Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWesley CUP Minutes (!..',JV Meridian Planning an" 7.oning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 20 we going to see this whole thing come back 6 months from now? That is my biggest concern. If there was any way that we could extend this with adequate conditions, it's a go. It is the bottom of the 9th. Let's get this thing done and over with and move on. I don't know what type of conditions we could recommend to City Council that would -I don't want to tie one hand behind their back. but yet at the same time a little pushing or kick in the butt to push this thing forward I think is appropriate. Borup: I think it took them longer in the preliminary stages. But the building-obviously the plans are done. The building permit has been applied for. They have written the permit check. They are ready to go on that aspect. It's been testified that the letter of credit is ready to be issued. It has been testified the letter was issued-even though, and that might be one sided testimony but by that testimony they complied 6 months ago. It's the City the one that causes delay. I think we need to move this forward. We have spend too much time on this all ready. I would like to move this on to City Council and let them get it taken care of. Hatcher: I recommend that we make a motion for approval to the City Council for extension of the conditional use permit for Cherry Lane Recreation, for 6 months from City Council approval and to include staff comments. Norton: I second it. Borup: Motion and second, any discussion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: 3 AYES 1 NAY Borup: We are going to take a 5 minute break before Item number 5. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR &,QN[)lml@N.A.l.::;.y~g;8;!;gM!ili. FOR PROPOSED OFFICE BUILDING AND TOWNHOUSES IN AN La AND R-8 ZONE (5 ACRES) BY Q~N;r;..f;RSG@NSmRWC.mI0N-WEST SIDE OF LOCUST GROVE % MILE NORTH OF FAIRVIEW AVENUE: Borup: I'd Ilke to now open the public hearing on this item and hear the staff report. Hawkins Clark: Commissioner's this item before you has last month come before you for annexation and zoning. You recommended approval for the R-8 zone for this 5 acre piece. It will be going before the City Council for another public hearing for the annexation and zoning component next week on February 15. This is the first on the plat itself. We do request that the January 31 staff comments by Steve Siddoway and Bruce FreckJeton be incorporated. The plat is here. Locust Grove Road runs here on the eastern boundary. The site is bounded on all sides by existing development. This is a county sub to the south. To the north to west and to the east are all ready annexed into the City limits. We would consider this because it had an in flit project. They are proposing to take the entrance on the very south boundary here on the project. The front piece here, that lot is proposed to be zoned and was recommended LO, limited Meridian Planning anc. .Jning Commission . February 8, 2000 Page 21 office, and then to begin the residential. These are all townhouse lots. There is a common area here and there is a common area here. The LO piece in front, this is the proposed elevation for that office building. This is a view of the site taken from the property immediately across Locust Grove looking west. We'll just go back to the plat and point out that in referring to our staff comments, on page 3, number 3 regarding bonus density. There are 2 mini pedestrian bike pathways now that are being proposed for this site. This plat does not reflect it but discussions have taken place with the applicant and staff and a new one, a new plat will be submitted. I wanted to point out here between lots 28 and 29, they are proposing a 10 foot wide bike pedestrian pad that would come down and connect and would be dedicated to the public. It would stub into the very south part of their Subdivision here. Borup: Is it between 28 and 29 or 27 and 28? 28 and 29 is a zero lot line on my plat. Hawkins Clark: I'm sorry, your right. It would become lot 28, so yeah you are correct. As it understand it, at the past annexation hearing, the property to the south has been amenable to allowing that pathway to continue on through so that connection can be made to the south here. That is the reason for situating it there. In terms of the other- also another thing-a pedestrian issue. There is a proposed a very smail stub that would connect these two culdesac here. That would be another amenity. Again, in terms of bonus density, both of these pedestrian pathways in terms of meeting the requirement and the ordinance, if you are going to do increased density you need to provide some kind of amenity. There are two. In the staff report, staff do recommend that two lots and 18 and 17 or down here 35 and 34 be modified to not be townhouse lots but be incorporated into the open space areas. Part of this is to exceed the required 10 percent open space for this Subdivision which for a PUD is required. That still really remains staff recommendation, but we certainly support the idea and this has been discussed with Mr. Centers just dedicating one lot and likely it's lot 18 to combine with this open space area. The configuration obviously up to them, but that would increase the density to 10.5 percent of the site that would be open space as compared to if both of these lots were combined with this open space it would be in the range of 12.5 percent open space. That is for the Commission to work out in terms of dedicating that. Our preference would be lot 18 and still dedicate at a minimum one Jot. We do recognize that there is a walkable distance to (inaudible) elementary, which is up here to the northwest of the site. Given that there are 32 townhouse lots in here to provide contiguous open space, given the minimal. I believe these front yards are about 30x15 feet on each one of these when you subtract out the driveway. There is very minimal yard space in each one of these. The additional open space would be the recreational amenity. On page 4 of the staff report, number 6 on the local road location, this plan currently shows the sidewalk to stop right here. We are simply asking that it continue along this open space area giving pedestrian access into this and continue out to Locust Grove Road. There is a recommendation by staff to shift this road up 5 feet at a minimum. Eight feet is what is in the written report. Right now there is only about a 2 foot buffer right here for trees, so as you come in off of Locust Grove into the site-if this roadway was just shifted north 8 feet, it would still meet minimum parking requirements in this office park, but it would allow a little more buffer here along this Meridian Planning ant. ,oning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 22 entry. It is an issue for Ada County Highway District and they are asking that it be located actually on the southern boundary. You should have received their report yesterday, I believe. The main other issue that did come up today was the-this is a 25 foot setback from this office building on the rear. They are only required to provide 20. Right now there is 25 so there is some discussion about moving these lots 5 feet so that this would become a 20 foot separation between lot 3 and the office lot instead of the 25. I will leave it there. Borup: Any questions from any of the Commissioner's? Do we have the applicant here and like to come forward. Canning: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission my name is Joe Canning. I am with B&A Engineers in Boise. The address is 5505 W. Franklin. I am here tonight with the applicant and if I could I'd like to approach and hand out some hand outs. Just briefly, the 3 stapled sheets are just a fax sheet on the front -information sheet for the project. The second sheet shows a schematic -kind of a sketch of the project with the pedestrian walkways in it that staff was referring to. The third sheet is the plat that's on the screen right now with our open space or common lot shown in green. The other handout is bound is just the front page being some colored elevation views of the townhouses themselves and then the interior pages being some floor plans for the townhouses-the first page. The second page once again in the site plan. The next few pages are for the office building, as far as the floor plan and some elevation views. The site is approximately 5 acres. We are looking at essentially 3 uses-2 building uses, one being the limited office for approximately one acre in the front along Locust Grove and 36 single family townhouses on about 4 acres on the remainder of the site extending to the less. They are currently 3 common area lots that we proposed with the revised site plan that is in there. There is actually an additional one being the common area that extends to the south property line being a pedestrian bicycle pathway. Staff has all ready mentioned this is a in-fill site. It is surrounded by current development. The site design-I think there is a few things to point out that are rather important on this site. Number one it is because it is in-fill it is an unusual piece. It is approximately 1000 feet long and about 240 feet wide. It has a point that actually narrows down about half way to the west end that is approximately 220 feet in width. There is not a lot of width to work with on this particular site. The limited office area-on the east end by Locust Grove, we consider that as a buffer to the townhouse of the residential developments in the back. They are single story townhouses that we are proposing. You can see by the elevations on the bound handout that all these are single story. We feel that is a very important point we'd like to point out on this particular project. I think that is very necessary to reduce the bulk size of these structures. There are a number of buildings in that area and we feel that single story is very important item to point out. The applicant is proposing entirely fencing the perimeter of the property with a 6 foot high fencing. Of course, obviously where the 2 pedestrian paths go into the adjoining areas-those would be discontinued at that particular point in time. I think something to chat a little about is the location of the street entry-one of the staffs recommendations was to slide that entry street at least at Locust Grove to the north to provide a little more buffer area along that south side. We met early on with the Ada County Highway Meridian Planning arl.... _oning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 23 District regarding this project. We had some concerns about the number of driveway approaches that were on the east side of Locust Grove and staff at the highway district pretty strongly indicated to us that they wanted this road put along the south property line for 2 reasons. Number 1 was to avoid the driveway approaches that were on the east side of Locust Grove and number 2 was they anticipate that this could become joint access for the next property to the south should that ever re-develop. It was important to the highway district that that right of way adjoin that south property line. We did gain ACHD approvaL Hopefully you did have that in your packet. That occurred last Wednesday and they did approve it as shown with one exception. They did request that we work toward a pedestrian bicycle route on the west end. We did not object to that at that point of time because it looks like we are heading that way. Just a few things on the staff report itself that I think pertinent to discuss. Number one is the common open space. Particularly the one in the northwest corner. The intent is to have that as a shallow storm water intention area and I do mean shallow. There is a storm sewer that is on the west end of this property. It is the highway district's. We would intend to probably detain storm waters in our facility and not necessarily retain them all, but detain them. That allows us quite a shallow ponding area back there. It is our intent to make that as a usable area. Regarding bonus density, one of the requirements is that we do provide I guest public amenity-at least in my opinion it is a public amenity is what the requirement is. We feel we have met that requirement now with the addition of these pedestrian bicycle walkways. This actually came up at the annexation meeting last month. Perhaps you remember the applicant was quite diligent to go out and discuss this with the neighbors. They appear to be very willing to cooperate. We are proposing that at this particular point of time. I touched briefly on the access road along Locust Grove. Staff has recommended that we extend the sidewalk on the south side of our entry road to Locust Grove. We do not have any particular opposition to that. Really our intent with the proposal was just to provide a little bit of a buffer strip along that south property line to the property to the south right there. We really would not object to go ahead and extending this sidewalk out to Locust Grove. It just reduces any planning areas down from approximately down to 7 feet to 2 feet. We would still intent to construct the fence along there, at least for the height requirements we could do is approach Locust Grove. It has to reduce in height or disappear. That's the issue with that buffering. I guess we've either got sidewalk or we have more planning area. That's the way we look at that. Again, staff did note that this is an application for single story townhouses on the residential area of it. We feel that's quite important. Again I want to point that out. There was also a comment on the staff report, Item 17, that suggested there was no area on the property for recreational vehicle storage area. That actually is on purpose. The applicant does intent to have CC&R's that restricts outdoor storage of RV's on the property. We would however, like to point out that just immediately southeast of this property is a commercial self storage area. They are adding on to it right now. We feel that is a much better area for this kind of storage to occur. Item 18 in the staff report discussed a maintenance building. We presume-or indicate that was for maintenance of the landscaped areas. The applicant intents to have a commercial landscape firm maintain the common areas within this project. Our experience has typically been that better care occurs with the common areas when it is a professional company that does that. Tonight we do request that the conditional use permit and the Meridian Planning an ~oning Commission February 8,2000 Page 24 preliminary plat, when we get there, be approved. I believe that is it. Hopefully I have given you enough handouts. END OF SIDE TWO Borup: Joe, do you have any comment on Staff item number, last paragraph number 4 on the rear lot setbacks. Canning: I actually did have a response to aU the comments back to staff last Friday. Hopefully they received it. We basically concur with those. I talked with the applicant and we are able to meet the requirements discussed in that particular item. Borup: At 11-1/4 rather then 15. Canning: I believe that was what the amount was, correct. Borup: Staff comments that you did not entirely agree with, number 3 on bonus density. Canning: Obviously we would prefer not to loose a lot. The addition of the pedestrian bicycle path even on the south side does increase our percentage slightly. Borup: What percent? Canning: I am sure it is not much. Probably a few tenths of a percent is all. We were able to accommodate that by just narrowing the lots on the south side a little bit so the common area on the east end did not change. Borup: You understand why they are trying to get-I mean the 10 per cent is all ready part of a PUD. That is a requirement-then to get some bonus density you need to do something above the 10 percent. Canning: Correct. I believe one of the options was for a public pedestrian bicycle path. Borup: That is just one of the items that can be taken into consideration. It is not one or the other necessarily. Essentially that and the moving the roadway. Canning: Correct, or sidewalk. Borup: Any other questions from the Commissioner's? Norton: Mr. Chairman I have a question. Would you restate about your sidewalk. You don't want to extend it to Locust Grove as I believe staff suggested. Canning: We don't have a particular concern with that if the Commission would like to have the sidewalk extended to Locust Grove, we can. The issue is, moving that road to the north. That is the concern. The highway district specifically requested that we Meridian Planning anl .oning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 25 adjoin that south property line with that public road. It IS a full 50 foot section now. 50 feet of right of way is what we are proposing. We don't have a concern, I guess we just like clarification. We are willing to extend the sidewalk. We just would request that it not be moved to the north because of that access (inaudible) on the south property line. Norton: Part of that I would question for staff regarding the comments number 14 school children trying to get from Chief Joseph. Does this sidewalk to Locust Grove have anything to do with the school children moving through that area. Hawkins Clark: Commissioner Norton, not particularly no. That would be all happening all toward the other end of the project. There is of course the access down to the future pending Walgreen's Store which is just to the south. And, of course Fred Meyer and some of the other amenities there in that complex. Potentially a lot of traffic there. Borup: Any other-- Thank you Mr. Canning. Do we have anyone from the audience like to comment on this conditional use permit. Bross: My name is Richard Bross. I live south of the project. Just down from the proposed office building there. Borup: You're the lot that ACHD was talking about. Bross: Yes. What [was wondering is if this is going to be-if they can put in a higher fence along my property line. I also have a building that is along the property line that I don't know how this is going to fit in. It is a horse facility for one thing. I was wondering how this is going to fit in with their program or their so on. Borup: I guess I am not following you there sir. I understand you've got a building along the north part of your property. Bross: I've got a building in this area here. It is on the property line. Borup: Right on the property line? How did you get a permit for that. Bross: [bought the place that way. Borup: And you wondering how there are going to put a fence in without interfering with your building. Bross: I don't care if they put a fence in, if they will incorporate the building with it. Borup: Well their fence would be on their property line. If your building is not over the property line it shouldn't be an interference. Meridian Planning ar. ~oning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 26 Bross: Okay. I would like to see, okay, in this area your talking about is going to be a park area and I don't know if a 6 foot fence is going to keep the kids from coming over. Maybe we could go for a little higher fence there? Borup: How big of kids do you have in the neighborhood? Bross: You take a look at the number of houses there and you can make a guess. I am just trying to bring up some of the problems that -what I think might be a problem. Other then that, I have no problem with it. Borup: Right now they are proposing a little bit of a landscaping buffer along your property. You've heard staff recommendations and it seems for a safety standpoint it makes sense to have a sidewalk along there. Have you got any comment on ACHD recommendation there. Does that make sense to you to have the road right there. Bross: We've all ready got vegetation around there. We all ready have a buffer there. Borup: Thank you sir. Any questions? Anyone else. Bross: My name is Monique Bross. I am also on the same property south on 1975 N. Logouts Grove. I just have one questions as far as -maybe a couple-but as far as a fence, what is the particular laws for the fence as it comes up toward Locust Grove. You were talking about the fact that it was going to diminish as it hits Locust Grove and I was kind of curious how it was going to work. Borup: I would need to go down to 3 foot. There needs to be a tine of sight. Six foot is a maximum fence height by ordinance. Is that where your concern was it site line. Bross: I believe so. Borup: The City is concerned and strict on that. There will not be any restriction on the site line from an intersection. Bross: So about how far back will the 6 foot fence actually-well where will the 6 foot end and then slip down to 3 foot. Borup: Brad has staff made any recommendation on that? Is it 20 feet or are you allowing- Hawkins Clark: About 20 feet. Borup: 20 is the ordinance right? Unless you ask for a reduction. Hawkins Clark: It depends on if it is a solid fence or open vision fence. If it is a clear open vision like a chain link, you can go higher because you can see through it. Typically right there if your-our site triangle on local roads is about a 40 by 40 triangle. Meridian Planning ar, '-:oning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 27 So you imagine coming 40 feet from the curb down this way and then 40 feet this way, that kind of creates a triangle right there. You need to keep that open for visibility. Bross: That will be 40 feet instead of 20. Hawkins Clark: Actually yeah. That will-unless -if its clear vision they do something [ike a split rail or potentially I guess come a little bit closer. Your talking about a sidewalk that is going to be there. Bross: What about the opening to our property. Borup: Which opening? Bross: They were talking about some sort of opening so they could have access to our property in case--- Borup: No, ACHD recommended that the entrance road be on the south side incase you ever want to develop your property, you would have access to that road. They are saying that there is enough access points on there now and they don't want to allow anymore. That would allow access to your property in the future rather then preventing you from future development. You would have access through that same point if you ever developed your. Bross: Would that affect the fence line at all at this particular point in time. Borup: Not at this point. It would be effective if that future development took place. Bross: One last request that I have is that the fence be solid instead of chain link so that we can have our privacy. Borup: Thank you. Any questions for the Commissioner's? Barbeiro: If you like, I have a copy of the fence ordinance here. It is this page and the two prior to that. Weaver: My name is Bill Weaver. [live at 2137 Sapphire Court. I thank you for your time. I noticed we've been covering both items 5 and 6 in this little (inaudible). ['1/ try to keep it brief. I am a little concerned about the conditional use permit. [know you are saying you will definitely define and there will definitely be doctors, eye doctors and things of that nature. My questions is, what happens when they can't get that. What happens when they say, well we can't put people in there and we want to have this resolved and they go for a conditional use permit for yellow and they want to put a bar in there or they want to put a drive up something in there. How do we stop that. Borup: They would have to come back for another public hearing. Meridian Planning al Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 28 Weaver: So, would it be another public hearing go through the whole thing again. Borup: Oh yes. Weaver: Okay. I notice every time we see this plat we never see the Jot lines on the development along with the existing plots, which is what we get when we get our notice from the City. If you would look at that notice that you get from the City you notice that the density of this is all most twice. What I am talking about, this letter that the City sends me and this plat-if you'll notice that the density of this new lot is all most twice of the existing area. I went to the City Clerk and did some research. He is proposing that the lots be 3500 square feet and by regulation, they are supposed to be 6500 square feet. Borup: That is why they are asking for a Planned Unit Development with a (inaudible) density. Weaver: Even with the Planned Unit Development it is supposed to be 45-50 according to the documentation I have from the Planning Commission and that still what he is asking for is 30 percent below the minimum required. Frontage is required 50 feet. He is going for 29. It is just too high density for the existing plan that is there. Again, we are not saying don't build there. We are saying build wisely. The comment has been made, well, the lot is too narrow. Even if you put in the 50 foot road, 10 feet on each side, that is seventy feet. Take 70 from 220 and you come up with 150. Divide that in half and you've got 75 foot deep lots. Make them 75 by 75 you can put a nice home there. Let's not put something that is going to detract from the neighborhood for years to come. Borup: You want the lots to be smaller? Weaver: Larger. Larger. Borup: You just said 75 deep. Weaver: He is saying he can't make the lots large enough to put a real home on it. That is why he wants to go with this 75 by 30 or whatever the plan is. [am saying make them 75 by 75. 75 by 80. Put full size homes on there. I know you think this won't become rental property but f can guarantee you in three years, all of those will be rentals. You will see the property values in that totally deteriorate and when that happens, so does the property values around it. Borup: (Inaudible) lots are 85 and 88 deep. The lots are 85 and 88 feet in depth. Weaver: Okay, then lets widen them out Lets not have them 29 wide. Let's put in housing that conforms with the rest of the neighborhood. That is all we are asking. Meridian Planning al Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 29 Borup: Any comments from the Commissioner's? The plat has presented is 45 lots minimum is what they presented to us. Weaver: According to the documentation at City Clerk is says 29. That is alii am going by. Borup: That was a written application. The subdivision plat, which we will be getting to next has drawn at 40 foot. Sarbeiro: Mr. Weaver, do you want to take a look at this. Borup: Who do we have next? Jones: Jay Jones. 1426 N. Carol. I am directly south of this project and I need to address the pedestrian bicycle path. It is true that the discussion has been that the pedestrian bike path on the west end of the property be such and the gentleman on that end said they are working on an agreement to make that happen. They also agreed to provide a 10 foot easement on their property between lots 27 and 28 becoming lot 28. On my side of the property it ends up being in a very unnatural location to (inaudible) from my property. I am willing to allow a pedestrian access for school use only with a gate that I have control over and I guess I am willing to-I have young kids and I four young kids and would be for the duration to let the kids go and come from school and restrict it to that use. There is a way that we possibly could have access permanently between lots 23 and 24, but that is something I would still have to take into consideration that conforms more to a lot line. As yet to determine exactly where that lot line is or how that entrance would work at that location. But that would be on the edge of a property and would not be as difficult I suppose to have an access. But for now, I don't see that there is any kind of an easement or dedication on my point but would allow the kids to have access for school. A couple other things. Let me ask a question. I know somebody said something about 36 home sites. In reality, if I am not mistaken, it is really only 30. Is that correct, with the staff recommendations-30-31. Something like that. Also they proposed a solid white vynal fence and if this project were to be passed, that would be an acceptable buffer between my properties. I have two properties that extend some 368 feet or so along that southern border. I would like to address one other item on setbacks. I can see the reasoning behind reducing the setbacks to 11.8 versus 15 required. I can see some wisdom in that but yet would ask the Commission to restrict that to only to the very specific lots that is required under this proposed development which excludes all of the southern border lots. They should be able to have 15 feet upon the southern border lots. If the (inaudible) was given to have the 20 foot setback on the front property lines, go from the sidewalk (inaudible) 18.5 feet from the property fence. That would give us -the larger lots and the standard setbacks as well. There is a lot of talk about the density. It would be nice if we had 3 or 4 homes in there with a creek running through it. Maybe a baseball field to go with it, but that is not profitable for the developer and probably not real practical. I think if there is a way to restrict these units to what they have proposed and had meetings that they came to us about it. They said these were going to sell anywhere from 110 to 125. Well, I Meridian Planning ai Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 30 realize there is not a lot of control over that but if the square footages or elevations such as a single level and what not can be such that it would keep the property values up then it would be an acceptable proposal to me where I neighbor this property with a couple large parcels. That is all I have. Borup: Any questions for Mr. Jones? Mr. Jones could you reiterate one more time on the path to your property and what your preference was, I am not sure J understood that. Jones: I think what they proposed is acceptable and that is they have allowed a way for the kids to get to school. I agree I will allow the way for the kids to get to school, but I have a hard time with right between my two lots, At this point the intention is for my parents to buy the home I live in and for me to build a new home next door. This pedestrian access would end up right between our two properties offset I guess 6 or 8 feet or so. We have not pinned that down exactly. I am a little nervous about giving up- Borup: Your preference would be between 23 and 24 then? Jones: I am willing to work with either, but! don't know that I am able to give up on either side because on my new home site that would be access to my potential shop or what not along that side. So, I am not sure I can give up any permanent access but will allow the kids to get to and from school. Borup: What is your number one choice at this point? Jones: I don't have one. Borup: Thank you. Anyone else? Bross: My name is Richard Bross again. They plan on putting a well for off season in there and that is going to be adjacent to my property. I all ready have a well there and I am wondering what is going to happen to my water. When the detailed plan comes out like this, we never get to see this type of thing. Borup: Any questions for Mr. Bross? How is your water now. Jones: Fine, I just don't want to lose what I've got. It is a situation that highway is going to go by and take some. Other people are going to come in. And like I say the density is going to be there and there is going to be kids. A Jot of problems with this. Borup: How deep is your shallow well now? Anyone else? Brian: Don Brian. 2070 N. Locust Grove Road. I live directly to the east of this project across Locust Grove Road. Meridian Planning ar. 20ning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 31 Borup: So it is your driveway that they are concerned about? Brian: Ada County. In speaking with Ada County, the way they have come up with their, as you are well aware, with their designated trips of a Subdivision with this type density generates. They have a formula that for each household generates 10 trips a day and each office development generates 11 to 12 trips per 1000 square feet. In visiting with the developer, this office building is a 3900 square foot office building so we are looking at 368 cars coming out of that driveway in one day. The traffic now is insane. That is my biggest problem out there right now. I have watched-I was out there when my closest neighbor was Dick across the street and one quarter mile down the road and I have watched all this development happen around me. I have tried to protect my interest. Right now Dick is trying to protect what he has. He wants to keep this quality of life that he has been accustomed to in the last 34 years and I know what I have lost and as the Subdivisions eat away at the agricultural ground and I hope he can save what he's got. In getting back to the conditional use permit, I am not comfortable with the office structure on what type of use, what hours are you going to keep, what traffic its going to generate, what kind of a berm are they going to have along Locust Grove Road or is there going to be traffic in and out at night and shining headlights right through my bedroom and living room window. Are they going to create some sort of a screen to keep that from happening. I also feel there is way to much density for the area and I wouldn't mind seeing a regular Subdivision likes what is around us with one single family housing and not smashed in there like duplexes or townhomes or whatever you want to call them. I will save the rest of my comments for later. Any questions. Borup: Thank you. Anyone else? Centers: My name is Jake Centers. 5923 Rose Point in Boise. I would actually be the contractor building 32 units as well as the office building up front. I plan to retain the ownership of and actually occupy one of the three spaces in it. As far as answering some of the questions concerning the buffering and type of hours that will be kept, the type tenants involved in it, as anybody knows with any kind of commercial leasing the value of your building is ascertained by the type of tenants you have in that building. As the owner of that building, J am going to make sure I have good quality tenants in there. Tenants I am hoping to attract is someone like a dentist or professional office space like that. Insurance agent or small real estate office, something to that effect and I am sure with yellow zone there is all kinds of regulations as far as the hours and all that type of thing. Kind of put your mind at ease as to what type of building it is going to be and the landscaping, being the owner of it I will make sure that I will protect my investment. I will do the best job I can building a top quality office building. Number one because I want to be in there and number two because I plan on retaining ownership of it. Any further questions. Brown: Mr. Centers, what kind of landscaping are you proposing along Locust Grove. Meridian Planning arl ~oning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 32 Centers: To be honest with you I have not had a chance to talk to Joe about that as far as the drainage requirements from the parking area. I think at our last conversation it was going to be a bermed area. I kind of like the Spruce tree kind of look so plan to buffer that with spruce trees and grass. If it is going to end up being a berm, and I think that it is so-whether it is a (inaudible) or a berm, it is going to have plantings in it, grass. There is not going to be rock or anything like that along the road. Norton: Mr. Centers is there any existing trees on the property at this point Centers: There are. As you can see by the photograph that was taken, most of those trees are diseased and kind of in the process of dying. I can't say for all of them. There use to be an existing home on this property that has been torn down] so those trees were planted around that home. Norton: Are you planning on taking out all those trees then? Centers: That decision I don't think has been made at this point. We will obviously try to retain any tree that we can. You just can]t buy those type of trees. Any tree that we can work around and fit into the development that is not diseased and dying, we will try to preserve. Borup: Any other questions? Thank you. Do we have anyone else. Danial: My name is Kim Oanial. I live at 2102 N. Zircon. I am in Gem Park. I am north of this project. My concern is my backyard would not back up to rather than one neighbor, I am going to have 3 to 4 divided up. The concerns of course of them later being rentals. So that and also traffic. We have the light at Chateau which I have to wait right now to turn and Carol, which is the Subdivision right before this, has a left turning lane into that Subdivision. I would ask that a left turning lane with the traffic light, this gentleman said your going to have 300 and some cars going in and out of this project. We need a left turning lane. The street Locust Grove is not wide enough for it. It also needs for right. They said they were going to have some type of easement. One thing I have a question about and I don't understand what the project this large and with the cars and traffic. We haven't developed all of Locust Grove yet and that is going to- Why can't you put the street through with the two culdesac so they have access of 2 ways out rather then one. You don't have it on the map but-right here. Why can't the street go through. Borup: We maybe get the applicant to answer that but my first impression is that it is off site property. Some one else owns it. This applicant doesn't control that. Oanial; I'm speaking for everybody that uses Locust Grove. We are going to have to- we stop at the light at Chateau, the people at Carol, the Subdivision before they have a left turn. Now we're going to have to stop for all of these cars going into this. Meridian Planning anl._oning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 33 Borup: Even though that's a small distance it would be about the same as saying why can't we run a road through to Zircon instead of there. Danial: You can run through. It's two culdesac. All is right there--~ Borup: There is a culdesac at the end of Zircon also. Danial: My house is there. What I am saying is to me it is like lets put the street through so they have 2 ways out. It will help the congestion on Locust Grove. Borup: I think we will ask the applicant that and see if they have discussed that with ACHD or with-- Anyone else like to come forward? Commissioner's, do you have any questIons. Anybody else you'd like to see up. We will have the applicant come up for a final comment. Applicant like to come forward. I don't know if you have any comments. [ think the Commissioner's maybe have a couple items to be clarified. Canning: Well, I made a list. I presume the Commissioner's are probably also making items to ask me about, so maybe I'll just open it up for questions. Barbeiro: Why don't you go on with your list. Canning: Okay, I can do that. There was a questions or comment regarding connecting the 2 culdesac. The development off to the left does not touch our property. There is about a 32 foot as I recall, strip of land between that culdesac and our property that is obviously not in our control. We really felt that contacting that neighbor to the immediate southwest of our property and he appears to be quite conducive, at least to the pedestrian path. We felt we were doing pretty good by going that far. The addition of the right of way through there also would require right of way dedication from the individual on the north side, kind of the northeast corner of that culdesac off to the west and we have indication that that party would probably not be interested in cooperating whatsoever. That is the problem. There is 32 feet of land over there that would not permit us to extend that road to connect off to the west. Borup: So you did contact the on neighbor personally, but not the other. Canning: I did not, correct. Perhaps the owners talked to both of them-the applicant itself. I have not. He did contact the individual just southwest of our property. Brown: Did the highway district speak to it at all about it as an option or- I know that they approved it as we see it now, but it was it even discussed. Canning: Well I am trying to remember. They added that or amended that one condition last Wednesday and I did not have a staff report prior to that meeting. The specific condition was that they requested that the culdesac be extended over to the west property line, as I recall. Of course I was unaware of that at the meeting so I got up, pulled it off consent and got up and asked why that way. The comment back from Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 34 the Commissioner's was for the bicycle pedestrian path, as I recall. I think that was the issue. They thought there might be an opportunity to make that connection at some point in the future and we are heading that way. Borup: You want to proceed with your list? Canning: I just want to point out that the highway district has scheduled Locust Grove widening project in 2001, so that plan is on the books. I think the plans are about 95 percent right now. They specifically requested us to hold off on any improvement out there other then the trust fund deposit for the sidewalk because of that impending construction. That should improve traffic situations out on Locust Grove considerable. There was a question on landscaping. You might of heard me over in the corner saying probably on berming. The only caution I have to forward at this point of time is that there probably will end up being a Nampa Meridian Irrigation District easement through that one common area that is on the extreme east side of the property. It has to do with that Jackson stub drain. I just have to be careful of what we can do in that easement area with the Nampa Meridian District as your probably well aware. One of the gentlemen talked about our irrigation well. We could have a note on the preliminary plat regarding a off season irrigation well. Depending what the Commissioner's does with the sidewalk extension to Locust Grove, which I am getting the impression that perhaps we will be doing, we will probably be lifting that facility up and will ( inaudible) on the north side of our entry road, rather then on the south side. I just don't want anywhere near that sidewalk area. There is another change we will probably be doing. I believe Mr. Jones talked about rear yard setbacks. He is correct. The setback variance we are requesting the rear yard is only for several lots along the north property line. It is not currently planned along any of the units on the south property line. It just has to do with pinched together-like I say just a little over half way back from the east side. The property converges rather than diverges, so there is just a few lots right in that area that would be impacted by that rear yard setback. We at least feel that is probably appropriate. Of course that is up to the Commissioner's to decide. The homes that are in Gem Park are considerable distance from that property line. There is a 50 foot easement area in the back of those lots along Gem park, so any of the structures are a considerable different distance from our property line. Mr. Jones also talked about the location of the pedestrian path to the south. I believe, as far as we're open to either location. We showed the one on that sketch that I passed out a little earlier. The main reason was we just happen to line up fairly well with the property line. You'll see some little dashes on my sketch to the south. Those approximately coincide with the property lines to the south. I believe we could possibly locate that at the other location. That was just the reason we located it there was quite coincidental with that property. I believe those were the main points. I would be more than happy to answer any other 1 may have missed. Borup: Any questions from the Commissioner's? The fence, the solid vynal is what is being proposed. Canning: That's correct. i Meridian Planning and ""'0ning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 35 Barbeiro: Can you tell me which lots will have a setback less than 15 feet. Canning: In the rear? Well, its in the area of 14 and 15 on the north side and it is probably 2 to 3 lots to the east. Borup: Mr. Canning. ['m sorry Tom. The site plan you have are those building foot prints fairly accurate? Canning: Yes they are. They are approximately located around the lots 14 and 15. Borup: That's why I asked that. 15 looks like it would probably be okay. Canning. Then of course off to the east, so it is perhaps 12 -might be able to scale that on the drawing. Right in there somewhere is where it starts. It increases fairly quickly. Borup: The dotted line on your plat is a 10 foot, is that correct. Canning: Right. Sorry, I should have pointed that out. Borup: It looks to be like 14,13 -13 is marginal-12, 10,8 and 6. Barbeiro: Yeah, really about 6 lots. Canning: That sounds about correct. Borup: The other option to not have a reduced setback would, I assume, would be smaller homes. Canning: Correct. Borup: Go to the two bedroom model rather than the 3 bedroom. Barbeiro: With regard to our discussion about the 5 foot shift to make a 20 foot setback at the office moving all of the (inaudible) properties. Did you address that? Canning: We could certainly do that. It was really set up to provide a little more screen back there then the minimum. Instead of the 20 feet, we suggested 25. If the Commission prefer that over in the open space, we can certainly do that. Borup: Any other Commissioner's. Do you have comment on which lots your preference are to turn into open space. Canning: Well, the pedestrian bicycle pathway. That is the obvious choice. I guess we'd like indications from the Commission. Obviously, our preference is not to add any Meridian Planning and '<""..Jning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 36 additional open spaces. If it had to come to that, we would prefer the ones on the north side. In particular the staff had talked earlier about the possibility -the one, I think it is number 17 -number 18 it is. Borup: The way I seem to read ordinance and staff comments, we need to add on for the bonus density. Canning: The way we read it it would be the pedestrian bicycle path that we are suggesting now. Borup: so your saying another one or two tenths of a per cent is enough to- Canning: Not necessarily. I am not saying that. Borup: Oh, I'm sorry. The pathway itself. Canning: No, the additional percentage is very small. Borup: Any other questions? Okay, thank you Mr. Canning. Mr. Brown. Brown: If you did that you would have a single detached patio home, correct. Zero lot line. Canning: Zero lot line. We discussed that with the applicant and apparently that is possible with the floor plan. That is a possibility. Borup: Or, you could prevent that from happening by doing both lots. Canning: Your correct. Borup: Thank you. Commissioner's. Hatcher: I recommend that we close the public hearing. Barbeiro: I will second the motion. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Would you like to have some discussion before we formulate a recommendation. Barbeiro: Going though the way the developer has laid this out, he has followed the letter of the law and has done what I see to be the absolute minimums to make his development work. When I see the 4250 square foot minimum for a duplex and then , Meridian Planning and .<....Jning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 37 taking a little bit less than 25 percent off that, it was never my belief that it was the intent of the law to reduce the size that sufficiently any two family dwelling lot. That, in combination with his bare minimum of 10 per cent in bonus area, again it is squeezing an R-8 into a two family dwelling and then taking about 23 percent off of that, then squeezing the bare minimum of 10 per cent into this PUD and again, while it is to the letter of the law I don't believe this was the way the spirit of the law was designed. With the plan the way that it is right now, it does not appeal to me. Borup: So what recommendation would you make? Barbeiro: I would not recommend- Borup: I mean as far as changing the design that would be more appealing to you. Or is that something you want to get into. Barbeiro: I would like to hear comments from the other Commissioner's first. Hatcher: I would have to disagree with Commissioner Barbeiro. The applicant or the application is not to the letter of the law, but all in all what has been proposed is workable. The density of this project in the location that it is at, in my opinion, is higher than it should be. END OF SIDE THREE Hatcher: I am not opposed to a PUD. I am not opposed to a townhouse. We have a R- 8 county Subdivision to the south of it which could, at this point of time, a single family residence and over the course of several months, Doris Subdivision has been told over and over and over that they are going to change into commercial. Well, that is not this Commissioner or anyone else's crystal ball. They can do what they want when they want. As it stands right not, it is a single family Subdivision. East, west and south and north of this is other Subdivision lots. I think it is all going to work. What I would recommend the applicant do is the square footage of the lots are based upon a PUD - let me back up. Without putting words in the applicants mouth, the proposed size of the lots is probably the main reason for a PUD request. Going under a standard R-8 townhouse requirements, puts him up to 4250. I myself would prefer to see 4250 lot sizes. I do not know exactly-probably take the 30 lots and take it down to 26 and they will lose a couple townhouses by doing that. I think it is a fair market assessment without doing any of the demographics or any of that type of stuff, I think the density can be reduced. I am in support of the staff's recommendations that at minimum, lot 18 be added to a common area of lot 19 and [ would highly suggest that 17 go as well. I am not in favor of taking lot 1, which is a landscape buffer and classifying it as a common area. As many of you know, no kid that lives in any of those townhouses is going to play in lot 1. It is a landscape (inaudible). That is all it is. As far as the sidewalk on the south side of the entry, my recommendation I think would be different than what has been brought up so far. I'd push that sidewalk all the way up against the property line, put in a 5 foot sidewalk and not put any landscaping at all in there. Two reasons, one if i i Meridian Planning and.:...,-,ning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 38 you put in a 2 foot landscape strip it is just going to become a trash collector and your not going to get any plants to grow in two feet. Second is if the property to the south that fronts Locust Grove does decide to develop into commercial in some time of the future, then the road has all ready been placed as dose to that property as possible, also giving the applicant the maximum square footage for his commercial building. Borup: Your saying widen the sidewalk to 7 feet. Hatcher: No. Five foot and just put it right against the property line and add the footage over to the commercial lot. (Inaudible discussion with Commissioner Brown). So your going to have a trash collector anyways? Borup: Or, or you could still put a seven foot sidewalk in there. Hatcher: I just don't think two foot of landscape is going to do anything there. Borup: A real maintenance headache. Brown: The reason the sidewalk is 2 feet is that it is highway district right of way and if they've got to go in and replace the sidewalks, they've got room to do that without bothering the neighbor to the south and interfering with his property. Hatcher: The last two things that I had was that I would concur with the applicant that the irrigation well be relocated off of the property line as currently shown and that the current 5 feet extra behind the office basically the northern lot should be adjusted and get that additional square footage into the common area. That's what I had. Brown: My concern is with Mr. Jones offering a temporary access that if this gets dedicated as a lot within the Subdivision and Mr. Jones changes his mind, we have a pedestrian pathway going nowhere. We are either going to have a pathway or we are not. I think that a requirement needs to be there that that is going to be permanent and that it is going to be there or we don't provide one. I think the applicants tried to do this from comments Mr. Jones made during the annexation request, but to put a stipulation that if he chooses to make it go away later, that to me is not acceptable. I've seem pathways around in different subdivisions go in and then not ever be stubbed. They are just a trash collector. I think that the applicant should be either able to get that agreement or that connection and requirement not be required. I definitely think that the connection should be -if he can get that connection to the west, that that should happen that will benefit that development. I would think that Mr. Jones and Mr. Centers could work on some kind of agreement that could provide a permanent access if that's truly the wishes that provide that access to Doris Subdivision. Borup: Mr. Brown, are you familiar with any walkways being approved with option of vacating the easement in the future date if it did not go? Oh yeah, I guess we had one last month didn't we. Which would be the other option if the access was denied. Do you have anything that you would like to add Sally. Okay, well we have a lot of things ; Meridian Planning and L.uning Commission February 8] 2000 Page 39 mentioned and not all the same comments from each Commissioner. How we going to compile that into a motion. Maybe we ought to start. I think obviously we can start with the staff comments and then any modifications or additions to that. We will give the Commissioner's a few minutes to get their thoughts together. Are you trying to combine your two recommendations into one with out conflicts. Commissioner's are we getting close. Do we want a break or - Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, for your discussion outside of a meaty proposal] what we would like to see and would like to get Brad's comments on this also, we would like to see 20 feet between each building which would get ten foot to the lot line which would reduce the minimum lot sized down to about 4000 square feet instead of the 3375. Borup: So you want to increase the set back? Barbeiro: The distance between the buildings which is currently set at 5 feet. Ten feet between the buildings and 5 foot off the lot line. Hatcher: Without changing the design of the buildings the way they are currently proposed, instead of having 10 feet between the buildings you increase that to 20 feet which will help you reduce the density and will help increase the open area and will increase the lot size overall. Barbeiro: We concur with the staff and would like to see them include the additional five feet off the office space and (inaudible) 20 foot setback. Would like the developer to work specifically with the neighbors to the south as to where they would put the access for the children to go to school. We'd like to see the sidewalk entering Locust Grove go to 7 feet all across there. We'd like him to consider relocating the well on the southeast portion so as not to interfere with the neighbor. Borup: I think the applicant said if the sidewalk went there they would like to move the well to the north of the property. Barbeiro: Okay, then there would not be a concern. By adding the 10 feet between or from the lot line to the building, adding 20 feet between each of the buildings] that would add 10 feet to lot 36 open space. It would add 15 feet to lot 19 open space and apart from the loss of 4 properties, that would allow him to be within the -well within the 10 percent minimum open space. Borup: Those restrictions-I was just thinking about the 10 foot setback. With those restrictions, they could go to detached housing with a normal 5 foot setback in the same lot size that you are proposing. Isn't that correct? Your asking for 10 foot setback on each lot, then you could go to detached housing with the present normal setback. It would accomplish the same thing on those size lots. Barbeiro: What is the required setback now? Meridian Planning and '("..Jning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 40 Borup: Five. Barbeiro: It is 5 feet. Okay Hatcher: But it also (inaudible-away from the mic) Borup: Then you said you had a question on what-my comment on-just on these. Barbeiro: Yes, your thoughts on that. If it were single family housing, that would allow him to then go back and he could redesign the entire item based upon my recommendation. Borup: I agree with everything you got there. The only one I question is that Item number 1. The 20 foot between buildings. It seems like defeating a lot of what they are trying to do here. Maybe that was your intention. I don't know. Barbeiro: Well I find that taking 25 percent off of the 4250 square foot for a 2 family dwelling again is the letter of the law. I don't think anybody ever intended for a PUD to come in and take 25 percent off of the 4250 square foot for a 2 family housing. Borup: No, it would be double that. You have a comment from staff over here? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to point out that if your looking at single family detached, 1000 square foot minimum is what you'd have for a minimum on the structures. It is going to be kind of hard to fit a 1000 square foot on that narrow of a lot in a single story. If you have to start going up, the setback requirements is 5 foot per story, so you are looking at a 10 foot setback if you go to a two story structure. Borup: (Inaudible) another 10 feet on the lot with wouldn't comply with the other. Barbeiro: The primary purpose is, I believe, that having lots that are a minimum 3375 square feet is very, very cramped and I do not approve of that even though it does again fall within the letter of the law. I don't believe that was ever the intent of the law. (inaudible) pretty confident if I follow through with this recommendation it would not be passed this evening. I don't know that we can-can we make a requirement of somebody, because that requirement is above and beyond what the minimum (inaudible) setback on our ordinance. Borup: But it is a PUD. Barbeiro: Part of a PUD we could make that recommendation. Borup: Well, it is also a conditional use. Probably the conditional use part would be what would allow that. That correct Brad, or either one. Meridian Planning and L....iling Commission February 8, 2000 Page 41 Hawkins Clark: That would be correct. As far as it being a planned unit development I think if you've got conditions you want to place on those setbacks, that could happen. It is getting down to the point where your sort of redesigning the site in detail. I don't know if that is the time or place for it. Borup: Could you clarify the square footage. 4250 square feet. Hawkins Clark: Yeah, that's per development unit. Per dwelling unit, I'm sorry, for a duplex. Our ordinance is a I little bit wishy washy when it comes to townhouse. It really could be argued frankly both ways on this to use a dwelling unit. To use the duplex, 4250, is a minimum lot area. Technically a townhouse is a single family attached home, not a duplex. Borup: So all purpose of the structure of the building is the same. Hawkins Clark: Right, but and that's where they get the 4250 and it is acutally 21 percent reduction, I think is was mentioned earlier as 3500 or something. To answer the question about the setbacks at least my understanding of it and maybe the City Attorney can speak to it, if you have the option to require that and make it a condition, I think it would maybe be a little bit questionable if they could make it work, even so. Borup: Do you want me to ask the intention of the 20 feet between the homes, is that open space, you said. Barbeiro: No that would not be open space. The 20 feet between the homes was going back to the idea that the minimum for two family dwelling is 4250 and the developer is asking for a 21 percent reduction of that. I don't believe the intent when this was written was that there would ever be a reduction in that 4250 as part of a PUD. Borup: Well, not as part of a PUD. That was part of the bonus density. That is why they added the open space and the walking path. That was-those two items were for the bonus density. Barbeiro: J understand that. Borup: Ten percent of those parks was for the PUD. Asking for the bonus density was that percentage over 10 percent. That's why I ask if your trying to gain some more open space, you say that is not the intention. Barbeiro: I am trying to cut down the density on the site. Borup: Then you don't need to specify the distance between homes. Just cut down the density if that is what you are trying to do. Barbeiro: Thank you. ( Meridian Planning and LUlling Commission February 8, 2000 Page 42 Borup: Which would give them more flexibility on home design to (inaudible) 5 foot setback. You may want to have a design and have larger backyards or-I am not sure what your intent was. What kind of density are you leaning toward. Barbeiro: I'm embarrassed because I am so befuddled with my own words, I've lot track. Borup: Right now the lot area are 3275 on up per dwelling unit lot. That is the smallest one in there and then they go up in size. I don't think we have a breakdown on this plat. It looks like 12 and 13 are the two smallest lots and they all go up from that. Barbeiro: I would like to recommend that we approve to City Council Item number 5, request for conditional use permit for proposed office building and town homes in an LO and R-8 zone, 5 acres by Centers Construction with staff recommendations and would the further remainder of this to Item 6 the remainder of my recommendation. Brown: After all of that? Borup: How about your other- Barbeiro: We'd like to move the property line 5 feet at the (inaudible) for a 20 foot minimum setback as per the staffs request, a sidewalk to the south lot line to Locust Grove to 7 foot. The developer appears to be willing to relocate the well away from neighbors and that the developer prepare or work with neighbors to the south, Mr. Jones, on access thru his property. Included in the request is again the staff comments that additional open space be included which ever the lot that-either lot 17 and 18 or lot 34 and 35 (two lots). Brown: Would you be will to make that permanent pedestrian access to the south. Barbeiro: I would prefer it be a permanent access to the south. That would be a fine idea and I wish to amend my - Borup: How can we control that? Brown: That is the applicant is not able to provide evidence that a permanent access is provided that the access be removed. Borup: So that would be an agreement with Mr. Jones. Okay. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: 3 AYES 1 NAY ( Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 43 6. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FORgREbIMINAR,Y;:PIiAcr, FOR PROPOSED WESLEY; SUBDIVISION F()f3?~rg0Z~8g,Q8g.hOTS AND ONE OFFICE LOT ON 5.029 ACRES BY!~ENmERSCQN$TROCorI0N-WEST SIDE OF LOCUST GROVE X MILE NOR'TROF FAIR\!JEW AVENUE: Borup: J'd like to open this public hearing. Mr. Clark any additional comments. Hawkins Clark: No additional comments. Borup: Mr. Canning, would you like to come forward I assume and- Canning: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission my name is Joe Canning. I am here tonight representing the applicant regarding the preliminary plat for Wesley Subdivision and I think I have my directions. Any questions. Borup: It sounds like we changed you preliminary plat a little bit. Or at least at this point. Questions? Anyone from the public want to comment on the preliminary plat. Jones: Jay Jones, 1426 N. Carol. Commissioner's my full intent is to allow access for pedestrian use. The problem I have is my lot is 155 feet deep. I am not sure what the requirements are on access but that is giving up a lot of usable land. I have a problem with that being dedicated or in some way restricting. My use of the property, my full intent is for the children to have access. I would argue I suppose with Mr. Brown that my intent is to leave it open, but I really have a hard time in any legal requirement on having that a full access at all times. I just as soon it be closed at night and I just as soon it be used for children access to school. Therefore, that's the request of the gate and no permanent dedication of that property. Borup: Was it your intention to fence it? Jones: Not on my side of the property, no. Borup: So kids will just be wandering through your yard. Jones: School kids that go to and from twice a day. The only way it would work is if [ could put it on the west end of the property and I am not sure how that lines up with the lots for Mr. Centers. Usage. And then I am still concerned because that is taking away drive access to a side entrance garage or shop that I have on that property. Borup: Well, you assuming that you'd bring the path continue in a straight line. Jones: Right. Borup: There is a lot of walk paths in this town where they have jogged over. Jones: Well, that is a possibility. { 1. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 44 Borup: At the property line-that is an option if the west end is still (inaudible) access to your corner. Jones: What is the minimum width on a pedestrian access I suppose. Is there such? Borup: Is it 10 feet Brad. Off site I don't know that-on your property-I don't know that you need 10 feet on your property. Jones: My intent is to leave it open for the kids, but I don't see how I can give up access to that piece of property. Borup: Any clarification on that Mr. Brown? I don't think you were asking for a deeded access but- Brown: My concern is and from my personal experience is seeing pedestrian pathways go in that go nowhere. Without having a permanent access, you have an access that has the potential of going away as someone gets hurt feelings in the future and says your not crossing my property anymore. That is the problem. If it is located near one of your property lines your building setbacks don't allow for anything to be constructed there anyway. Jones: Well, there is no fence and what not, but I would still like to have a gate there at night for privacy. I actually would like it to be for access to and from the elementary school and if restrictions can be made accordingly then I am fine with it. Brown: Last months hearing we had one and the kids were the ones that were the problem. They were vandalizing the property on either side as they went through. They , were the biggest problem and they are the kids from this school. That is the problem that I see is that we put the condition on the developer to put this pathway in and the improvements go in and the space gets provided and then for what ever reason someone gets hurt feelings and the access is cut off. Then we having them come back before us -we need to vacate this because it is just a weed path because the access went away. When it is a great purpose and I think it is a great thing for you to be willing to provide this so that kids have a safe route for school. It is a great thing that you are willing to do. My concern is that it is not going to be permanent. Jones: Can it be permanent with restrictions? Brown: What kind of restrictions? Jones: Well you got school hours or comparable to their access to and from school. Hatcher: I think it is wonderful that we've got an existing land owner willing to work with the developer and be able to come to some sort of agreement. I don't think it is this boards intent to mandate some existing conditions just as easily as this fine gentlemen Meridian Planning and 26. ..19 Commission February 8, 2000 Page 45 wouldn't or doesn't even have to be here talking to us. J think that the developer and him can work it out. If there is a stub to nowhere, there is a stub to nowhere and if it was an undeveloped piece of lot that's what we'd have. We don't have that. We have a land owner here willing to let the children cross his property. Until his property is developed in some other way where we can require a dedicated pathway attaching to the developers pathway, then I think we let the developer and private land owner work this issue out. I don't think it is our problem to solve, Borup: Okay. Anyone else? Hawkins Clark: Mr. Chairman. Earlier it was brought up the possibility for to be an easement and I don't know that that has been addressed. So, as compared to an actual separate lot in the Subdivision, it would be an easement and that that would be much more easy to vacate in the future. You would actually have an easement across your property, but it would be public and it would be permanent, but if you start having problems, one option as was pointed out last month, they can come and submit to vacate that easement If it is done as a lot, it is actually are-Subdivision. Borup: Yours talking about Mr. Jones property or on the Subdivision? Hawkins Clark: Well, both. Obviously if you have an easement on one you do an easement on the other. Borup: I have the impression-I don't think there was ever any intention of an easement - Brown: I would imagine that that's how you would accomplish that is Mr. Jones is granting an easement for pedestrians to walk across his property and - Borup: It would be that rather then just a !egal agreement. Jones: J think either one would work but I still rather close it at 9. Borup: With a lock? Jones: With a gate there that if there was a problem at night, I could lock it and open it in the morning. I have a nice home right now and plan to build an even nicer home. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman I did just want to bring up the fact the previous conversations that I have had with the applicant and Mr. Jones, this pedestrian pathway is also going to serve a dual purpose and that is to get sewer service to Mr. Jones property. We need to-and that would be a private sewer line totally under his ownership and maintenance responsibilities. That is part of the intent as well. Borup: What is the required easement? ( Meridian Planning and Zo, ,d1g Commission February 8, 2000 Page 46 Freckleton: We don't have-10 would be a recommended width, but it is totally private. Once it leaves our main, it leaves our jurisdiction. It is between Mr. Jones and Mr. Centers. Jones: And that would be wide between the lots 27 and 28 is more acceptable for sewer access, where between lots 23 and 24 would have to grant an additional sewer to across the western property that I own to the eastern property. Borup: Is there enough grade to do that? Jones: I believe so but (inaudible) system right now that it wouldn't matter. Borup: Anything additional? Thank you. Anyone else comment on the plat? Seeing none does the applicant have a final comment. Any questions from the Commissioner's? Guess we are moving along a little better. The hearing is still open. Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the public hearing. Hatcher: Second. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Okay, did that solve anything? I think any comments on the plat you have all ready handled in the previous on the conditional use permit and the walking path was also handled unless we are looking at any additional modification of that part. Brown: Mr. Chairman. The only reason, and I think J stated it, that I have had poor experiences with non permit easements or micro paths or pathways not going somewhere permanently and that is why I requested on the conditional use permit that they make that. I understand Mr. Jones concern. I am not opposed to the agreement that they come up with having some kind of restrictions on that. Realistically I think there is some exceptions here. There are people that have lived on their property for a number of years, but as a general rule people move and someone else has the property and therefore I just think it is necessary that it be permanent. That is why I made that recommendation. As you understand, we make recommendations to the Council and the Council can change those. This board is just recommending to the City Council. Borup: I can see what you are saying there. I can see some aspects of this may be different then a lot of other situations though. Subdivisions are a little bit more dissimilar then what you normally have the paths between if your looking for a pedestrian thing. The pathway to the west is probably real important but that has not been part of this discussion and I think the only reason it came up was to allow as a convenience for the Subdivision. Sally, are you going to comment. Meridian Planning and Zorllng Commission February 8, 2000 Page 47 Norton: Mr. Chairman, for the record I abstained from voting at the last vote. J did not vote. I think there is a real concern here regarding density and I think part of it is my newness. I did not understand. J thought we were voting on the density of this vote. I think it is too dense for my liking. I think we have a wonderful neighbor who is allowing children to access. I can understand Commissioner Brown's comments regarding it permanent but I hesitate to go that way. Just so the Commission understands where I am coming from. I think it is too dense at this point. Borup: Thank you. Any other Commissioner's have any comments before I assume someone make a motion. Brown: Mr. Chairman I move approval of Item 6 the request for preliminary plat for the proposed Wesley Subdivision for 30 townhouse lots and one office lot on 5.029 acres by Centers Construction subject to staff recommendations and comments. Barbeiro: Second the motion. Any discussion. The motion did reflect the previous motion on converting two lots to the open space park area. I assume everyone noticed that. Commissioner Brown changed 32 to 30. Okay, we have a motion, all in favor. MOTION CARRIED: 2 AYES, 1 ABSTAIN, 1 NAY Borup: Question for the attorney. Do we need 3 votes or just a majority of those voting? Swartley: Mr. Chairman, a majority. You just approved it. Borup: Well we don't have a majority of the Commission. That is why I asked. We had 2 aye votes. END OF SIDE FIVE Borup: Thank you. That is concluded. The recommendation will go on the City Council. For anyone here, there is another public hearing at City Council where essentially the same process will be repeated. 7. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WOODBRIDGE SUBDIVISION-164 LOTS ON 50.9 ACRES BY WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY, LLC-EAST SIDE OF SOUTH LOCUST GROVE % MILE SOUTH OF FRANKLIN ROAD: Borup: I'd like to open the public hearing on this item and begin with staff comments. Hawkins Clark: Commissioner's, this project, as you know, has gone through the process of annexation and zoning and conditional use permit for PUD conceptual. They are now coming through for a preliminary plat and on the screen is phase one, which is the west side of the five mile there which does conform to the conditional use permit,