Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWoodbridge AZ Minutes :,~t .Ii< ;~, .{ . : "\I Meridian Planning an October 12, 1999 Page 66 :: xx:::: iI:< ~.:. ...t .~ .. ,Jng Co~ssion Meeting ";[r.:~ . . +.~ ::..h.' Berg: It's not annexed yet. Rutherford: That's why it seems just a little bit odd to me, but- ~ Stiles: If they're existing commercial or old town or industrial, then we don't require that second public hearing, but if it's part of an annexation and zoning, we have been requiring the second public hearing. Rutherford: So we wouldn't have Facts and Findings. Borup: Right. No Facts and Findings? So the motion was as originally stated. Rutherford: Originally stated. Borup: Okay. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES AD Borup: We're here for the entertainment item for the evening. Item No. 13, public hearing: annexation and zoning of Parcel A from R-T to single-family residential and Parcel B from single-family residential to limited office by Woodbridge Communities, LLC. Staff, do we have, is it, Brad? .:..: Freckleton: Good guess. Commissioners, I would like to request just to incorporate, I'll just rUQ through the staff for both the annexation and the conditional use. As pointed out in the staff report, which I would request be included in your recommendation date October a, but as we pointed out, there are actually two parcels associated with this annexation. The smaller one-acre on the west side of Locust Grove, this is south Locust Grove right here, recently approved Cobblestone Apartment Complex here on the southwest corner. You have bounded on this one-acre piece, you have existing ,_ rural-residential type, y_ou have agricultural use on the south, and the Jabill Company is building right here, some other residential here, Ada County residential subdivisions bound the aD-acre piece on all three sides here. The staff has pointed out due request that you deal with this. They requested an L-O zone for this one-acre piece, and, again, the primary purpose being in the application is to make.,the aD-acre parcel contiguous to the city limits. This is the proposed conceptual layout plan for the aD-acre parcel. They did submit it in color. You should all have those in your packets. Apologies for the quality here, but I think, as pointed out, again, here is Locust Grove Road and they have one primary access here. You should also have received a fuller supplementary packet L "iii." ,~:-.; "" i!! ,. ,; Meridian Planning anOning Comlp;ission Meeting October 12, 1999 " Page 67 c from the applicant, and in that they did include somemore detail which deals with the proposed roadway system internal to the project. That would probably be the primary issue. There's also a letter from Ada County Highway District, Larry Sale, who was - which was submitted today. You should have had on your desk when you came dated today to Chairman Keith Borup. The primary thing I would point out there is that Ada County Highway District has not yet acted on the application, but they have not recommended a full nature-collector roadway. They are recommending the residential collector, and that would be this primary road here that comes through the project. One of the primary differences, things that the staff has recommended in our report, of course, relates, and again, I would point out this is all related to the conditional use permit which is conceptual only. A lot of this tonight, in terms of the roadway system, the design of the lots, would be covered in a preliminary plat which would have to be submitted in order to actually move forward with this. I guess, just pointed that out in terms of tonight's discussion being related to the conceptual plan and specifically the PUD aspect of it: requesting these, let's see, one, two, three, four, I guess six general areas that they could actually have four different types broken down in terms of housing types and lot sizes which you also have in your packets. On the road issue, staff do feel that this location down here, and the applicant can address it further, but the Magic View Subdivision, which is right here on the east, Eagle Road is just off this map, runs north and south here, this is currently being built Eagle Partners site here which does have a roadway connect. There's a light here which they're going to bring that road and come down and head south with it. I guess it's off the map here, but - the con activity for this subdivision, when you talk about 280 I believe homes coming across at a further northerly point in their subdivision, we feel, would be a more direct access to cut across here. They currently show it on the south which would hook up with Magic View which is currently primarily five- to seven-acre parcels. Mainly for the audience, there's some elevations of the proposed housing types that they have submitted. The applicant did respond in writing October 11 to our staff comments, and they can address those further. The other major issue on the accessibility is here on this access point here which is Weatherby Drive to the north which is being proposed as a pedestrian access and there is currently a stub street coming down to the boundary, to the north boundary of this proposed subdivision. It's not constructed - it's platted. I'm sorry. It's a platted stub. It's not built. Both ACHD and staff at this point are recommending in order to get that accessibility and activity through to make that a vehicular access. This Phase I is basically divided at this point along Five Mile, and that is a point of discussion tonight, took, in terms of the number of houses to be built in Phase I. Currently, this is sh<;>wing, I be~eve, about 150 in Phase I. I guess I'll just leave it at that for the applicant. " Borup: Any questions for Brad from the Commission? Probably go on? Is the applicant here this evening? Like to come forward? Brown: Mr. Chairman. O! Borup: Commissioner Brown. ;; ., i~4: '" To( ~~ 00: Meridian Planning an~ning comm"ission Meeting October 12, 1999 Page 68 . e~ Brown: I should state that I am a resident of the Green Hill Subdivision, but I'm a half mile away from the closest point on this development, and it should not be a conflict of interest. Borup: You were not notified, I take it? Brown: No. ..~ IC Borup: Okay. Thank you. Brown: Would the applicant like to come forward? Pete O'Niell: Chairman and Commissioners, my name's Pete O'Niell. I'm President of O'Niell Enterprises, the managing member of Woodbridge, LLC. Our address is 100 North 9th Street, Boise, Idaho. I'd first like to introduce our team, some of which are here. First, from O'Niell Enterprises, myself, my son Derek and Scott Beacham, our land planner is Tony Gazardo of Anthony Gazardo and Associates in San Francisco. He is not here. Our engineer is Toothman-Orton is represented by Barry Simple here tonight. Our traffic engineer is Centennial Engineering, Kent Fugle has done the work on that, and there's full-blown traffic study that's been submitted to ACHD. Scanlan Engineering has done the water rights and irrigation work represented by Terry Scanlan. Our legal advisor is Givens Pursley, Ed Millers works with us and his associate Gary Alan is here tonight, and (inaudible) is final member of the team and their architects and planners out of Seattle. I gue~ I'd like to start by commenting that we've been working on one phase or another of the planning of this project for in excess of a year. The Planning Department and Public Works Department have been involved to one degree or another for most of that time. There's been a tremendous amount of meetings and data transpired over that-time, and I'd like to thank the staff for their patience in working through all of those issues with us recognizing that this is not a normal project for the City of Meridian in their normal day-to-day activities. I would like to point out, however, that the formal submittal format requirement and the base application which is required for a conditional use permit and a PUD was submitted in late August, and that really doesn't adequately allow for the depiction and explanation of a proposal such as we're proposing, ~o, consequently, having reviewed the staff report that we received on Friday afternoon, last Friday afternoon, it became clear to us that in order for the Commission to properly consider this proposal, you really need is more information, so we did hand-deliver to you yesterday a cover letter and some information that either you got individually or in your packet. I want to add that there's nothing in this thatpasn't previously been discussed in some depth with staff. There's no new information here. It's just put into a format that hopefully you can understand because, frankly, the formal application process doesn't allow for this other than as a supplement. I'd also point out that the staff did acknowledge that we did respond in writing to the staff report, again, having received it on Friday and delivered or response today, and that dealt with some very specific issues, again, which you have in your package which we'd be happy to react to but don't want to take your time at this hour to <<. ,11 i'. " ~ ~l! Meridian Planning an~~~ng Commission Meeting October 12, 1999 Page 69 ", o >'! re-read. So I apologize in advance for any confusion that may have caused you or the audience or anybody else. I'd like to take a few minutes to tell you who we area and what we do. I started in this business 20 years ago. I was only 15 when I started. Our first project was a 125-acre planned-unit development in southeast Boise for 700 units which became known as River Run. On the completion of River Run, we've also created the communities of Spring Meadow, the Springs, Meadow Creek and Surprise Valley here in Boise or in Ada County area, and we've done Lane Ranch and Sun Valley and Spring Mountain Ranch in McCall. We've got a little handout for you here that Scott can give you that has some of the propaganda on these projects in it so you get some sense, in case you're not familiar with what they are, some sense of the character of the projects and what they are. All of those projects are unique to themselves because of the land configuration or the location or the market conditions at the time. But they all have some very common elements that I will not reiterate at this time, again, in difference to the hours that you've already put in and the other members of the audience have put in, but they were covered in the letter and packet that you got; there are certain things that we try to achieve in our communities that are common throughout, and you'll note in reviewing the application for Woodbridge that there's a number of these common elements that you'll see used again that have""been successfully used elsewhere, there's a number of the design solutions that you'll see in Woodbridge that have been used before. So that's kind of what we do as a developer. We've always felt since we began the business that the home-buying consumer is our customer; so consequently, we don't view ourselves as a subdivider who sells lots to a builder who sells homes to a home-buying consumer. We view the home-buying consumer as our customer and design our projects accordingly, and consequently found ourselves in the building business because we're always thinking there's some product out there that consumers would like to have and maybe others aren't supplying it, so we said, by golly, we'll do that. We've been a builder. Our home-building operations is called OEI homes, and from the beginning, we built about half of the 645 units in River Run, so we've been doing this awhile. We also feel that the marketing and sales representation of any community is vitally important, so we have our own brokerage and on-site sales organization that goes under the name of OEI Properties. And one of the bigger nemesis is that you don't come into contact with too often is the management of communities and the Homeowners Associations that are created witlilin those, and that becomes a real challenge to do that and to do that well, and we found it necessary to be in that business as well, so we have a company called Residential Community Management Group that actually manages Homeowners Associations, and, frankly, we do our own. We're not real excited about doing - making that a bigger business than what it really is. Clearly, we're an integrated residential real estate developer, builder, sales and marketer, and association manager. I want to spend a minute talking about planned-unit developments and the planned-unit development process. All of those projects that I mentioned that we have done have all gone through the planned-unit development process. That's why I've aged 45 years in the 20 years we've been in business. It is a more difficult process than the subdivision process. But let me read you from your Comprehensive Plan what the City of Meridian says about PUDs. PUD regulations are intended to encourage innovations in land development (.1: ,; '" , I Meridian Planning anJlning Commission Meeting October 12, 1999 Page 70 . 0>: ~) techniques so that the growing demands of the community may be met with greater flexibility and variety in type, design and layout of sites and buildings and by the conservation and more efficient use of open space and other natural environmental features which enhance the quality of life. That sounds a lot like our mission statement. That is a good statement, we think. That's all we've done for 20 years, and that's the only business we're in. So, we feel really quite passionately about this whole PUD process. The City of Meridian's development and zoning ordinance also encourages the uses of PUDs, although, they're not common in the City of Meridian. TheY're not common in the Treasure Valley. Reference 8, specific key advantages of PUDs and we meet most of those and the other ones aren't really intended for what it is we're doing. So I would hasten to add, however, that the - if the PUDs are so neat, how come you don't see more of them? I've got my opinions on that. I think they're much more difficult for the developer; they're clearly more difficult for the staff; they're more difficult for Planning and Zoning Commission; they're more difficult for City Councils to deal with. think that's for two reasons. One is here in the Treasure Valley, we're not used to dealing with them so for every PUD that comes - residential PUD that comes along, there's probably, and I don't know the statistics, there's probably 1,000 Lot/Block subdivisions. Lot/Block subdivisions by their very nature are a creature of ordinancep: They either meet the requirements of an ordinance or they don't. It's really quite an object of decision that you have to make on the Lot/Block subdivisions. The PUD, on the other hand, by its very nature is a judgmental issue. We're asked to vary setbacks; we're asked to vary lot sizes; we're asked to do things differently in turn for more open space, more amenities and so forth, so by the very nature, they are subjective in character, and consequently, lend themselves to more debate and more, argument and in the end, it's a judgmental decision. We think they clearly take more work, they take more time, they take more planning, they're more expensive for us to prepare, it takes more of your time and your staff's time; on the other hand, we think the end result is worth that effort, and that's why that's our business. In any event, we're delighted to have found a piece of property in the - close to the City of Meridian that lends itself to this process and our approach to this business. We are happy to be working with you land the City of Meridian to bring Woodbridge to fruition, and we are confident that we'll be able to proceed with Woodbridge and create a community which both the City of Meridian and OEI can take pride. Let me pause for one second before turning it over to Derek. I want to back up and, I think, go over kind of concisely what you're being asked to do tonight. There is a request for annexation and zoning of Parcel A which is one- and-a-half acres on the little yellow thing on the - west side B - did I - I screwed it up again. Okay. Parcel B, which is one-and-a-half acres on the west side of Locust Grove, and, frankly, that's a path for annexation. While the 80 acres is more or less I surrounded by the CitY' of Meridian, there's nothing contiguous. The acquisition of this property and its annexation and zone will allow the 80 acres to be annexed to the City of Meridian. That's really our focus. The second that you're asked to consider is the annexation and zone of Parcel A which is slightly more than 80 acres as an R-4 zone. Thirdly you're being asked to approve or recommend the approval of the conditional use request for a planned:J.mit development that's composed of a maximum of 283 home sites on the 80 acres. I'd also add that, particularly having witnessed some of the ;;; .. ~ ~ Meridian Planning andOning Commission Meeting October 12, 1999 Page 71 ~ ~~ li' III earlier discussion this evening, that because of the complexity of the CU process as it relates to a planned-unit development, typically, they're accompanied by, and staff recognizes this, that they're accompanied by a development agreement which incorporates all of the obligations of the developer and all of the commitments of the City that becomes part of the final approval. That is something only the City Council can do, so I think there's a lot of work ahead of us to work with the staff and the legal representation to craft a development agreement that incorporates the needs and desires of the City and ourselves. That typically does not happen in a forum like this. Subject to a public review and public hearing, but it's crafted as a separate document that would be available later in the process. So I just point that out that there's an awful lot of details that need to be specifically worded. With that, I'll turn it over to Derek who's been in this business six years, and he started the Surprise Valley entitlement process five years ago when he was only 15, so he'll - he's aged a few years in those five. You'll take it from here. Again, I thank you for your consideration (inaudible). ~ Derek O'Niell: Chairman, members of the Commission, my name is Derek O'Niell, 100 North 9th, Suite 300. ;'; *** End of Tape 5 *** go through quickly our concept plan and orient you with our site and what we're planning to do with the site. Scott will help me and we'll try to get oriented. My presentation is intended to hit the highlights of our proposal. There are substantial l; detail and backup information provided. If-you have any questions, we're happy to get ilJto it, but I'm trying to hit the highlights of our proposal tonight. To begin with, I want to start with location and existing conditions. They were reviewed briefly. I want to hit a couple of things on the vicinity map. Location. Woodbridge and the site is one mile from several key employers to the City oNt1eridian including Jabill, Micron, St. Luke's, Western States. There's a large employment base very, very close to the Woodbridge site, not to mention the fact that Blue Cross, R.C. Willey and whatnot are less than just a couple miles away. We're one-and-a-half miles from the core of Meridian, downtown Meridian, and the access to the interstate is extremely close to Eagle Road right to the interstate, and there are also several other major traffic circulation areas. Eagle Road which you're all familiar with, Franklin Road. We're three-and-a-half miles, essentially, from Boise Towne Square, and we're seven-and-a-half miles from downtown Boise. In terms of the site itself, we've got a photo of the site and want to talk about the existing conditions. It was mentioned the site itself is 80 acres. It wasn't mentioned, but the site has been identified in the CQmprehensive Plan for single-family residential use. The site is through the small site"that we talked about partially be - is contiguous to the City of Meridian or will be contiguous to the City of Meridian. There's sewer and power and the utilities to the site. Water is 400 yards from the site where Jabill stubbed out a street to Locust Grove. We're surrounded to the north by Greenhill Estates, and you'll hear from several people tonight from Greenhill Estates and some vacant ground, an(ij then two large parcels. We're surrounded to the south by Locust View Heights. There are several owners from Locust View Heights that will talk tonight, and then we're AA [rt r I" ..~ ~i I, Meridian Planning an~ning Commission Meeting October 12, 1999 Page 72 ~':.."'I ~ to surrounded to the east by Magic View which is currently, I believe, to the City with a Comp Plan Amendment for a change in use for that whole entire area, and you guys are familiar with that. Then we're surrounded to the west by vacant property, and that is intended to come into the City with a Comp Plan Amendment as well. That's currently in the Comp Plan for single-family residential, but it's my understanding that'll come into the City for more of a light-industrial office use. That is why we've, at the City's recommendation, agreed to ask for the light-office use on this small parcel we have. In terms of the site itself, the main feature through Woodbridge is Five Mile Creek. You're all familiar with Five Mile Creek. It essentially bisects the center of the prpperty. There's some significant topography on this site. There's a 20 foot drop from one side of the ~roperty to the other, essentially. There are wetlands and there are some flood plains on the property as mentioned in the staff report. We have worked diligently with the Corp of Engineers and delineated the wetlands on the site. There's less than an acre. They have been delineated by the Corp of Engineers. There are also irrigation laterals, and you'll hear several people talk about the irrigation and the importance of the delivery of water tonight. There's two serious irrigation laterals, the Barker and the Cook irrigation lateral. Both of those laterals deliver water to us as well as other users. Then Locust Grove, you'll hear much about tonight as well, and Locust Grove Road is currently planned to be widened to five lanes and the 96-foot wide right-of-way with an overpass over the interstate over to Overland. Right now, that is not in the five-year plan, but it's anticipated in the next month it will be in the five-year plan. I know it's a high priority for the City of Meridian to push that forward. The City is working on getting federal funds to make that happen sooner than later. The last we talked with certain city officials that that was the project could happen in the next five years. And then, lastly, if you take all that into consideration and the surrounding area, the characteristics of this area are changing dramatically. I know there are several people here who wish that it wasn't, but the characteristics of this area are changing dramatically. Magic View is changing, you're seeing Jabill on the other areas, so the makeup of this area is changing seriously. With the existing conditions, we took all that into effect and essentially created a master plan, a concept plan for the project. Based on the existing and we look at the future conditions as well as feedback from neighbors, staff, agencies, water users, we had over 30 meetings in the 12-month period of time with neighborhood associations, with other neighbors, with water users, with staff and all the agencies, we created a plan that we thought - we weren't going to satisfy everybody, but we thought we took most of the issues and put them on paper. The first thing I want to talk about was reviewed in the staff report is the circulation plan. Obviously, our primary access to this project will come off of Locust Grove Road, and we intend to have a spine road which would be a 37 -foot wide section of road with a detached 10-foot pathway on one side of the road and, essentially, create a linear park from one side of Woodbridge to the middle of the project. Then as we cross a bridge - we'll have to cross Five Mile Creek - we're intended to have a c1ear-sP:ll'an bridge so it won't impact the creek, we will turn into a loop road section. That loop road section will come out to Green Hill Estates. Right now, you're showing a pedestrian access. We've worked with the Highway District. We've talked closely with the Green Hill Estates homeowners, they're going to talk to you tonight about their desire not to have that be an access. We feel what can ... !J:I ~ Meridian Planning an~ning Commission Meeting October 12, 1999 Page 73 ,~ .. ~I ~ ~ work there is an emergency vehicle access as well as a pedestrian access to the site. Emergency vehicle access can be designed such that theffi are ballards (sic) and that there is fire engine emergency vehicle access to get there in case of health and safety issues, but it wouldn't be a thoroughfare for traffic. We feel that makes sense. In doing that, we also recognize that we have to provide a secondary access to the site. That is important. We have showing a secondary access at the southeast corner of the site. _ The reason we are showing that, it is the closest distance to a current public right-of- way. There's a circle that's drawn there that is a platted, public right-of-way that the Highway District currently has. It would create crossing two properties, both of th.ose properties are bisected by Five Mile Creek so the property that we would cross is essentially unusable property for those owners at this time. There's been discussion from the Highway District and staff that we move the access to the north to create a straighter connection to the Magic View folks. We're not opposed to discussing that with staff. We feel the most appropriate location for the secondary access is where we have it based on those reasons I just gave you. Those owners in that area along Magic View, it's highly likely that that area is going to change, and we feel that it's in our best interest to locate an area where we feel that there is control of the owners or the control of the property, and if at such time there's a better use and a better way to connect it, we're open to looking at that. So that reviews the circulation plan. There's a lot more detail that I can talk to you about in terms of street sections and the planting and the sidewalks and whatnot, but I'm not going to get into that at this point. In terms of the development concepts, I'm going to read to you - you guys are tired of reading, but I'm going to read to you our goal for the Woodbridge groperty. The goal for the Woodbridge property is to create a community of lasting value which will provide the residents of the City of Meridian with a choice of living environments within a master planned residential community in close proximity to public service. The community will provide a quality housing in a variety of price points among abundant open space, natural waterway features that have been carefully preserved and enhanced. It will promote and maintain wildlife habitat along critical (inaudible) corridors, and it will include active and passive recreation opportunities for the residents of the community and tMe City of Meridian as a whole. I'm going to review some of the key elements of that plan. One of our key criteria in the communities that we do is creating individual neighborhoods that vary in price points and size. There's a matrix that you've received that we'll go through quickly. The different neighborhoods that we've identified at the size and price points of the homes that we see being built. The red area is Type A home sites. We've identified those to be 4,800 to 6,000 square foot home sites. Home size typical on those would be 1,200 to 1,800 square feet with a price point from $140- to 170,000 approximately. Type B home sites, which are the yellow home sites, are intended to be 5,500 to 7~000 square foot home sites, 1,800 to 2,500 square foot homes priced from $170- to 200,000. Type C home sites, 7,500 to 8,500 square feet and the Type C ones are the ~urple, I guess that's purple, to be 2,200 to 2,800 square feet homes estimated price to be $200- to 250,000, and then Type 0, the larger home sites, 8,000 to 12,000 square feet, 2,500 to 3,200 square feet, $250- to 300,000. Those are the different neighborhoods. We try to create the neighborhoods so they are insular, they're somewhere between 30 to 40 home 'Sites per neighborhood, and it actually does create '" ,\ ~~ :(1 ~ ~ .. Meridian Planning and-~~ing Commission Meeting October 12, 1999 Page 74 (!i ~; the feeling and sense of a neighborhood, not just one big subdivision. We've had tremendous success doing that in the last several years in the communities we've had. Next element that's important is open space. We have identified over 16 acres, or 20 percent of the land to be open space. There's several different types of open space. Natural open space would, obviously, be along the Five Mile Creek corridor. We're working closely with Nampa Meridian Irrigation District to make sure we can enhance and maintain that area and not just go in with a bulldozer and make sure it's moving water. We want to work with them so that we can plant it and enhance it and maintain it. As you're probably aware, this area has been farmed and there's been cattle and whatnot all over the site, and that area's in somewhat disrepair. We intend to reclaim ti1'at, plant it and make it a habitat, a natural habitat area. We've had success in doing that, and some of the propaganda that you had before it shows some of the projects that we've done that with. We also have linear parks and neighborhood common spaces. The linear parks are along the roads as well as in between neighborhoods. We find that certain people don't like just fully-fenced backyards. They also like the opportunity of backing up to open space. Those open spaces are anywhere from 50 to 75 feet wide, and they give people an option who don't want to live on a fully-fenced backyard as well as a buffer between the neighborhoods. Then we also have pocket parks. The pocket parks are within the individual neighborhoods to create areas for children to play, for relaxing, et cetera. We also have a community center, and the community center is identified, essentially, in the center of the community, believe it or not, and it is a swimming pool, gazebo, restrooms, changing area, and then somewhere in the neighborhood of three-and-a-half to four acres of play open space, active and passive. We talked a little bit about environmental enhancement. We feel very strongly about that, and we are going to work very hard to protect and enhance Five Mile Creek. That is something that the City encourages and wants through their Comprehensive Plan. The next element, it is the number one amenity in the cdmmunities that we do and appears to be the number one amenity in communities throughout the United States, is pathways, both public and private. All of our communities have very integrated pathway systems. They start with a pathway system on Locust Grove which is detached from the road that allows people to get out of the project either way. We'd like to work with other land owners to make sure those pathways go somewhere other than just our community, so we're trying to figure out how we can get it connected down to Jabill where the soccer fields are, et cetera. But that's the first element of our pathway. That's public pathway, then we have a pathway system that meanders through the community along Woodbridge Drive down to the community center, and that's a detached pathway, 10-foot pathway, as well which accommodates bikes, pedestrians, runners, et cetera. And then in between each neighborhood, we have connections that allow people to get through the.neighborhoods onto the pathway down to the community center without having to go directly out onto their neighborhood road or the main road. We also have a substantial pathway system planned for Five Mile Creek which also is identified in your Comp Plan. Right now, we are creating that pathway. It happens that a portion of that pathway can also be on the current sewer easement, the sewer line that comes through the property and then up over to the hospital. The pathway is - will also be along that area. We've - we are committed to ~ >> ;! '" I~ M'd' PI . d~\' C .. M t' err Ian anmng an 'Lomng ommlSSlon ee Ing October 12, 1999 Page 75 I: ~ Ell that pathway right now. There's not a path on either side of us. We want to work hard with the City so that maybe we can get a path that goes somewhere other than just Woodbridge, it actually goes through other properties down to other areas as part of the - a big goal for the City, but we are willing to work with and want to work with the City on that. Other characteristics of the community is, and you'll hear about this tonight as well, is neighborhood buffer and fencing. We understand these neighbors who have lived in these homes for a long time don't want to see anything happen out there. Through the comments we've had, they want to see a buffer and fencing. Right now we're intending to put fencing along the perimeter of the project where there are neighbors. There are some areas where we wouldn't intend to do fencing down along where the water in Five Mile Creek enters the next area at this point we're not intending to do fencing, but, obviously, we intend to fence our backyards and buffer between the neighbors. In terms of communit,'s design character, we showed some elevation of and the character of the architecture and the homes that are going to be built. The community design and character will start with the bridge. The bridge we're designing to emulate, it won't be, but it will emulate an actual wood bridge. There'll be a change in the surface and it'll emulate a wood bridge, and from that we'll take the character ofi the whole community throughout. We'll do our street signs, we'll do street lights, we'll do entry signage and whatnot all to emulate the wooden bridge feel and sense of the community. We feel that helps tie the community together and makes a difference. The - couple of other important elements to touch on: there will be, obviously, based on your requirements, but also because we believe in them, there will be a Homeowners Association and covenants, codes and restrictions. And there will be also design guidelines, so when homes are to be built, they'll have to go through a design approval and make sure they meet the standards and requirements that we feel necessary to keep the character of the community. Another element that we commonly have in our projects is a builder team. We typically don't go out and sell all the lots to all the builders in the community. We try to focus on the product that we want and then focus on several builders that will provide that product for us. So we will have an integrated builder team~and, essentially, builders will build in individual.neighborhoods. Then, the last element that is important to mention is that we also intend to irrigate our common areas and individual home sites with a pressurized irrigation system that Nampa Meridian will operate and maintain. Those are some of the common elements of the community. I could go on with those, but I think that hits the highlights of Woodbridge. Some important issues for you to consider, I believe, it was touched on - our response to the staff report. There are three very specific areas there. I'm not going to read them. We submitted today and as part of your package, if you have questions, we can respond to it. Two, traffic and safety, I have for you tonight, as you probably haven't received it, we just got it this afternoon, Highway District's draft staff report. They have reviewed this project. They do have comments on it. I have that for you tonight. We have done a substantial traffic study. There are comments in the Highway District's staff report that addresses the traffic and issues both on Locust Grove and the interconnectivity of the project. You'll also hear about irrigation, and we've worked with, I believe we've worked with diligently and believe we will deliver water to the downstream users subject to their water right, same way they're getting in today. We !"1 \~ ;.) >.. Meridian Planning and~nin; Commission Meeting October 12, 1999 Page 76 ~~ ~~ intend to pipe it and put it through a common area, but they will have the same amount of water as they do today, and we will commit to cleaning the pipes that we have and making sure they're delivered water at the times they need it and the amount of water that they're accustomed to having today. And also, backing up of the upstream users, there was a concern that if we put things in a pipe, it's going to all get stuck-and kind of backup and flood out the upstream users. We're committed to programming a plan, also, that will make sure that we have the proper clean-outs and appropriate mechanisms so that it doesn't back up the upstream users. And then the other area I already covered was the buffer of the neighborhood, fencing, and we're committed to doing that. So, in conclusion, I've cut my - and you're fortunate that I cut my report down from a lot longer report, but in conclusion, I believe that the City's mission and goals go hand in hand with Woodbridge's missions and goals. It's a win-win project. There are definitely serious concerns that you're going to hear about tonight. We feel we've diligently and will continue to diligently work with the owners to work those issues out, but we're going to request your forwarding these applications for positive recommendation to the Council. So that was very quick. I'll stand for any questions that you do have, and we'll get you here shortly the staff report from the Highway District. Thank you. ," ;l~ Borup: Thank you. Any questions for Derek? Derek, the ACHD report, is this the one that you referred to or is there later one? Derek O'Niell: No. We have a later one that was dated today. Borup: This is dated today. Derek O'Niell: This is the real staff report, not a letter from ""r. Sale. i: Borup: Okay. Anyone else? Any other Commissioners? Thank you. Did you have r.; anyone else from your team? Okay. This is a public hearing. It looks like we have a few people that may like to testify. We want to be able to get all the comments in we can. I would necessity (inaudible) this size, depending on how many are going to speak, we're probably going to need to be some limits on time. Pardon? The - we have received the petition concerning the access road into Green Hills. We've noted a petition, and I'm not sure where a lot of the comments are. I - maybe approach and break those down that we don't (inaudible) the same things throughout all the testimony. The other question I would have, and that's the other thing that can allow for longer testimony is if you have a neighborhood representatives. Our - has any of the neighborhoods organized where they've got a representative to be speaking for the neighborhood? Two hands went up. Is that two different neighborhoods? Okay. Okay. That usually works real well. I think information sheet mentioned that. So we would like to have anyone that would care to come on up. Do we want to start with a neighborhood representative first? Okay. We need - as you may have noticed, have everyone state their name, address and perhaps spelling of their name. - c't"l' :i!1 \.:: l: 1Ii I!: Meridian Planning and~~ing Commission Meeting October 12, 1999 Page 77 10 Fender: My name's Fred Fender and I live at 2134 Autumn Way which is in the Green Hills Estate just immediately north of the proposed subdivision here. And as you can see, it's a pretty hot topic. People glazed eyes up here in the audience are trying to get through, so I'll try to keep my comments fairly short, but we, obviously, have some concerns about this. First of all, we are actually as a neighborhood group, a neighborhood association, have been largely supportive of O'Niell Enterprises and what they're proposing here as far as the rezoning annexation. As a whole, we really have no problem with that. You're probably glad to hear that. We've been probably pleased to work with OEI. They've been open with us and have had several neighborhood meetings; have been able to answer questions. I feel have been honest with us in terms of what they've got planned. So we're pleased to see this scale of activity in our backyards. The probably the biggest issue is - stems from this access road. As you know, this part of Meridian is blossomed with commercial enterprises and now with more residential developments, and any of you that either live here or at least drive back and forth through this area realized what a traffic jam this can be around Franklin Road, Eagle Road, and now probably soon to be Locust Grove. As the plat was originally given to us as homeowners, it was drawn or approximately as it's drawn up here this evening, there was no mention of a vehicular access road which goes up there on that northern boundary, as you can see. We feel that that vehicular access road really would detract from our neighborhood. We feel it probably is not necessary to get access in and out of this subdivision. With the main access being off of Locust Grove and ultimately off of Eagle Road as it comes around. The reasons are many, but I'll just name a few. Number one, our subdivision, the Green Hills Estate, is a fairly quiet subdivision. It's tucked in down behind everything else': When you drive into the subdivision, you're going nowhere else except into the subdivision. ;'There are no sidewalks other than just a few limited sidewalks up to the half acres which is closer to EagJe Road. There are lots of pedestrians that go out and walk on these, that run or ride~their bikes. We feel there are safety issues with routing traffic through our subdivision. It's not lit, we do not have streetlights at night. It's actually fairly dark. We feel like that presents some safety issues with traffic that is routed from this new subdivision and through our subdivision. Lastly, that is the traffic jams that we see trying to get out of our subdivision either off of Autumn Way or SpringY"ood onto Eagle Road. I think you all know what kind of a problem that can be at certain times of the day. You can sit there for minutes trying to just even make a right-hand turn let along a left-hand turn with (inaudible) impossible, and so to have more traffic coming (inaudible) subdivision trying to accomplish the same thing would be counterproductive. The same thing on Franklin Road at times of the day, rush hour at five in the evening or seven or eight in the morning, it's extremely difficult to get out of our subdivision, so now to have more cars come in, we think that would also be counterproductive. Not only that, but you've heard of (inaudible) developments to the west, Jabill and that is only, I'm sure, the beginning of more businesses that will be built back there. If Locust Grove stays as it is for another five or six years or who knows how long, it would be an easy jaunt in through the proposed subdivision back up the vehicular access road out to Franklin Road to avoid that intersection at Locust Grove and Franklin which we think could be a real possibility. And so, those are just a few of the main reasons why we, at least as the ~ :1;' 'II * t--- . 11 _ I Meridian Planning and . ning Commission Meeting October 12, 1999 Page 78 ~ '. neighborhood association of Green Hill Estates feels like this is a great subdivision to be planned in our backyards as a whole. Again, we're supportive of it, but the vehicular access was one of our major concerns, and we'd really appreciate your concern and your studying this issue before passing this on to the City Council. Thank you. Can I answer any questions? Borup: Any question for Mr. Fender? Mr. Fender, then it sounds like that was the only item you brought up as far as the subdivision, was the Weatherby access. Were there any other concerns? Fender: Yeah. There are several other concerns. Probably the next biggest concern would be the buffer between the neighborhoods. A mention was made of a fence, well, we appreciate a fence, but certainly the type of fence, and I realize this is not an (inaudible) of this committee, necessarily, but we certainly do not wish to see popsicle- stick fence up that falls down in two years and fades and then is open to repair by whoever wants to take it upon themselves with a project. That's probably one of the biggest of our concerns that we had as a whole neighborhood. I'm sure that if there are some other people that want to testify. There may be some other concerns on their part, too. Borup: Do you know what - is there a fence currently along the Green Hill property on most of them or is it hit and miss? '. Fender: Just wire fence right now. ):4 Borup: Just a wire fence? Fender: Just barbed wire fence. I~: Borup: Okay. Just see - I guess I'm trying to get a feel for the concern on the - the applicant already says that they would be putting some fence - Fender: Right. Borup: -- and I'm just trying to get a feel.for why this is different than any other adjoining subdivisions. You got a one neighbor's yard backing up against another neighbor. I Fender: Right. Right. Well, and we are pleased to see the quality of the subdivision. If we had $80- to 100,000 houses going up next door, we would be very concerned of that, but the fact that they will enhance our properties, our properties are larger, we are all one-acre lots along that one side until you get up closer to Eagle Road where you have half-acres. Overall, we're quite pleased, at least, to see that they're making an attempt to match the property values. '" ,< "L\.~ 'Il' ~...~ Meridian Planning andt~ing Commission Meeting October 12, 1999 Page 79 ~ ij Borup: This one looks like you're looking at $300,000 homes along there. Then the question on - and you've already made mention of that, but you realize that the applicant's first design did not have a road through there. That request has come from ACHD. Fender: Correct. Borup: And from City staff. Fender: Uh-huh. I would like to know exactly the rationale - I can understand possibly '" some emergency vehicle accesses, I think they had originally planned. But that road, I think, would need to be closed off with promises that that's not going to be punched through at a later date. Borup: I think ACHD is concerned about having one access into a subdivision of this many homes. Fender: Right. I understand that, and I think that's - Borup: That's why they were recommending more. But the other question I had was the applicant's suggestion of making that a non-accessible road, just strictly emergency access only. I think you may have seen that in other subdivisions where they have the posts, the ballards in the middle where a fire truck and emergency - either remove them or drive right over them. Any comment on that solution? i!i Fender: Yeah. There are differences of opinion, I think, on that, and I don't necessarily want to speak as a subdivision as a whole. My preference, obviously, would be nothing at all. I might just add my house is just to the west of that vehicular access or that road. That's why I have a little personal stake there. I use that - there's a gravel path right now that goes back to my shed. A three-car shed that we store and park in, but be that as it may; I'd just as soon see nothing there. Just close it off totally, however, an emergency vehicle access, gravel path, camouflaged with a gated access, you know, whatever design could be come up with. I think we would all be happy enough with that. Our main concern is just not having free flow of traffic in and out of close to 300 houses going through our neighborhood and backyards. Borup: Thank you. Commissioner Brown. Brown: I'm afraid that what would happen is it's going to be the other way. The Green Hill Homeowners Association as Eagle Road gets cut off and it is going to get cut off. There's not going to be any access out to Eagle Road in the future. As we discussed St. Luke's project and the long-term aspects of what's going on Eagle Road, there will not be any connections past my house to Eagle Road in the future. And as Franklin becomes more traffic bound in the future, what's going to end up happening is the Green Hill Homeowners Association is going to desire to drive through the Woodbridge ~ ;l! ~ Meridian Planning and ~i~9 Commission Meeting October 12, 1999 Page 80 ~ ~1 Subdivision out to Locust Grove and then travel on Overland to get on the freeway. I know that sounds absurd to my neighbors that are here, but long-term, that's more likely to happen than the few people that live in the back of that subdivision to drive through our neighborhood. I think that their request to have it as it is right now, the stub - stubbing to neighborhoods was done when this subdivision was done. That connection was provided when the Phase I of Green Hill Estates Subdivision was done. That's- when you bought your property, you bought next to that right-of-way, and it was there. And the purpose was for it to provide interconnection to another residential subdivision. Fender: Right. Brown: Living where I do and living up next to the commercial development, you got a real nice neighbor compared to some of my neighbors, and, you know, I understand everybody's concern, and there's a lot of things that the Homeowners Association can do with the Highway District to calm the traffic. I mean, we have 50-foot right-of-ways in our subdivision. There are straight streets. You drive down Autumn Way or you drive down Springwood and you come around the loop there, and it's a straight road for a half a mile and people drive fast. Who's the people that are driving fast? It's us. We're the ones that are driving fast. There are some cut-through traffic, and we're getting more and more. But the thing that happens, and the thing that you do to slow the traffic down is to take that 50-foot right-of-way and narrow it. There's a lot of ways of doing that. That would be my recommendation for the Homeowners Association is to be proactive and get that right-of-way back, not necessarily the Highway District's going to give it to us back, but if you look down those streets and you see the width of the road and how far the homes are set back, you think you're on the freeway. It's a wide road. If you ...narrow that down, and you can do that visuall} by painting the road and putting islands liiin, I know that the acre part of the subdivision's not set up for having common area and someone maintaining them when you're on your own separate wells, but those kinds of things would calm the traffic and keep it slow. I think, a~fl have read, the Highway District's staff report, what they're looking at is requiring the connection, but not necessarily having it open at this time. And long-term, I think that that's to our benefit. Some day in the future, we're going to be asking them to take down the ballards so that we can get out of our development. " " Fender: Well, that could be. I don't know what's going to happen out there on Eagle Road, but all I know is that I do get concerned about more traffic coming in those straight shots; however, you get down a straight shot, that immediate 90 degree angle, then another immediate 90 degree angle, blind corners, you know, there is not made to have free traffic flowing in and out of our subdivision. Borup: Any other questions for Mr. Fender? Thank you, sir. Fender: Thank you. Borup: Yes, sir. ~ OJ" '" i'! Meridian Planning and .ling Commission Meeting October 12, 1999 Page 81 . McMillian: My name is Reece McMillian. I live at 870 South Locust Grove. I'm the second house south of this development, and this seems like a monthly deal here. You come in here and you beat your head against the wall to try to cure a migraine headache. The big problem is traffic. Locust Grove and Franklin is not set up to take anymore traffic than what it is on now. Within the next few days, East Central is going to be past Jabill onto Locust Grove which will add traffic to it more than what there is now. If you open up this other subdivision, that comes down to Locust Grove, you're creating a big headache down there on the intersection. So, I don't know, you know, if they're going to widen!'Jit to five lanes in the next five years, let them wait five years for the subdivision. Thank you. Fox: Alan Fox and I live at 1840 Cadillac Drive. I bought up to the south of this subdivision. Dr. Fender, I'm sorry, but I would love to see that road go out your way, then they wouldn't be going out Locust Grove on us. Right now, you have approved a 92-unit apartment building on the corner of Locust Grove and Franklin. That's going to add traffic to us. As Mr. McMillian brought up, that road's going to be paved, Jabill, when they start business, they're coming out on the road. If you're going to approve this, let's hold off on it at least until the road's taken care of. When I moved in out there, I was told within ten years that overpass w9u1d be over the freeway. Let me tell you, I've been there 27 years, and it's not there yet. And you say five years? Maybe it will be five years. When you have the money in hand and the property, then I'll believe you that it's going to go over. Until then, I can't, you know, like I said, I've been there 27 years. ta~ homes, you know, if they cut it down a little bit, that would help us, but they want to start building the homes up on Locust Grove. So all that traffic's coming out on Locust Grove. The road is not going to be punched through the back side of the prqperty to go out towards Eagle. From the talk we had, the one talk that he came out and talked with us, any time in the near future they're going to st~rt on Locust Grove and work their way back slowly. Larry Sale made the statement, as you said five years, he said there'd be no improvement for five years. They turned a 300-unit apartment 1) . complex down over on Overland and Locust Grove because of traffic was one of the reasons, and we've got that right here. If they'd push for traffic - that road out the back side so some of the traffic can go to Eagle, which they may, I don't know i(they would, but that would help relieve us on Locust Grove. That's going to be nothing but a .~ bottleneck there, and somebody's going to get killed down there at that intersection. They've already had one guy in our subdivision his pickup was totaled out. He pulled out down there and a car got him. He didn't see it. And somebody will be killed until that road is fixed. Thank you. . Borup: Thank you. Anyone else? Plant: Morgan Plant, live at 300 South Locust Grove. I have no problem with the concept of this development. My big problem is I have not seen anything in writing or in detail about how they're going to get my irrigation water down to me. I oppose this project until I see something in writing and a contract by these people telling me how I !\< ~~ . ~I ;. ~ ~, " . Meridian Planning and ~ing Commission Meeting :! October 12, 1999 Page 82 ~ ~ am going to get my water down there, how they are going to water their place. I have a great concern over that. I have been working with Scott Beacham. I trust him, I trust O'Niell. But by the same token, I have not seen one piece of paperwork. I've asked Nampa Meridian. I've asked the staff here, and no one has said they know anything about '4(hat's going to happen with the irrigation water. But they've said tonight what's going to happen. Apparently, staff has been in the know. They said they've talked with Nampa Meridian. Nampa Meridian denies talking with them and working with them. Now, somebody is not telling the whole story. I oppose this project until I see in writing what exactly is going to happen to my irrigation water. Borup: Mr. Plant, are you concerned that they're going to prevent the irrigation water from coming to your property? ~ Plant: No. They said they will get it there, but we are an in-ditch user. Our water comes from over on Overland Road. Borup: Right. I'm just trying to understand what your concern was. You say you don't have - Plant: Are we going to divide water with them? Are we going to share streams ~ith them? Are we going to have separate head gates? Are they going to take it out of Five Mile drain? What? Borup: I think the law provides that you would still be provided with the same water flow that you're entitl~d to now. They cannot interrupt that. '" Pl8nt: I understand that; however, do I have access to the ditch all the way through? Scott assured me that they will. But neither you - you have said. that I will get the same stream flow. We're on a rotation with the people in Locust View'Heights. We get an X amount of water for a certain period of time. Is our water going to be split because the water coming to that property now comes through our ditch also. It is a shared ditch. Where's their water going to be taken from? If they're going to provide continuous pressurized water to this subdivision, how are they going to do it? I'd like to see some drawings, some plans, some concrete evidence of what is going to happen to the irrigation water. Borup: I think at this point, that's premature to have that. Until they have some indication on approval of the project, then that's when those things are usually designed. But the assurance would be that your water will continue, and I think Nampa Meridian is going to make sure of that too. Plant: I agree. I could read the Idaho Code as well as you folks because I have a water users handbook also, but I haven't seen anything in writing, and my contention is still that I disapprove this project until I see something in writing because the City of Meridian made such a mess of Stonebridge and the irrigation water, I don't want to see ~, i/~ Il!"..: Meridian Planning andC~'ing Commission Meeting October 12, 1999 Page 83 i~ f~r ~t ~ '" it happen here. The Mayor and Shari and the developer has a copy of my demands on the irrigation water; correct, Shari? Borup: Any other questions for 1'i11r. Plant? Thank you. Rockrohr: I'm Dick Rockrohr. I live at 2715 Autumn Way in - Borup: (inaudible) Rockrohr: Rockrohr, R-O-C-K-R-O-H-R. Brown: Are you adjacent to the subdivision? Rockrohr: I'm in Green Hill Estates. I'm not adjacent to the subdivision. I'm off - I'm in a one-acre off in the corner, so I'm not really adjacent. I kind of like the layout and everything. Listening to some of the people, though, on traffic concerns, you know, I think maybe we are getting the cart ahead of the horse in a lot of places. We're at the mercy of Ada County as far as when they're going to upgrade these roads, and it sounds real good if we get Locust Grove and Franklin upgraded and a light down there, and I know that they're going to punch through in the new commercial development and go to Magic View and have a light that accesses the St. Luke's light, and it comes around and accesses to there on the back side. So there is access to a light when you get on. Without a light, it's really hard to get out there in a lot of times. Especially if YOel're trying to make a left. You've got to make a right. Maybe we should get a commitment from Ada County on when this is going to happen, a time frame, before we get to crazy on developing anywhere. That's all I've got to say. Borup: Thank you. Anyone else? Smith: I'm Marshall Smith. I live on 398 South Locust Grove. 1he south part of my property borders the project. I've had amicable talks with young Mr. O'Niell, and he was - we agreed together that good fences make good neighbors, and we have, also, an agreement that because I am rural, and we have -I put sheep on my property, so I'm interested in not having the sheep abort or have problems because of the noise and the dust that comes from building a project. He spoke to me as a possible berm with maybe a four-foot fence on it or something like that. Anyway, he certainly sounded very eager to be a good neighbor as well as I am eager to be a good neighbor to him. And I '<\ share with my neighbor, Mr. Plant, a concern because I irrigate my property, and I do it from the same irrigation that the South Locust Heights use, and it comes down across the property. But if they plug off the (inaudible), why, I'll get excited about it. But as long as the thing accommodates and the bulldozer doesn't plug the ditch up in my irrigation - I have it on a timed basis, the same as other irrigation users. If I miss a week, I've got hot spots in the pasture, and I have trouble. So I'm enthused about the use of the property next to me. I think it - they've got some wonderful ideas, and I !O\ '.' l!! Meridian Planning and Olng Commission Meeting October 12, 1999 Page 84 ~ ~ ~ :..~ '" approve it with those reservations and concerns. I've met the young Mr. O'Niell, and we've been very amicable. I'm looking forward to meeting his father. Thank you. '21 Boru~ Thank you, Mr. Smith. .... McMillian: I'm Del McMillian, and I live at 870 South Locust Grove, and I know we've discussed for the last few weeks all the problems of Locust Grove and the traffic, so I won't go - but I am really, I mean, I have lived in Meridian my whole life, and I just can't see the schools. I can't see the schools, I can't see the police department, I can't see - we don't even have enough fire department to handle all the people and the stress that Meridian has on it right now, and I just figure that maybe we should maybe plan first and build later rather than just building and wonder what we did wrong. But I do. I wonder about the schools. We're really in a hurt for schools and everything else. They say they have enough to accommodate, but, basically, they really don't. The way that I understand it, we really only have three policemen that are actually really on the force. That's what I was told. That's not enough to handle Meridian. So that's my concerns, plus on some days on Eagle Road, since that has gone into as many lanes as it is, if the wind is right, it sounds just like the freeway. We get the freeway noise, we get that, and I really don't understand how you gentlemen want to build something so nice in an area like that. It's not an area for that type building. It's a farm area, and it's just - it's depleting your purpose because I think it's a terrible place for you to even plan something like River Run. I mean - we have that big apartment thing that's going in, and that's a low-income thing, so something like this across the road from that just doesn't sound too comparable to me. co Borup: Thank you. Mecham: My name is Bryan Mecham. I live at 2159 Autumn way which is just to the north or just to the - well, north of the development, and I'm east of the stub road. First of all, I just want to say I'm on the committee with Fred Fender, and I agree with everything he says. I=helped seek out the numerous signatures of the people in our Homeowners Association who do not want vehicular access. I think that, personally, being a prudent business person myself, I know that development is going to happen, and I differ with some of these people who think that with - *** End of Tape 6 *** I'd rather have a nice, quiet community. So, realizing that development is going to happen, I'm in full support of the development because I'd much rather have that than what I previously mentioned. One of the concerns that I have is - one of the things that I'm willing to give in on as being the person right next to there is emergency vehicular access. One of the things that happened was when I moved bere two years ago, I did my homework, we called Shari Stiles, we had some of the things we were told then, none of those have come to pass. Secondly, we also contacted the ACHD. They told me that I tried to vacate the right-of-way, they told me that they couldn't do it at this time .. ~ ~ ~ .t I:&. A ~, Meridian Planning andi\t-='iing Commission Meeting October 12, 1999 Page 85 ~~, ~1 r. . ~I until they found out who purchased the land and what it was going to be used for and if that the home, if that person didn't want to have use of that property, then I could have it vacated. So when O'Niell Enterprise came and said, "We're going to put this development in," we immediately talked to them about that, and they said, "We don't need - we're not wanting vehicular access into your neighborhood." So I though I was in a good position because here I had a developer who was saying they didn't want use of it, the County's saying that if the developer didn't want use of it, that I could get it vacated, not have it. Now they're going totally against what they told me. So that kind of concerns me. I agree with Kent Brown as far as, you know, down the road, if we do get shut off at Eagle or Franklin, how are we going to get out? I guess the question I pose back to the City is: What were you recommending if that farmer never sold the 80 acres and he still owned it for five more years, how were we going to get out when Eagle and Franklin - what were your recommendations for our development then? So I'm saying whatever they were for then, why can't they be implemented now? Unless it's going through that road, of course. So those are a couple concerns. The other thing is, if it is vehicular access, I talked with Scott before the meeting, I mean Derek, excuse me, Before the meeting, and he mentioned that if - his proposal right now is maybe vehicular access with a right-of-way to the ACHD so there's emergency vehicle, and then down the road, if what Kent's saying is, the developments happen where maybe we do want to go through that development, then it could happen down the road, but if the other things don't come to fruition like it sounds like it's still 27 years later there's not an overpass on Locust Grove, then maybe this other stuff might not happen for 20 years, why put a road through there that we wouldn't need to if the other things aren't going to happen in the next 20 years. I just want to go on record that I am appreciative of the fact that we're going to have a nice community behind our house but oppose any vehicular access other than emergency. Thanks. = ~ Borup: Any questions for Mr. Mecham? Bryan, maybe I've got one. Mecham: Okay. Borup: It's just on clarification on whether the - sounds like you're saying, and I'm interested since you are an adjoining neighbor there. Sounds to me like you're saying your idea of a pedestrian path"and an emergency vehicle access may be something acceptable, and I think that's something that as far as emergency vehicle, that's something that can benefit both subdivisions depending on what emergency. But - I can understand. I would have the same concern with traffic coming down Locust Grove, wanting to cut through here and then through your subdivision. I think that would be the immediate concern. I could also see, perhaps, after the overpass goes in that the traffic could run the other direction. I guess it sounds to me like you're saying with not having access at this time, but having the right-of-way there that it woulci leave it open to some future date if that was the case, and your subdivision may want to have that then you'll be able to have that access. Your preference right now is definitely not to have it. :'! ~ '" ~ , r~, Meridian Planning and ~ ling Commission Meeting October 12, 1999 Page 86 o ~ ... Mecham: I guess I have to go on - I have to walk a tightrope because as a subdivision, the subdivision is saying, and I signed a petition that I do not want access at all. Personally, I'm saying I support the subdivision, but at the same time, I understand that if somebody comes and says, okay, they're not willing to bend, and so we're just going to put the road in and who cares, then that concerns me. I'm rather willing to say that as a person living on that property line, I'm willing to say if I can win with emergency access with the knowledge that if something happens down the road where we get shut off at Eagle and get shut off at Franklin, then we can open that up and we'll be able to go through the other community. 'know that's probably not what they want: to have us going through that community, but I thinkJt;s a compromise we're all willing to pick to make sure that this development goes through. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else like to come forward? De Weerd: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner De Weerd. De Weerd: 'haven't been feeling well all night, and I really have to go. 'just don't feel good. Could' please be excused? Borup: Yes. We still a quorum. Come on up, ma'am. .~ (At which time Commissioner De Weerd leaves the meeting.) Smith: I'm Jere Smith, and 'live at 335 South Locust Grove. Mr. Borup, , hope you're also concerned with me as far as , understand by reading this that there is a Parcel A and Parcel B, and as Mr. O'Niell said, Parcel B is the little 1.5; is that correct? 'wasn't aware of that. I know that young Mr. O'Niell owns it, but' wasn't aware, yes, , see it up there now, but I wasn't aware of that in our;.packet or in our letter that we got. 'wasn't aware that this was going to be included here tonight. I don't know what their plans are except it says limited office, and that happens to border our property. I'm very concerned about that, and I'd like to know what the plans are. Borup: Okay. Maybe we can find that out. Smith: Pardon? '" Borup: Maybe we can find that out for you. Smith: Okay. And I'd like to say we're talking about traffic, and I happen to be coming down Franklin Road one day turning and going south, and as you all know that the school buses also take Franklin Road, and there were six school buses, and by the time \l those school buses all lined up to go left or go north onto Nola, they had Locust Grove blocked off. You could not turn on Locust Grove. I don't know if you're aware the 'i( " ~ , ~ . i"~ .' ... r~ l!; Meridian Planning and r'Jng Commission Meeting October 12, 1999 Page 87 r~} .. \0: construction trucks, I mean, we're talking semis with (inaudible), the whole bit, down that road continuous now. So I don't know how that we can handle - the people in Green Hills are concerned, but the people on Locust Grove, if they channel all this on there now without having adequate access and excesses to it, it's going to really be a problem out there with all of the construction and everything. I'm very concerned about this limited office here next door to me, and what they're going to do with that, and how they're going to keep the property cleaned up because they - I thank them for coming in and having it mowed, but whoever came out and mowed it mowed the circle. Like I'd go clean my living room in the center of it and leave the rest of it, so I do have to visit with them about that. We've eaten an awfully lot of dirt this summer. We can't touch anything at our house. I feel like a prisoner in 11: because of John Barnes which is a nightmare behind us, and I hope that the O'Niells doesn't present that kind of a problem for us and multiply it anymore because we just about had the limits over at our ,II neighborhood. Thank you very much. ~ Borup: Any questions for Mrs. Smith? Are there -looks like there are - (inaudible) then on Locust Grove? :~ Smith: No. There's one, two, three, four. Four of us? Is that right? Four residents? Unidentifiable: Five. 'i' Borup: I mean on your little strip there on the same side. From you north. Smith: rhere's four of us and then Dr. West is on the opposite side of the road and the Plants. Then Mr. (inaudible). ~ Borup: I was just looking at that section right along there. The area of you, I can only see- Smith: Are you talking the west side of Locust Grove? Borup: Yes. Smith: There are four of us. Borup: Okay. There we go. I can see. Two of the properties are for sale right now? Ii Smith: Yes. Mr. Plant's is for sale and Mr. Presley's are for sale. Gene Presley and William Plant. And mine may be for sale too if the price is right. ); . 'J Borup: I thought I'd seen two for-sale signs on the west side. o'i Smith: I'm not aware"of that. ~ ~ '6. I~""II j1,~ "I Meridian Planning and Ong Commission Meeting October 12, 1999 Page 88 o "! Borup: Okay Smith: I think the Robbersons still live in their house, and the rest of us are still there. Borup: Thank you, Mrs. Smith. Smith: Uh-huh. Borup: Anyone else? Your last opportunity. Good. Thank you. Commissioners? Any questions that you'd have from staff or - Yes. I was getting to that. Hatcher: I have a question for staff and a question for the applicant. Borup: Okay. Why don't you hit the staff first and then we'll get the applicant up because we do want to ask the applicant also about what they've got for the L-O property. Hatcher: Okay. First question for staff is: Since we don't have a representative of the Fire Department here, are you aware of their - do they allow, does the Fire Department allow grass pavers to be used at access strips? Some departments do, some departments don't. I was just thinkirfg as a common - satisfy both needs that this access strip into - Unidentifiable: (inaudible) public right-of-way, though, so you'd have to ask -- Hatcher: That would be an ACHD - Unidentifiable: because the Highway District (inaudible). i1 ~ Hatcher: Right. Well, they don't. It's either undeveloped though. Because I'm thinking that maybe grass pavers would still allow emergency vehicle access, but then it would still be like a park. So it's something that, I think, I'd put to the developer to check in on and work with ACHD and the Fire Department. As far as staff's notes, do you know if Meridian Fire Department allows them? .... Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, to my knowledge, I don't know of any location where grass pavers have been utilized. We do have several locations that concrete paths with ballards have been used, but I'm not aware of any grass paver situation. Of course, this is different since it is platted, deeded, dedicated right-of-way. Most all the other situations are over common lots - Hatcher: (inaudible) they have done it. Thank you. My other question is to the applicant. This is in regards to street access. I figured - . Borup: Which one of them you'd like to address that? ;;0; f11 ~ .:iJ: Ill! ~ Meridian Planning and'~'ing Commission Meeting October 12, 1999 Page 89 ~ II Hatcher: Whoever wants to answer this question, I'll pose the question to you. I'd like to know if you've had communications and talked with the owners of Lots 14 and 16 at the southeast corner of your proposed stub street. ;:; O'Niell: (inaudible) :@j Borup: Would you like to come on up? Hatcher: Let them collect all the questions if that's what he desires. '"' Borup: Did we have any other questions from the Commission? Did- Pete O'Niell: The way we would normally do tt'lis, and I don't know what your process (inaudible) is typically we get a chance to respond to testimony. Borup: Right. And I think - Pete O'Niell: You /;)Rve a chance to ask any additional questions you'd like (inaudible) is that fair? Borup: Yes. That's what we're going to do. I think we were done with all the testimony other than Mr. Mecham as raised his hand again. Did something new come up? Mecham: When Mr. Richard Hatcher started talking about the right-of-way again, I guess, .the question that I would propose - the question I'd like to have asked is it's my understanding that it's the staff's recommendation that vehicular access be put through that subdivision. To our subdivision. I just want to make sure that's recommendation, and if it is their recOJllmendation, I would ask that that recommendation be changed to emergef'l'illcy vehicular access rather than vehicular access. Borup: Okay. I think we understood that. Yeah. That is their recommendation, but it's our recommendation that will go to City COl}ncil. Thank you. Mr. O'Niell. Pete O'Neill: Thank you. I'd kind of offer a compliment:' by the way, that we've done business in a number of cities, and you've got a very civil leader in Meridian, and we appreciate that and appreciate your concerns. Particularly at this hour. It seems to me that there's three general issues that run through the questions in the public, concern in the public testimony, plus the third specifically, how we're going about finding an access to the east. Those concerns would be the whole approach to Green Hills Estates in terms of access, emergency, full-time vehicular, grass pavers, whatever. The other issue is the whole water delivery irrigation, down-stream users, if you will, and shared users. The third is the whole traffic in general in the general area issue, whether it's Locust Grove, Franklin Road, Eagle Road, it's - it really is hardly unique to this project. It's unique - it's the Treasure Valley and everything is in one of the prices you pay for ~ ~ ill :1 Meridian Planning and ~ing Commission Meeting October 12, 1999 Page 90 e .x..:( ~ prosperity is groWth and a little more congestion. So let me try to deal with those as they came up. In terms of Mr. Fender's and the people concerned with the Green Hill Estates access, let me make our position very clear. When we first looked at the existing conditions and we saw that there was a right-of-way to this property from Green Hill Estates, we said, well, that takes care of our second access. We'll come in from Locust Grove Road and we'll go on out through Green Hill Estates, and that's a good idea. But we never even floated that as far as I know with any of the neighbors in Green Hill Estates, and talking with ACHD and in talking with the City of Meridian, and talking<with ourselves and to the landowners in Magic View - is it Magic View? No. To the east. The whole issue really became is the secondary access, should it really be to the east headed for Eagle Road or should it be back again to the north headed for Franklin Road? You know, we may be brash, but we're not brash enough to even suggest to the.:.residents of Green Hill Estate that the primary secondary access should be to the north through Green Hill Estates. Our proposal from the beginning is an emergency access and it's a pedestrian access, period. That is our proposal today. A compromise to ACHD's staff report, and perhaps the City of Meridian staff report, although it wasn't particularly clear on that is, we'll provide the 50-foot right-of-way so that in the future, if traffic studies, the neighbors, ACHD and the City of Meridian and our own neighborhood association decide that that should be full-time, the right-of-way is there for that to happen. I personally agree with a lot of the neighbors that I'd want to either have no access or emergency access. I think we're going to lose that argument, and if we can buy a future, provide the right-of-way, and let ACHD be happy and the City of Meridian be happy and put Green Hill Estates into the decision, ultimate decision-making process, I think that's as good as we can do. Keep in mind the emergency access, A, can be - I don't know in the City of Meridian. We've got grass pavers on emergency accesses of at least five locations that I'm aware of that other fire departments have bought off on and other highway districts, including ACHD, bought off on, so that is a reality. That's what our proposal would be. To disguise it. We don't want a super-highway coming up (inaudible) bollard on that, so we're kind of in your camp on that. I would suggest that you turn that to the ACHD hearings as well because they're the ones that are probably going to drive that decision. I would also point to the traffic study which very clearly says we don't need three points of ingress and egr~ss. Then as it relates to the traffic in general issue, there has been an extensive traffic study done that's been reviewed by the Highway District that it's in this report, unfortunately, we didn't - we should have summarized that report, but, essentially, they're saying the impact of this project on the traffic on Locust Grove Road which is really a function of the intersection at Locust Grove and Franklin, that's where the traffic problem is. Until there's an overpass built, there's not a traffic problem on Locust Grove. If there is one, it's at Franklin, and it does not change the level of service, project in itself. If you add all of them, notches it down according to their studies of - it's still at a satisfactory level. I can commit to our neighbors and the City that a bad traffic situation doesn't help us. We're going to try to market property, and if you can't get to it or from it, it's going to be hard to sell property. We would work with the City. We would work with the neighbors to accelerate the improved intersection at Franklin Road and Locust Grove. That's the issue is that intersection. Whether it's an LID or whatever to accelerate that - the ,,-J ~ '" 1'- " !( r- Meridian Planning anl:~ing Commission Meeting October 12, 1999 Page 91 c:~ improvement of that intersection, we're all for it. As it relates to the - I've got some kind of questions that we'd build slowly towards Eagle Road. I hope not. We'd like to do this quickly. That's the business we're in. We'd like to get through and get out the other end. But, coming back to that, we've made the decision that the appropriate secondary access is to the east. We think that little stub is the shortest way to a public access point. There may be arguments for other locations. We have talked to all of the landowners including those two and all of the other m-ajor owners in th~t subdivision down there. Their property has gotten very, very dear, and based on what some of them think their property's worth, you're not going to see single - five-acre or one-acre single-family development in there. You're going to see something much more intense whether it's commercial or industrial or retail or apartments. Those people are not asking prices that will keep that in residential property very long. Those two little owners, they've got some property that can't be used for anything. We think there's a logical case that we can get through there, and we've got their commitment to work with. Don't have a deal. Hatcher: So you have talked to them directly about bringing a road between your development and the Five Mile Creek to the closest - looks to be a cul-de-sac of a public right-of-way? Pete O'Niell: Yeah. There's an existing cul-de-sac right-of-way. Hatcher: So instead of a cul-de-sac, we'd - you'd just extend that right on through? Pete.O'Niell: Extend that right on through. Then you'd have access to some property that's otherwise unusable. Hatcher: Right. And they have no problems with this? They like the idea? They're opposed to the idea? What was their feedback? Pete O'Niell: They're willing to talk '. Hatcher: You're willing to- Pete O'Niell: We're willing to talk Hatcher: -- take it to work with these two owners? ::! Pete O'Niell: I can just tell you by experience. Every time we're put in a position to say you have to require a certain right-of-way, that becomes very, very valuable ground. We've had some bad experielices, frankly, trying to do the right thing for all of the neighbors, for the City, for the Highway District, and we've ended up on the short end of the stick. We do have to protect our interests. We're willing to work with anybody in good faith, and we think these people will work in good faith, and that's our first choice. We'll work hard at that. That is not our requirement, by the way. Our requirement is to m '. ~ Meridian Planning an~rig Commission Meeting October 12,1999. Page 92 ~i ? ~ :t!)-..: provide a right-of-way heading that direction. We think - what I don't want to have happen, in all honesty, is we don't want to come up to the second phase of this project and have the ultimate second access point a negotiable issue. Then we really get hammered. We'd like to get that resolved sooner than later. :(; Hatcher: As being the advocate for the City, you have to appreciate the fact, too, that we have to look at what's for - what we hope is the best interest in the City. Not saying that you will- everything's in good faith, you could get to house 249 and decide, "Well, I don't want to have to put forth the extra effort or money to get that second access in, so I'll just stop at 249 and that way I comply with the requirements." Ir. Pete O'Niell: We're getting into the issues of the development agreement. If it were - if I were the City and I were in your position, I would say condition approval of the second phase of the plat which really is 165th lot, is that there be"clear route established for the easterly access point. That's part of the development agreement - Hatcher: And you have no objection to that? Pete O'Niell: It's reasonable. I mean, how do you object to - The irrigation issues, again, in most projects we've worked with over the years, there's the irrigation issues. They all feel just as strongly as most of the individuals here feel. I mean, the west was settled over water, and people got shot over it. Understand that. We've - there's two reasons why we haven't given you a definitive answer of when and how you're going to get yocr water. The most important one is we don't know. I mean, in all honesty, because there's two or three concept plans that can do that. We have found over the years as we start working with neighbors that sometimes a less than obvious solution works best for everybody. If we're going to have a pressurized irrigation system and storage, maybe there's other ways to supplying it other than the same route that you have. If worse comes to worse, we know we can supply it. We can supply it in two or three different ways, and as Mr. Borup said, a condition of approval of the whole project is that we have to deliver water to the current water users, and typically you wouldn't have an engineered plan to do that at this stage of the process. So understand their concerns and we'll <;ieliver the water. We'll see that the water's deliverable. Fencing. Thank you. Good questions on the fencing. We, I think, there's even some words in our proposal that when we talk about a permanent fence, we talk about a good-neighbor fence. In all our designs, there's a lot of different kinds of fences. Most of the subdivisions you see have one good side, and that's the guy who puts it up, and that's to the neighbor. A good-neighbor fence looks the same on both sides. Looks good on both sides. So that's what our proposal would b~. It's in our best interest and our buyers' best interest to have a substantial-looking, solid, attractive fence or we're going to have a hard time selling our property. Fencing will be good-neighbor, and it will be in appropriate places, and it will be a developer expense. Then - in terms of the zoning on the one-and-a-half acres on Locust Grove and what do we plan to do, I think the - collective wisdom of the staff here and our own judgment that that is an area in transition. The property, from what we understand, the owners that bought the ~ ~ ~Jj ~ Meridian Planning an~hg Commission Meeting October 12, 1999 Page 93 ~i II substantial property across the street from us is not residential but some kind of industrial, light-office, and therefore, they'd be our neighbors, and that is a logical zoning to have on it. We don't have a plan, we don't have any plans, so I can't tell you what specifically we would do with it. You cannot get annexed, you cannot annex a property without giving it a zone. So we're suggesting and staff is suggesting that that is an appropriate zone for the annexqtion. Is there any others? Yeah. The whole notion of making a mess during construction, you know, we do the best we can, but I - you can't control all your contractors and subcontractors and you can't control the wind. We do pride ourselves in trying to be good neighbors at the front end and all the way through the back end, so we try to manage the construction process well, and it's not only dust, it's dogs and trash, and all of the rest of the things that happen (inaudible) in construction. So, if you're part of our builder team, you're signing onto a pretty (inaudible) appropriate. The City has some say on how that's done as well. Any additional questions? Borup: Any questions for Mr. O'Niell? Commissioner Barbeiro. Barbeiro: Mr. Chgtirman, go up to the (inaudible). Borup: Here. Would this help? Barbeiro: Shari, could you show this picture on the board, please. Brown: We don't have that one. That's their slide. Stiles: "'It's a transparency. Barbeiro: I'm trying to understand where, if you're going to have a road coming out here, it would then come in and connect here to this road and then come back out to Eagle here? ~ Pete O'Niell: That's all in the process, I believe, you're going in - it also doubles back the other direction, I believe. Barbeiro: Down in the future - . Brown: It goes to the north to the stoplight. ~ i ~ Barbeiro: This is the stoplight right here? Brown: No. (inaudible) Pete O'Niell: It's going to come from here, around here behind what the development (inaudible) to the light at St. Luke's right there (inaudible). . ~I....~ ~ :::ii ~ Merid;an Planning an~ing Commission Meeting October 12, 1999 Page 94 ~ ~.. ~ Barbeiro: So your development would come here, loop around and connect to this road here; is that correct? That's the intent for your backup? Pete O'Niell: Yeah. It comes straight - J'm not sure - it comes out of the corner. Barbeiro: It comes out here? Pete O'Niell: Yeah. Yes. Barbeiro: And then it would turn and connect into here? Pete O'Niell: Yes. Barbeiro: Okay. J' Borup: Do you have additional - Barbeiro: Also, how many phases are you planning on? Is it going to be three phases, four phases? Pete O'Niell: Well, at the moment, we're thinking of it in two phases, that which is (inaudible) the creek is the logical divider, the first phase would be larger than we'd like to do, but we've really got to get it to the rec center, get it to the bridge, and so, consequently, we're ready to make that - (inaudible) to do that whole west side as a single phase. Barbeire: The road there on Locust Grove really is a rural country road. According to the traffic study that we received regarding Cobblestone, the road now has about 1,100 vehicle trips per day. 1,075 vehicles per day. With the addition of Cobblestone Village, that will add about 800 vehicle trips per day on Locust Grove. With the additio[l of Jabill, that will add about 1,200 vehicle trips per day. With the addition of your "'project, it will add 2,871 vehicles per day. So we'll be going from, essentially, 1,100 vehicles per day to close to 5,000 vehicles per day. I am a little confused of how can we go from 1,000 vehicles a day to 5,000 vehicles a day and not change the classification of the intersection? · Pete O'Niell: It does change. It goes from a C to a 0 or something. But you'd have to talk to the traffic engineers. The statement from Franklin Road Locust Grove intersection operates at an acceptable level of service under existing conditions. A traffic signal is not warranted at this time. The Franklin Road Locust Grove intersection is expected to operate at an acceptable level of service under the existing plus - and that's in quotes - existing plus project conditions. A traffic signal is not warranted under the existing plus traffic conditions, in the ACHD staff report. Hatcher: Well, Mr. Chairman. '" ~~ " ~M ,,=,'l"II ~ Meridian Planning ancOning Commission Meeting October 12, 1999 Page 95 ~ U "-= . '" Borup: Mr. Hatcher. (inaudible). Pete O'Niell: (inaudible) make in terms of one of the other things we run into in the PUD . process is it's typically bigger projects, and 283, and Meridian isn't all that big because you do a number of larger projects, but in a lot of locations, people - the agencies and the neighbors are used to working with 20-, 30-, 40-unit subdivisions, and, you know, the traffic impact is now. When you're looking at something that may take three or four or five years to build out, the traffic impact isn't now, and yet, everybody focuses on it as if it's done. It takes a period of time to get there. . Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to add to the topic of the traffic, and it goes back to what Mr. Sale of ACHD had commented on when we were looking at and reviewing the Cobblestone project, and that \lias ACHD's approach is to fix the problems after they occur, not before they occur and that I personally, hesitantly had approved the Cobblestone Village in anticipation that with Jabill and pretty much by Larry's comments was that once Jabill was up and running that that would then push that intersection to an iffy situation, so to speak, and then with Cobblestone, he felt that most likely that would then make ACHD classify that intersection as an immediate, must-fix solution, and by putting in the signal and right-turn lanes and stuff like that, that was prior to even considering this project. Now, if we had this project, it's going to make the conditions worse and put more fuel under the fire for ACHD to fix that jptersection. Barbeiro: I'm a little confused because if, as Mr. Hatcher tells us, Lafry Sale impressed upon us that a light would be in there based solely on Cobblestone and Jabill, and now with the addition of what would double the traffic there, their recommendation is that there would be no light. So we've gone, by my addition here, we've gone from 1100 to 6,000 cars and they still say there would be no light. Hatcher: I can't speak for ACHD, but I think what they're looking at is they're looking at existing conditions plus the project in question, period, and that's all their looking at. Pete O'Niell: No. The study includes all of the projects. Hatcher: Your study, but what about their report? Pete O'Niell: It is responding to our study. Hatcher: It is - :! Pete Q'Niell: We're required to do a study. It makes a bunch of assumptions on what happens everywhere. Borup: So the definition - what's the definition of "existing plus pfoject?" That's in quote a couple times. n ~ 10 ; ':1 li) 'ii '. Meridian Planning anCing Commission Meeting October 12, 1999 Page 96 0',' ; i ,.. \ II , , --. Pete O'Niell: l.r we got this this afternoon just like you did. It is our understanding that in terms of the traffic on Locust Grove Road, it assumes Jabill build out and employment, it assumes Cobblestone, it assumes this project and existing projects. It also - there is some level of traffic that would be going out the east and coming in from the east, but I think it's insignIficant in terms of the impact on Locust Grove Road. Borup: So your traffic study, by Centennial, you said, included all - Pete O'Niell: Yes. Borup: -- all the projects. Pete O'Niell: Yeah. As I understand it, and I think this is true for everybody, when ACHD requires - the traffic study's required by ACHD, and they give the conditions upon which the traffic study should be made, we don't decide how many trips a day are going to come in and out of Jabill or how many trips a day are going to come - ACHD has their standards, and the traffic engineers and study people do their work. Borup: Okay. I think the concern was, because it's our understanding earlier, and correct me if I'm wrong, Commissioners, that ACHD stated they did not take into consideration all of the projects they were taking -looking at specific one time, and, hopefully, they've incorporated that in there now in their request because I don't think they were looking at that earlier. .. Pete O'Niell: I suspect when they did Cobblestone, our project wasn't submitted, so we weren't~inaudible ). Borup: No. They didn't do that, but I - they didn't even have a traffic account of Jabill when they did Cobblestone. Hatcher: Mr. Chairman. Pete O'Niell: And I could stand to be corrected, but it's my understanding it includes all of those. Hatcher: I would have to bring - this is the traffic impact study for Cobblestone Village, and I'm reading right here, this is existing conditions based upon late June of this year that the traffic count for South Locust Grove was 1,075 vehicles per day. That's the existing condition, so I don't see how we can get 1,000 vehicles with Jabill and this and Cobblestone. I mean - we're reducing the traffic by 75. I just - I don't see how, what ACHD's stating here in this report includes all of the projects in question. Borup: This report doesn't give any total count, does it? '. ~ ... '. '-!J J..: Meridian Planning ananing Commission Meeting ectober 12, 1999 Page 97 D . ;I; Hatcher: The draft states the traffic study determined fewer than 1,000 regional vehicle trips would utilize a through-roadway from Locust Grove. ~ Borup: That's from Locust Grove to Eagle. That's the one through their project. Hatcher: Oh. Through your project. Okay. I stand corrected. :;, Borup: I didn't see where this study mentioned a traffic count on Locust Grove. Was there? Does anybody - anyone aware of where they even mentioned it? ~ Hatcher: So the - Borup: I think what Commissioner Barbeiro was saying, the 1,075 plus Jabill plus Cobblestone plus this project is probably the count. Barbeiro: Yeah. If you put that together and add it up, just over 6,000 vehicles and that was assuming that all of the vehicles in this subdivision - Borup: Goes through Locust Grove rather than to the east. Barbeiro: -- and since - Borup: Which is not going to happen once that access is there. I \I Brown: lhe District is saying they got 1,000 trip limit. If Borup: Tilat's the road capacity. That's the policy. t" Barbeiro: That's the limit if you have a house on that road. Brown: And they're saying they're mandating. ~i Borup: The second access. Yes. Brown: (inaudible). Borup: Okay. Did you finish where you were going to, Commissioner Hatcher, or were you sure where this was trying to go to? Hatcher: Well, no. What I was trying to address was- Borup: Locust Grove. :1" I. ~ !'I ~ ;.1i Meridian Planning and3ing Commission Meeting October 12, 1999 Page 98 e Hatcher: -- the Locust Grove Franklin intersection which is the area of debate or discussion and was bringing up what Larry had mentioned was in the plans and the way they typically deal with problems and whatnot. Borup: I think he was talking about the first access and the turn lane and then a traffic signal. ;s Hatcher: Correct. Because we were trying to implement those requirements onto the developer of Cobblestone, but it was not legally binding, so we backed off from that. Larry's like, well, this is how it's all going to be done. Borup: So are you leading to ask Mr. O'Niell if - Hatcher: No. No. " Borup: Well, why not? ::"i Hatcher: I'm not asking him to do anything at this time. Borup: Again, you say (inaudible) legally binding, but how would you consider a contribution to a - of an intersection improvement? Pete O'Niell: Carefully. I think there's a couple - first of all, again, I think most every project we've ever done, the traffic thing becomes a buggaboo, people can manipulate numbers.and do all kinds of things, you know, we kind of all defer to ACHD and then question,~heir judgment. We're not exactly sure how to deal with that either, other than - unfortunately, I think because of the demands that are on the system and the budget they have, there is a large element of the squeaky wheel. I think I could get on the side of, okay, let's look down on the road and say, okay, these things are going to happen. We really don't like that. Let's all begin to work together with Jabill and Cobblestone and the neighbors to begin to have a plan now to address that intersection before it becomes - whether it's Level 0 or C- or whatever and try to get ahead of the power curve. I think it's a practical matter. There are a number of people who think the overpass is going to be built, you're going to have five lanes on Locust Grove which will drive a master intersection at Franklin and the whole problem is resolved that way. Because as I understand, the push from the City of Meridian for that overpass and the approval of Locust Grove is independent of this project or any other project. It's a question to take some traffic off of Eagle and off of Meridian and so on and so forth. You know, if I was a neighbor on Locust Grove, that would concern me. You know, we can't solve all of those problems. All we can do is try to be a catalyst and help work with you and work with whoever to solve those problems beeause it's not in our best interest to have a gridlock situation out there. We'd like, as an example, to build the finish section on our half of Locust Grove Road so that at least in the meantime there's turn lanes, the bike path is in, the landscaping isn't, the fencing Is in so we don't have these :::.-. "' ~, :"I: ,...~ ~ Iii lv1:ridian Planning an~ning Commission Meeting October 12, 1999 Page 99 fM, V.I '" things that we don't have all over town. But if the road out here, 20 feet of no-man's land, and a fence in a project behind. We'd like to mess it all up one time, fix it, and - . Borup: Have you talked with ACHD on that? Pete O'Niell: Yes. Borup: And what's their answer? ~ Pete O'Niell: The road - Borup: They used to do that a number of years ago, and then they got away from that. I think I asked that question once, and they said they wanted engineered first. That's, you know, too early to - was that their answer or did they have another answer? Unidentifiable: (inaudible) 'nj~ Pete O'Niell: They're all hung up over the power easements because there's a whole set of power lines going down there that have to be relocated at some point in time. You know, it gets to be a complicated issue, but our point is that we want to get them resolved. "I Borup: So you may be able to do this thing and let them do the improvements on that side, onl6four side, assuming that the grades and engineering can be worked out to what th~ would engineer it to. They're saying that they think can do that? ~ Pete O'Niell: We have to do that anyway or we can't really get an access if we don't match the grade. . Borup: All right. But they've been having the setback enough that there is some flexibility in the grade changing. I think what this Commission is trying to get to is, you know, there is a problem on there. It will be solved when the overpass goes in, but we don't feel you want to wait the five years on your project, so the solution is probably upgrading that intersection of Franklin. Pete O'Niell: Yeah. I think- "" Borup: Some way or another what - :. M Pete O'Niell: -- there's got to be a commitment to work in good faith to do that, because if in fact nothing happens for five years, and this isn't meant as aAhreat or anything else, but we have the land under contract. If we don't end up buying it- Borup: Goes back to - ~ ~ Meridian Planning an.ning Commission Meeting October 12, 1999 Page 100 . Pete O'Niell: -- goes back to - you know, there is a sense out there that this ground is more valuable than what we're proposing to use it for because if you do apartments and industrial and more Jabill, it has a higher value. I'm not sure that's what the neighbors want to see. I'm not sure that's what Meridian wants to see. Borup: I'm not sure that fits in with our Comprehensive Plan at this point. Pete O'Niell: Except that it would be adjacent to - I'm not going to get in on - Borup: Right. ~ Pete O'Niell: We think we have a good plan. We'd like to move forward with it, and we'd like to work with the City, with the neighbors, with all of the relevant agencies -- *** End of Tape 7 *** -- some of these issues. They don't go away by ignoring them. That's one thing we have learned. :'l Hatcher: Mr. Chairman. We're dealing tonight, maybe to refocus here a little bit, tonight we're dealing with annexation and zoning, and we're dealing with conditional use. Borup: Right. And not with the plat. II Hatcher: We approve or disapprove - we act upon this tonight, this project would come back before us under a preliminary plat with Facts and Findings because we do a conditiolial use tonight, what does that impact, Shari, besides - just a preliminary plat and that's it? . Stiles: They're just asking for approval of basic concept of what they're proposing. They would have to come back with a preliminary plat showing all the dimensions where we'd get the final roadway configurations, you know, the streets, irrigation. They'd have to have preliminary plans for all, profiles for sewer and water, all of that as part of their plat. Borup: I think the question is what's the significance of the conditional use? So they can know they can go ahead with their concept plan? '" Stiles: That you agree with the concept of what they're proposing. Hatcher: Giving them the ability to continue on for - and get some detailed answers on these out-of-the-blue questions. Borup: Okay. Any other questions for Mr. O'Niell? :ll !1 \.:: ~ ,~ ra~ Meridian Planning an~ni~ Commission Meeting October 12, 1999 Page 101 ei w Hatcher: I have no more. Brown: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Mr. Brown. Brown: Scott, could you put up your plat or your drawing, your concept? Turn it over. All 'right. It's getting late. In your concept, you don't - you only had one cul-de-sac, realistically. Have you looked at cul-de-sacking your east-west street that parallels Autumn Way? You would still provide the connection, but what you would end up doing is making it more difficult for traffic to let's say drive through your project, let's say, to Locust Grove. If you took and cut it off right there, made this a loop coming' back this way. I know that you have problems, but you would be providing a connection this way. This becomes a cul-de-sac and this becomes a loop going this way. Similar to the connection that you have here. You didn't run your stre)~t (inaudible). What this has a tendency to do, you know, for us is makes people slow down when they go through something like that, and you would have the same thing here is that you're causing them to go a direction that they don't really want to go. ~ Borup: (inaudible) just as an alternative. Brown: I'm just asking the question because the connection to Green Hill becomes an issue when it's an emergency access and you have to provide a secondary access according to ACHD staff report at 250 blocks. That connection is going to be made here before it's going to be made here or somewhere along this side, and wherever that connection is made, it's going to be made sooner than we probably are excited about. But when you can make that traffic have to go a way that they wouldn't want to go, and you know what I'm talking about. Pete O'Niell: We can put our plans - you don't have enough wall - Brown: I understand. Pete O'Niell: --space to look at all of the alternatives we've looked at over time, and we've settled on this o~e as our first choice. But the assumption behind this one is that is not a full-time connectiorr into Green Hill. That's an emergency access and a pedestrian access only, and it is not full-time, so it is surcuitous (sic) to get through here and out to the east. To be fair, your staff does not support - your staff is looking for a straight-through road. We don't think that's in the best interest of anyone. There's a bunch of straight-through roads around the county now, and we don't need to add more of them. We've - if that was our preferred solution, making it surcuitous would - Brown: Well, and I understand the process that we're going through. We have annexation, and we're looking at a conditional use which has-to do with this site plan and the different aspects of the site plan. I mean, another one that comes to mind for 'Ill"' ~ " I; . rt'~ ~ Meridian Planning anllning Commission Meeting October 12, 1999 Page 102 .:, ,- . , me is right here where you have, I would say, your upper-end lots and then you have your lower-end lots, and you have one abutting another, and, you know, I know that you have to make a cutting point someplace in your transition. I'm not saying I don't like your plan. I mean, everybody else has said they like your plan, and I'm not - but - and I like the amount of open space that you've provided. As I scaled these oft, and I can be corrected wrong, these lots are how wide? Fifty feet? Pete O'Niell: Nominal 50, 55. Brown: And they're 110 deep? And you have -- in here you have 60s and 60-foot wide which would be a typical Boise City lot for the most part, 110 feet. You have 80s in here. Pete O'Niell: I agree with you. We're not comfortable with the colors on the second phase because we really don't know what the market acceptance is going to be in the first phase, and those colors could change -- Brown: Well, and I - Pete O'Niell: -- depending upon - Brown: -- realize that as this property over here changes and they come in for a Comprehensive Plan change and I continue to have more commercial neighbors than I do residential neighbors, that you're going to want some kind of transition just like you transitioned out on Locust Grove. Pete O'~iell: That was the thought behind the red being there. If it stayed the way it is today, we'd probably carry the larger lots around because that's an attractive neighbor to have the horse pasture and pig homes in your backyard. We're led to believe it's not going to stay that way. Brown: No. No, it's not. Borup: Okay. Does that conclude that? Pete O'Niell: I just want to make a comment. I don't want to drag this on any longer, but the CU process and PUD process, it would go from here to City Council and then we'd start the preliminary plat process. This is more than a concept plan. There are a number of specific things. We've outlined road sections, we've outlined road dimensions, we've outlined bike path designs, we've outlined the landscaping, the fencing. It's all in the plan and presumably been recommended for approval by staff. Lot dimensions and setbacks and so on and so forth. It will not meet your standard subdivision ordinance. We're using the PUD process to get the trade-off of more open space and less stringent (inaudible) lot design. So you need to understand that. ;"-n '" II 'I< . '" I' ~ I> Meridian Planning an'~~ing Commission Meeting October 12, 1999 Page 103 ~I ~., Borup: I had a couple questions, Mr. O'Niell. You'd made reference to the grass pavers. You said ACHD has accepted that in your projects or other areas or - and those Dave been on public roads not private? Pete O'Niell: Yes. There's a connection in the first phase of Surprise Valley that has a walking path and then grasscrete on both sides of it with break-away ballards. We did one years ago in Spring Meadow. $ ,~ Hatcher: It's ACHD right-of-way? Pete O'Niell: I think some of them are easements. I Hatcher: I thought some of them were emergency accesses but not ACHD right-of-way. Borup: That was what I was wondering if there was a difference. Hatcher: I thought that was- Pete O'Niell: Fact is, they could tear it up and pave it in the future. Borup: Well, if it's right-of-way they could. If it's an easement, then they could be - Pete O'Niell: Yeah. We'd love- e Borup: Well, I was wondering if (inaudible) difference. Pete O'~iell: We'd love it to be an easement. ,', Borup: You're still able to construct those to the low-bearing specifications? Pete O'Niell: Yes. ;;; Borup: You can do that just with compaction or do you need to go in with - just gravel compaction will do it before the pavers go in? Pete O'Niell: As I understand it, you can kind of build the road base - Borup: Same base, you just top it off with the pavers? To me that would be a real attractive way to do that. It sounds like that would be the first choice. Question then on access. So if that was the way you say will proceed, sometime you are going to fleed that secondary access, then, assuming that this would not be the secondary access. So you're saying that you're committed that one way or the other you will have an access to the ease whether it goes down through the Locust View Heights or whether it goes into Magic View through some other location one way or the other? io1 !>' ., j'l Meridian Planning an~:ning Commission Meeting October 12, 1999 Page 104 ~i ~ Pete O'Niell: Absolutely. That is- '"' Borup: Is there some point that you'd feel comfortable having that as a requirement, some point in your development? Like, you know, Phase II? There's - well. Pete O'Niell: I think the Highway District's saying that by 2050, you need to have the secondary access in place. Borup: Right. And I think the City feels that number's maybe a little high. Pete O'Niell: And- Borup: From a real - from what the City would prefer as far as fire accesses. Pete O'Niell: We're suggesting that the middle ground by the time we cross the dteek and get into the second phase - Borup: Okay. And that's what I was asking. So you feel that by the time you started the second phase that you would have - and you're saying an access to a public roadway in Magic View then? Hatcher: Just a stub. . Pete O'Niell: And the only reason I'm hesitating a little bit is the Highway District is taking the position that if we provide the right-of-way to the property line, it is their responsibility to get the right-of-way from that point. ::~ BQrup: Okay. That's what I was looking for clarification on. Pete O'Niell: I don't want to go on record as saying we will buy that right-of-way from whoever it is at whatever price they're asking for. il Borup: And I guess the way we have any way of control of that is when and if that property comes before us for development. Pete O'Niell: That's why we're trying to talk with the neighbors at your suggestion. We talk to - we'd like to have that pinned down; on the other hand, if someone buys all of that other property, and it is rumored to be in the mill, and they have a project and they say we want to connect here, you know, maybe that's - Borup: Then you could re-do your design to connect where they're talking. Okay. And then I want to ask another question one more time. I know you're not going to want to al1swer that, but any - and that was on contribution to an intersection upgrade. '" Pete O'Niell: Yeah. Excuse me. I didn't answer that. I gave y~u- " i~ (~ Meridian Planning a~e:ning Commission Meeting October 12, 1999 Page 105 ~ ,;.. Borup: Well, and I understand why. ;. Pete O'Niell: The background (inaudible). Our position on that is really very straightforward. We'd be happy to pay our proportionate share of any improvements to that intersection prior to one ACHD would normally do them. And proportionate share means that the traffic demand and whatever is created by Jabill, whatever's created by Cobblestone, whatever's already existing on the road. Somebody else going to pay that? Borup: And again, I don't think we can make that requirement, but it'd be a real good faith. Pete O'Niell: Our suggestion is we try to lead that effort to cause that to happen. Brown: Inactive catalyst to help facilitate that- Pete O'Niell: I think everybody's going to sleep better at night, including ourselves, if we've got - ... Borup: Okay. That's alii had. Anyone else? Barbeiro: What road improvements on locust Grove will you do along your frontage? don't know if (inaudible) or widen it there, and if that becomes an ACHD issue or something that you would perform, I'm thinking of the number of shopping centers in the area. Tile shopping centers have paid for the road improvements adjacent to the shopping centers. ;. Pete O'Niell: Yeah. As I mentioned earlier, our preference would be to build a full build- out section that would happen when the overpass comes across. Short of that, I think there's a turn lane or an acceleration lane to get in and out. Borup: They're talking 96-foot - so your proposal is your preference ~would be to develop half of that 96 - . Pete O'Niell: Yeah. We'd do the 40 - whatever, 48 feet. Borup: Yeah. Pete O'Niell: Plus the section, landscape section we're talking about plus the fencing so you'd have (inaudible) intersection. BQrup: Okay. Thank you. Anyone~l!e? Okay. Commissioners. Thank you, Mr. O'Niell. l< '~ ~I ,~ ._Ii Meridian Planning ana L...'bning Commission Meeting October 12, 1999 '" ... Page 106 ~f L~ Pete O'Niell: Thank you very much. Hatcher: One last time for final comment. Borup: From you? Hatcher: Close it - Barbeiro: I would like to keep the hearing open. Borup: Well, that's - do you want to do a little discussion first? Barbeiro: Yeah. Borup: Okay. Would you like to lead off? Barbeiro: Well- Borup: Maybe we still have two more. We still have two more items. .. , Barbeiro: What's surprising me is that I've not heard an adamant dislike for this project like we did for Cobblestone, but I also understand that the - I'm really frustrated with the whole concept of the traffic here. This project alone - when you include Cobblestone and Jabill, this project will double the traffic on Locust Grove, and yes, it is a constant issue in any place you go in Ada County. Ideally, I would like to see the road improvements done prior to the placement of the project, but that's not going to happen. I'm not satisfied that this road is going to be improved in the next five years and that there's going to be an overpass in the next five years. I'm just perplexed that the neighborhood association as strong as they have been in the past, you weren't as (inaudible) as you were - : (inaudible) Barbeiro: Yeah. Understood. Borup: I think what we're - I mean, the only thing that can be done in the near future is the intersection. '" Hatcher: ACHD will probably hold off on trying to do any improvements on South Locust Grove until that overpass goes in. Borup: That wasn't the impression I had last time from Larry. Hatcher: No. I'm not talking about the intersection, I'm talking about the road itself. ;:;; ~ r...~'1 Iii ---1: Meridian Planning ana toning Commission Meeting October 12, 1999 Page 107 ~ .. Borup: Oh. Of course. Hatcher: So the best we could hope for within the next five years is to get that intersection to some sort of acceptable standard with the existing conditions. Brown: The road section is not the problem. It's the intersection. ~ Hatcher: That's one of the - yes. That's what I'm saying. " Brown: I mean, driving down the road - Hatcher: Yeah. That half mile of road is not the issue. It's the intersection. That's the only thing that we could really fix right now. Borup: And I think he was saying the first - what they're talking about doing is steps, if I'm remembering right, that they do a turn and do another turn lane would be the first step, and then the second step would be the signal. i! .. Hatcher: Based upon the load at that intersection. As Cobblestone came on board, as Jabill came on board, as Phase I and Phase II of this project came on board, it would increase the demand of that intersection and then, you know, by that demand, they would do the right-lane - right-turn lanes, he said almost immediately, and it wouldn't be far down the line -- the intersection would probably go in particularly just by Jabill firing up. : They rlIade the comment on the Cobblestone that ACHD (inaudible) that the turning lanes would not work because there's still no light there, but he made the comment that the turning lanes will not work unless there's a light there. :f:! Hatcher: For left-turn lanes. .. : He said turning lanes will not work. Hatcher: For left-turn lanes. Right turn-lanes aren't going to stop - marking the stop. : Yeah. For- r. Hatcher: Well, he's talking about left-turn lanes aren't going to help without a light. Borup: We're not getting all that on the tape. Hatcher: Sorry. Borup: Who - continue. li u .,; ~ ~ e ' ' 'i \ I Meridian Planning an . - , ning Commission Meeting October 12, 1999 Page 108 "'-I .. El " ;(l: Brown: Locust Grove is not lines still, right? There's no - Borup: Striping. Brown: -- striping or anything else. Fox: Can I say something else? Hatcher: Sure. Go ahead. It's still a public hearing. Fox: Alan Fox, 1840 Cadillac Drive. If you're -- Chairman and tommissioners. Keith, you were on and so was Tom, the other two are new, when we started with Cobblestone. Larry's statement at that time was that section of Locust Grove and the section of Locust Grove over by Ustick were going to be the last two sections of Locust Grove that would be widened depending on which way the traffic went. At that time, the overpass was 2023 when it would be put over. Solely, that has worked its way down. Borup: That has changed. Fox: Slowly it's worked its way down. Until things, you know, like you said, until you come up and get the money and you get the property, it could be more than five years. It could be ten years still before anything's done with that. Borup: l.think it's been swiftly working its way down. Meridian's made some - '. ~ Fox: Well, they've pushed on it, but so- Borup: --'has achieved some commitments, and some resolution from APA. Fox: Yeah. He said also there wouldn't be light until they widened the road and ran it straight through on both of them, Eagle and - Franklin and Locust Grove. They wouldn't put a light until they widened the roads. He made that statement up here; Larry did. ;~ Borup: Until they widen it (inaudible)- Fox: Until Locust Grove was widened and Franklin was widened, they would not spend the money to put a light in at the intersection. Borup: I didn't here it that way. I heard that when they put the light in they would do the whole intersection improvement at the same time that widening and then it would narrow down. Hatcher: They weren't going to put - I don't recall it being the widening of the road. What I recall was they would not put the light at the intersection in until L~d1st Grove ;;, x . ~ ~I~ Meridian Planning and L.oning Commission.Meeting October 12, 1999 Page 109 lCi ~.' ~\: was realigned, and they were in the process of acquiring the last parcel that was required to do that. I think since that last meeting, I don't know this for sure, but I think since that last meeting, I heard that they acquired that last parcel. Borup: (inaudible). I tbink they were talking about when they do put that light in, the intersection would - the light would be put in to accommodate the full size of the intersection. Hatcher: Yeah. When it went in. They would improve it as required for th~rbverpass. iI, Borup: They're not going to want to put a light in and then move it again. Hatcher~ Correct. Fox: But whether if subdivision goes in, he's going to be land-locked, so will we on traffic going out unless they do widen, put a light and stuff in. You're going to have a land-locked intersection down there. Borup: Okay. Commissioners, how would you like tb proceed? Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the public hearing. ~ Brown: I second. . Rutherfow: Commissioners, before there's a vote on that, I've had a request from one of the team members from the Woodbridge people that they have a last word. Pete O'Niell: We don't have any further comments. I was just wondering if you closed the hearing or not. :<1 Borup: No. We had not closed the hearing. Did you have any final comments? Okay. Brown: I second. Borup: Okay. We have a motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES .. Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Mr. Barbeiro. II Barbeiro: Barring any additional discussion amongst the Commissioners, I move that we recommend to City Council annexation and zoning of Parcel A from R-T to single- family residential and Parcel B from single-family residential to a limited office by ;! \0:: ;,: .~: a: Meridian Planning a~~ning Commission Meeting October 12, 1999 Page 110 ..~ '4 " ~.~ Woodbridge Community, LLC south of East Franklin Road and east of Locust Grove Road with staff comments, and I would like to add that if the developer intends Phase I to be the area west of is it Five Mile Creek? That Phase II not begin until the secondary access is complete through to another roadway. Borup: So you're saying ACHD would have to complete that access? Barbeiro: Yes. ,. Borup: Outside this project? Rutherford: I'm not sure how you handle that as part of the anner,xation. Barbeiro: I'm not certain either. Direct me on this if I'm using this out of place. Borup: I think maybe that can be a requirement of the plat. ~ Barbeiro: Okay. If that's the case, then it is not a part of the annexation, then you're correct. I would withdraw that one item and, again, include all staff comments (inaudible). :00 . Borup: I do have one - that's your motion. Do we have a second? Brown: 1;.11 second for discussion. Borup: Okay. I didn't see where staff made any recommendation on the L-O property other thaA just annexation. Normally you like to add in there conditional use - is this conditional use applied to both parcels A and B? Just parcel A. Stiles: The conditional use there, we're having to go through that as part of their proposal. Borup: See, we're not proposing any conditional use on Parcel B, then? Stiles: No, but a development agreement. Borup: Okay. Stiles: I just wanted to clear up, there's some problems with the agenda as far as how these things are worded. As for annexation and zoning of Parcel A from R-T to single- family residential, that should be annexation and zoning of Parcel A from R- T to R-4, and Parcel B from, I believe it's R-T to L-O. I don't know where all these single-family residentials popped up in this agenda, but that's - you might want to re-word your - Borup: And do we need - 10Sl it! fl. '" ,~j' "..; ~, Meridian City Council M~~9 November 16, 1999 ;' Page 51 ,t~ -' ~~. :(1 Rountree: Aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Corrie: Item 23 is a public hearing: Request for annexation and zoning of Parcel "A" from R- T to single-family residential and Parcel "B" from single-family residential to limited office by Woodbridge Community, LLC, south of East Franklin Road, east of South Locust Grove. At this time, I'll open the public hearing and invite Staff comments first. :.:..;-: Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is for the 80 acres previously known as the Griffin Property located a quarter mile south of Franklin on Locust Grove. They have submitted a conditional use permit. It was a little bit delayed at the Planning and Zoning level. You will be hearing that next month. They're requesting for this property an L-O zone. This would be the Medimont Subdivision, Stonebridge Subdivision. They have requested annexation of this piece so that they would be contiguous to the city. This was their only way of being contiguous at this time. The property, these two 20s here are designated as in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan currently as single-family residential. We will be recommending a change to that designation in the future, but Staff recommends approval of the annexation and zoning with this piece to an L-O that all uses be developed under the conditional use permit process through a Development Agreement and also that the Development Agreement be entered into for ~he prop~rty .here. IQ,~re ar~ some issues. We, are still worki.ng out .with the applicant. We will be meetmg with them Thursday. They are relatively mInor. They are proposing a planned development with various lot sizes and house sizes, and I guess that's aliI have. .-, Corrie: Okay. Thank you, Shari. This is a public hearing on Item No. 23 for annexation and zoning. Developer. Pete O'Niell: Mr. Mayor and Coundi members, my name is Pete O'Niell, I'm President of Q'Niell Enterprises who is the managing member of Woodbridge Communities, LLC. Introduce my colleagues; my son Derrick who is the President of our building company and Vice President of Development; and Scott Beecham, Development Assistant; and Gary Alan with Givens Pursley Lawfirm who represents us in our activities. We're here tonight to hear the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission for annexation and zoning of the two parcels that Shari just presented. We have some, and as I .~ ,;.: ~ I~ ,__, ~ Meridian City Council ~g November 16, 1999 ~ Page 52 .e ~~ '" understand it, you have a copy of the recommendations in front of you. We have a few minor wording issues we'd like to discuss on that, but I think before we get into that, if - I'd like to take a few minutes to kind of give you a quick overview of what it is we have in mind for the property as that probably is of more interest to you than the technical zone. You'll hear in depth on the ih what it is we plan, but if Scott would put up the site plan, what I want to do is introduce this project by, I guess you might say we're in a rut. We've been at this for 20 years. We've done several communities in Boise including River Run, Spring Meadow, the Springs, Meadow Creek and Surprise Valley, Lane Ranch in Sun Valley and Spring Mountain Ranch in McCall, and while each one's really quite different, and Woodbridge will be different from any of those, they all share a lot of common elements. What I'd like to do is just give you a quick overview of that so that when the full package comes, you'll have some sense of what it is we're talking about. All of these, just to orient you, this is the 80-acre parcel to the east of Locust Grove Road. All of the communities we've done, including the proposal for Woodbridge here, there are a number of things in common. One is they'll include a variety of housing types, sizes and price ranges that appeal to different lifestyles and different budget tastes. Secondly, they're made up of distinctly human scale, neighborhoods that contain anywhere from 20 to 50 houses each, typically. They all share, again, all of the project~ including this share a hierarchy of roads. They typically include some kind of spine road or collector that has no driveway accesses as bordered by a combination walking and bicycling path, heavily landscaped, and its only purpose is to serve the neighborhood streets which have in common, the only purpose they serve is to serve the people who live in the neighborhood. They're not thru-streets. They're small and serve only the neighborhood. Typically we provide open spaces between the neighborhoods that include pathways and landscaping. The pathway, if we include the manmade amenities such as recreation center, which again we're proposing here, some open spaces, walking paths which link all of the neighborhoods and the open spaces to each other and to the recreation facility. Where we have a chance, we try to enhance, in some cases create natural amenities such as streams, creeks, ponds, wetlands as habitat for wildlife. In this case, we do have the unique opportunity with Five Mile Creek bisecting the property to take that irrigation ditch and try to enhance the area around it. There's some wetlands that we similarly will preserve and actually enhance in the process. The other commonality that we're including here would include pretty extensive landscaping, the so-called Linear Park that comes along Woodbridge Drive and the open space in between, and while this picture doesn't show it, there's pretty extensive landscaping along Locust Grove and a substantial entryway. They all came - we pay attention to the architecture and architectural control committee, and we typically have a selected builder team and a very focused marketing effort, so this is a little - this is kind, of our secret formula. It's worked. We'd like to do it again and bring it to Meridian. Another common element in all of these is we've gone through the PUD process, and our experience has been in other communities, and I suspect it's not going to be a whole lot different here, is that's a little more complex process. It creates some J'l ~ (t 00 I!" ~ ~\ Meridian City Council r..eg November 16, 1999 -- Page 53 :.0 confusion on parts of a lot of folks, but we think if you read the ordinances that support the PUD idea and specifically in Meridian, in order to encourage more innovative design, more open space, more community amenities, and a greater variety of housings, it is recognized that the PUD process has the authority to override some of the standards regarding lot size and setbacks required in the subdivision ordinance. Th,pt's kind of what we're all about. It is a trade-off thing. We typically - the lots are a little smaller, the setbacks are a little less, but there's a lot more open space and a lot more amenities (inaudible). We think the trad~- offs are worth it. We've got 100 residents in our communities that seem to agree with that. What did I say? 2,000. So we think when the PUD concept is well- planned and well-executed, it indeed does create some exceptional and lasting value, not only for the people who live there, but the community at large. We're happy to be here in Meridian. We're proud of what we've got to talk about at Woodbridge, and we think we can do all of this in a way that it'll make the community as well as ourselves proud of the effort. With that, that's a quick overview. That's not what we're here really to discuss. I've got a handout we'll provide to you as soon as we're done here that has - that you can take with you and read at your leisure. Now, to get to the specific recommendation - they don't have a copy? Did you provide that? That came forward from Planning and Zoning, I think there's just some items of clarification that we'd like to propose. If you'd turn just indifference to the hour and your busy agenda, we could get right to - I think it's Page 3 of the recommendations which would be Point No. 10, and you can see what it is we've underlined, what we've added and what we've lined out we're proposing to delete. We're planned to develop Parcel "A" in the following manner, construction, development of a 283 single-family residential planned development, period. The applicant currently has no plans to develop Parcel "B." Essentially, what we're changing is we don't do subdivisions. We do planned developments, and secondly, it suggests that Parcel "B" for some reason is a single-family residence that that's what we're proposing. That's wrlat it is now. We're proposing on the L-O that it'll be something that's consistent with that zone, and when we decide what to do, we'll present you with a CU to deal with it. The other change is another change is Point 11, and I think there just was some confused wording, so designates Parcel "A" as low-density residential and Parcel "B" as mixed/planned use development. It's talking about your '" Comprehensive Plan. There's a reference to subject property which was confusing. Then, finally, there's only three comments. I guess there's two more. On the last page, Page 5 of the recommendations, one - this deals with the Parcel "B" 1.2, we're suggesting that be struck altogether on the basis of we don't know what's going to be adjacent to Parcel "B" and to fix a 20-foot landscape buffer because there's a single-family house next door to it. At this time, seems to be inconsistent with the whole CU process. Our guess is in a few years from now, that neighborhood is going to change, and it'll have different uses, and we'll deal with the conditions of approval at that time. If there's a single-family residence next door and a buffer's appropriate, fine. We can add it at that time. But to saddle that property with an additional buffer doesn't seem to make sense particularly in 1.1 says it will go through the conditional use process at the time .. . ;Ii ~