved for an access onto McMillan, then, a micro Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 47 of 57 path on the south part of that is okay if you don't get an access onto McMillan, then, a roadway. Fluke: Yes. Centers: I think that's a decent request. I mean, yes, I can understand that. Zaremba: Those are my only questions. On the whole, I think it's a good project. Fluke: Thank you. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? I have a question, Daren. If you're unable to get a second access out onto McMillan and the stub road does end up connecting down here next to -- on Portage Avenue, it's not a very direct route for pedestrians to the open space. I was wondering if you thought it was asking too much to do the micro path in this location under either scenario, whether the road is there or not. Fluke: You said they are down to 15 feet now on the micro path? Siddoway: Yes. Fluke: I really need to just -- I didn't look at it in that close of detail to see if we had enough room for both, but, yes, potentially -- we are not opposed to it in theory, we just don't want to lose a lot to put a 15-foot pathway in. That's all. Siddoway: Yes. Maybe you could explore that with the revised plat. Fluke: Okay. Centers: Make a lot of people happy. Fluke: Well, we like to make people happy. Mathes: Steve, I have a question. If you put in the micro path, they still have a Variance to make those block lengths? Siddoway: They still require a Variance. That shouldn't hold anything up, though. If they got that Variance in right away, it would simply accompany this application to Council, because the Variance Apps don't have to come to P&Z, they go straight to Council. Mathes: Okay. Borup: Well, let's go ahead with -- do we have anyone else to testify on this application? Come forward. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2. 2003 Page 48 of 57 C. Riderman: "m Carl Riderman and I live right across the street on the west corner. That little square lot. Steve knows and there is a driveway on the left side of our property, on the west side. We have a driveway that's more or less on -- the east side of our driveway and I don't know how that's going to interfere or work with the road to come in. Borup: Your question is how their main entrance is going to affect your -- C. Riderman: My driveways. Borup: -- your driveways? C. Riderman: We have heard that there needs to be X amount of feet between roads and driveways. I don't know if that's a concern or not, but that's -- Zaremba: I'm seeing their roadway as -- Borup: Can you pull, Steve, the plat that shows both properties? At least I'm looking at one that theirs isn't quite on - Centers: I think yours is over here. C. Riderman: Right. Centers: Yes. Yours is right here. C. Riderman: I didn't know how much lineal feet that was in there. You said 600 on the bottom, so that's probably 500. Centers: You know, , -- C. Riderman: And we are probably 150 feet, I think, to their property line or something. Centers: And your driveway is on the -- C. Riderman: There is one on the top -- 50 feet off the -- and, then, there is the two into the driveway into the house that is probably closer to the 150 feet down. Centers: I don't recall any distances on entrances to a sub from someone's driveway. I really don't. We look at them if people are coming out and their headlights are going into -- we have had a number of those and we have required the entrances to be moved if their headlights would be shining right into the house. We have had that a number of times but in this instance, of course, they wouldn't be, which is nice. C. Riderman: That was a concern and I didn't know the answers. Another concern is about the road and the right of way. There is a large power line that Idaho Power has Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2. 2003 Page 49 of 57 just approved to have something like 500 kw going down McMillan and it stops right about where our property is and from there on it's all wood poles, which is going to be moved up to large metal poles, the same metal poles that are there now. That's one thing that's there. If they take 70 feet off the other side of the road or if the road becomes 70 feet, we have a carport that will tear our completely. We have met -- we have walked 60 feet off from the center of the road towards our property and that would leave it three feet away from our house, tearing out the carport and the garage that -- there is a converted garage there, but it would leave the road and the right of way three feet from our house. Centers: Have they contacted you regarding this? Of course, that's a separate issue from this subdivision. C. Riderman: Well -- and I -- we always thought that -- we were always told by ACHD that was going to be a five-lane road, not a three-lane. Maybe that's changed I don't know. They have also said that that's not in the five-year plan that would be in the next five-year plan, what they do and how they handle that. That was -- we always wondered what they were going to do with that so that's another concern that I have and Centers: Well, maybe the staff can address that. I don't know. Siddoway: It did recently change with a -- from five lane to three lane. It was originally planned to be a five-lane road. T here was a north Meridian area traffic study done recently and the result of which shows McMillan as a future three-lane road and not a five-lane road. You know, to address, you know, what's going to happen when they decide it's time to build that road and it's three feet from your house, according to these new cales, I would just -- I would meet with the staff at ACHD and say, you know, have you thought about me but that - Borup: What's the present right of way, 50 feet or 60? Siddoway: I don't know. It's a 50-foot prescriptive right of way so the property line - do they currently go to the centerline of the road out there? Yes. They probably technically go to the centerline. It's not a right of way by deeded property, but it's a right of way by prescriptive right, if you will, right of way, and it's 50 feet out there currently. Centers: Well -- and, sir, when you say three feet from your carport, inside your property line? C. Riderman: Yes. Centers: Well, you know, if they are in your property, they are going to have to talk to you about a purchase. C. Riderman: I would hope. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 50 of 57 Centers: Yes. Borup: It sounds like from what they are proposing, at least at this point, is they are talking about taking another 20 feet. C. Riderman: Of the property? Borup: Right 20 feet more right of way. C. Riderman: So how much from the center of the road because that's where I have marked it off? Sixty feet away leaves me about three feet from - into my carport, three feet from the house itself. Borup: If the road is centered on the present right of way -- C. Riderman: It is at that -- Borup: It should be 45 feet from the center. C. Riderman: Okay. I was figuring - Borup: Did I do that right? C. Riderman: Okay and I was figuring 60-foot, because they said five lanes and that's what we -- Borup: Right. Apparently that was a real recent change. C. Riderman: A change. Okay. Borup: But as all changes, it could change again. C. Riderman: It isn't in until it's in right? Zaremba: This is kind of anecdotal, but I do know that ACHD has to deal with things like that. If you picture the intersection of Locust Grove and Ustick, they were planning to enlarge that intersection to five lanes every direction, which, for the property owner that's on the northwest corner, would put the roadway right at his steps and he went to ACHD and said, well, you need to buy my whole property, because there is no way I can have a house where I step out onto a five lane road. C. Riderman: Right. Zaremba: Their current solution is not to widen the road yet, but they will eventually have to deal with it and I think you may end up having to say the same thing. You can't but just buy my front 20 feet you have got to buy my whole property. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 51 of 57 C. Riderman: My whole property. One of the other things that they were talking about is they want the developers to do that, so they are going to wait it out until the developers buy the whole property. Well, developers out there typically don't buy one- acre pieces of land with a house on it, because it's too much money so that's just a concern that we have. Centers: Yes. C. Riderman: Okay. Thank you. Siddoway: M r. Chairman, just reading from the ACHD report, the distance that they intend to take from north side is 45 feet from the centerline. Borup: I was close. Siddoway: And also, we did some quick cales and came up with a distance from the east property line of their parcel to the centerline of the entry road as 367 feet. C. Riderman: Was that the whole easement, the 45 feet? Siddoway: Oh, for the road? Yes. That would be the full right of way from the centerline north. C. Riderman: And what would our offset -- Siddoway: We are going to need to get you on the microphone. C, Riderman: What would our offset be from the easement to the house? How much distance do we need to the house? Siddoway: Oh, for our ordinances? C. Riderman: Right. Borup: Twenty feet. It's different on an arterial? Siddoway: Yes 30 feet on an arterial for a house setback and if it were a subdivision, there would be a 25-foot landscape buffer and, then, setbacks off of that so it would even be more. C. Riderman: But being grandfathered in, since it basically would be -- you would have 45, plus 30, is where the building could -- should start? Siddoway: That would be where it should start if it were being -- a house were being built just right along McMillan Road today. Certainly, if they did come by and take the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2. 2003 Page 52 of 57 land, you would just become a -- what would be considered a legal nonconforming use at that point. C. Riderman: How much -- how much of the house could they leave and still be legal, if they took the 45 feet? How close to the road can the house stay, say if they cut off the carport and the garage? Siddoway: I don't know. It would be getting awfully close it sounds like. C. Riderman: Thank you. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: I would say we -- I'm sorry. Borup: Go ahead. C. Riderman: Steve, is that nonconforming use known as eminent domain? Siddoway: No. Eminent domain would be if they came and required the right of way take from your property without you being willing to sell it. A nonconforming use means that you're not in compliance with City Ordinances, but it wasn't created illegally, it was _ Zaremba: The layman's term is that it's grandfathered. It pre-existed the ordinance or the change or whatever. Borup: So you would still be able to keep your house and use it. C. Riderman: Okay but we have a shop behind the house. If the house is gone, we have no use for the shop. Is that -- what are we going to do there? Borup: You need to work that out with ACHD. Zaremba: These are legal questions that you would work out with ACHD, but there is a thing in Idaho law called a taking. If they take so much of your property that the rest of it isn't usable, you need to tell them you're taking the whole property. C. Riderman: Okay. Zaremba: And they need to pay you fair for the whole property. C. Riderman: One question I have is it's zoned R-T, which means they are supposed to be five acres. We only one acre, you know, but this was grandfathered way back when the house started in 1967, so it went back -- way back when, you know, and, then, they built on the house and changed it to a seven bedroom house in 1986, okay, or '85, I'm Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 53 of 57 not sure. Anyhow, it's been that long that we have had, you know -- we didn't own it that long, but the people that lived there prior to us have, you know, lived there that long and so they were there 27 years. We have been there three and a half years, so -- Zaremba: Well, at point you're still in the county, so you're not subject to any of Meridian's laws at the moment. C. Riderman: Okay. Borup: Right. C. Riderman: Thank you. Zaremba: On the one hand, I agree with the applicant that it would be nice to move this along, but, as I said before, I think there are enough things that, to me, push this beyond the insignificant and significant change question, I would suggest that we continue this to another meeting. Centers: I have a question for the applicant, with just a nod of the head. Can you be ready by our next meeting this month? Borup: The 16th? Centers: The 16th. Zaremba: You would have to submit everything by next Monday in order for staff to have the 10 days with it. Centers: He's been there and done that many times. Borup: Does staff need 10 days on this one? Siddoway: If we had a week, we could do it, I think, but I wouldn't want to go any less than that. Borup: The 16th is our next meeting. Centers: Today is the 2nd. Two weeks. Borup: So that would give you one week from today to have it to staff. Centers: I think that's reasonable. Borup: Right now we have three applications on the 16th and, plus, the one we continued so it's not a real heavy -- if things go as fast as they did tonight, that will -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2. 2003 Page 54 of 57 Centers: First, I'd like to move that we close the Public Hearing. Zaremba: If we are going to continue it, we don't want to close it. Centers: Well, are we going to continue it? Zaremba: I think we are only deciding what date we are going to continue it. Borup: Maybe we need some discussion on that first, then. Centers: Why do we -- Zaremba: Well, if we close, then, we are making a recommendation to city one way or the other for it. Centers: Right and people have been noted. We have virtually no one here that's __ Zaremba: But don't we want to see the plat? Borup: You're comfortable without reviewing the plat, then, you're saying? Centers: No. I'd like to review the plat. Does it have to be a Public Hearing? Siddoway: Yes, it does. The Public Hearing has to remain open in order for us to receive additional information. Centers: Okay. Okay. Okay. Well, I think the applicant should kind of get a feel from where we are coming from and I agree with them, you know, the stub street or the access on McMillan, the Lemp Canal Easement, wants to do that with the Final Plat and he will work that out with staff. You know, I guess I tend to agree with that. Zaremba: Do we have an opinion about tiling them or leaving them open, the two of them? I would be happy with them open, if they are going to be amenities. Centers: Yes. Zaremba: I think the current Comprehensive Plan even asks us to go that direction. Siddoway: Also tonight was the first we heard about the road that the Irrigation District is going to require to be built. Zaremba: True. Siddoway: That certainly doesn't match the Landscape Plan, so we would need to have that amended to show that as well. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 55 of 57 Zaremba: Okay. Centers: And he mentioned that he was going to change the office park common areas on the Preliminary Plat and change the parking lot layout in the office area part of the subdivision. I guess regarding the Development Agreement, I agree with the applicant that if we were to leave it open, that -- or comply with ordinance at the time per the R-B zone, you know, so -- anyway -- Zaremba: And the only thing I would add to the Development Agreement in protection, actually, of the applicant, is saying that the density is averaged over the whole project. Not .- I'm worried on behalf of the applicant that some day this will come back, we will just be looking at that one piece, and saying, hey, that's too much density. I'm willing to average it over the whole subdivision and I think that should be made as a note in the Development Agreement, so it doesn't get lost. Borup: Is that assuming minimum 4,000-foot lots? Zaremba: Well, yes, minimum for an R-B zone. Centers: That would be in compliance. Zaremba: In compliance with an R-B. Borup: Okay. R-B is 4,000 now? Siddoway: For single-family attached, yes. Centers: Yes. Siddoway: It's still 6,500 for single-family detached. Borup: Okay. That's what I was -- Centers: So, I guess I would move that we continue the Public Hearing, then, to our 16th meeting and if the applicant can't make it, then, they can't make it, but he says he can. Zaremba: Okay. What specific date do we want everything into P&Z by? Siddoway: January 9th. Zaremba: Okay. I would second the continuing, as long as the applicant has the materials in by January 9th. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2. 2003 Page 56 of 57 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Okay. Zaremba: I'm assuming we were talking about both subjects. We have two -- Centers: Yes. Borup: Unless we want it back on the one. Zaremba: No Siddoway: No. No. No. Borup: Okay. Daren, any question on what we are asking for? All right. Okay that -- actually, that was our last item, Commissioners. Zaremba: Happy New Year, everybody. Is a motion in order to adjourn the meeting? Do we have anything else to discuss? Borup: No. I was thinking there was, but -- Zaremba: I move we adjourn the meeting. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second to adjourn the meeting. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:35 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: I I DATE KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN ATTESTED: WILLIAM G., BERG, JR., CITY CLERK