Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWoodbridge No. 2 Minutes (2)~~ Meridi f ~Go„ mission Meeting November 15, Page 68 ~$ ~~ ~ ., Item 8. Public Hearing: PP 01-019 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 115 building lots .~.~0: _other _ _ M~9.93 acres in . an R-4 zone for proposed::. by Vlloodbridge .: r~ Community, LLC -east of south ~ u r ve~`~~ d and south of ''. ~~ East Franklin Road. Borup: Thank you. Item No. 8, Public Hearing PP 01-019, request for preliminary plat approval of 115 building lots and 10 other on 29.93 acres; R-4 zone, Woodbridge No. 2. Like to open this Public Hearing and start with the staff report. ~ x Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup. This is on the screen the subject parcels I believe most of you are familiar with the Woodbridge project, so I won't gb into much;: ~~ ~.~ detail. We are talking South Locust Grove Road here. Phase one has received final. ` plat approval well under way. Again, this property is more or less bisected by the Five Mile Drain, which runs in a northwest to southeasterly direction. The bald here;;is the: subject phase 2 of Woodbridge that is before you tonight. The Greenfill Estates Subdivision abuts the property to the north. As you will note in a couple of~the conditions that the applicant will address later, this is the Weatherby Drive access point right. here that goes into the Greenhill Estates Subdivision. Here is a detail of .the preliminary plat as submitted. I apologize for the difFculty of reading with the top lines. and what not. You should have -- or received this in full in your application. The bridge ro .~; across the Five Mile Drain is constructed. They are complying with the -- with the conceptual plan that was approved by the city last year.:,:, They dry have an approved, Conditional Use Permit that approved a conceptual plan for the entire property and Phis preliminary plat had to meet the intent and the guidelines of that. They have not added any lots from that conceptual plan. The open space is more or less provided here in`the ~ ': center. At this point I will refer to a couple of items in the staff report dated October 23. ~; On page 2 I believe this was also copied to you tonight. Does everybody have that? Should have received that earlier. We did receive comments from the police department discussing the need for a secondary access and the need for conductivity. Again, they were particularly pointing out this Weatherby Drive. They asked that that be a ;full vehicular access. Staff feel that given the condition that was approved as part of the Conditional Use Permit that said that would just be grass creek and bollards, that w cannot revert back on that existing condition and comply and I did not talk with Captain Musser, I don't know if the applicant has about that. I believe that they just were n`ot~ aware that that was an existing condition that was already approved. I think that's why they submitted that. But we have addressed that there on page 2. In terms of thex vehicular access to the east, as you can see they are proposing full vehicular access at v this point here and I'll just go back to the overall plan here. Again, this is the Magic View Subdivision. This~the new St. Luke's Drive road that comes through here, there is a signal, and then the Magic View here. It's more or less in this location. And tfie condition that was approved, which is in the staff report, the condition That was approved in the Conditional Use Permit last year required them to provide that prior to the 200th building permit being issued. So that does need to be provided. The applicant, I believe, has had discussion with Magic View, they can address that a little bit further. All of our other comments are detailed there and I will just stand for any questions. Meridian Planning and Zoning Gission Meeting November 15, 2001 ' Page 69 ti ~ ~ ^ x ' - ~ ~ ~~' ~ Js :i . } ~ n Borup: Any questions from the Commissioners? Does the applicant have a presentation` ' they'd like to make? - ~ . ~~~ ~ O'Neill: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Derrick_O'Neill,'1 ~ ~~~ North Ninth, Suite 300, Boise. I'm here tonight representing Woodbridge Commuhit'J ~; ~~•. LLC. I will try to keep my comments brief, but I think it's probably important that I gQ through some of the issues to help maybe bring you up to speed. Some of you weren't ~~ here when the original conditional use was approved. I will start with the phase 2 ,x~ preliminary plat. I just want you to know -- and Brad mentioned that we have prepared ~ ~ the plat consistent with Conditional Use CUP 99-037, which was approved in DeceRibel- of 1999. That was a conditional use for the entire project. It focused on areas such as^ circulation, access, open space, common areas, landscape, fencing, pathways, total units, homes site sizes, and various specific details, along with the developrrf~nt ' agreement. So we have prepared this plat very consistent with ghat. I'm going to start with some comments on the staff report and maybe expand on some of B'rad's comments. The first comment would be the emergency vehicle access on Weatherby Drive. Our plat was submitted with an error. It showed that that would be a full road r and full access. We switched engineers for this phase of the project and he made a ~ ^ mistake and didn't do that. We clarified that as you see in your staff report. I apologize ~'• to all of the Greenhill Estates folks. That was an honest mistake. I believe staff has reviewed it and we are very comfortable with the original condition that was written. THe ~ ' Highway District did review it and approve that as emergency access. In terms of the ~ ~~~ ~' ; comments from the police department, I'r'is just not sure that they were clear that tf~~Fe ~ - was another secondary access that would be a full access to the point. I t 'nk ohce'~ , ~ ' ^ they see that they would be comfortable. I ha ~en't talked with the captain, bu~ I'm lure ^~~~ x he would be comfortable with that. We are certainly in support of emergeT~cy vehicle ' access and I know there will be some people that will testify about that tonight. We have ~~ '~~ ~~. reviewed our plan with the fire department. We are doing it very consistent, gas ;, consistent as we can with what was submitted as a conditional use. We are also t rat '~ ~-~ to-satis the fire de artment, so the can use it urel as' an •emer enc ~cc ss~~-. ~_~ fY p Y P Y 9 Y ~ Number 2, secondary access, we are on track to satisfy that condition and certainly^~ '^~' ^ realize we have to and we will do that. There may be a minor modification to the ~ ~` location and it~may move just a tad bit to the north. It's not going to materially affecf the ~ ^~ plat at all. ^There would be no more lots added or taken away, it just may slightly mot1~~' ; ;~ ;' up to the north. We would like to build it with phas2 two and anticipate doing that end ~ 4 we anticipate building phase 2 fhis summer. So we hope that that would be in before September -- or it will be in before September if we build it. So our intention now is to improve that and build it before the 200th permit. We want to get that in as soon a ;we ~ ~~} ~ ` can and it makes a lot of sense to do that with phase 2 of the project. Those were some P ~ ~ ~ of the general comments on the staff report. As it relates to some site spe~ic':'•~ ~ comments on the staff report, we submitted the letter to you I think 2 days ago or a daYy~ ~~~ ''~ ago, written by Scott Beacham. Site Specific Condition No. 1, which addressed sewet ,'~" latecomers fees, we spent some time with staff and we have~,agreed to a modifed ~ condition that was drafted by Bruce at his suggestion and we are comfortable with that.~'~ ~~~ That's written in the letter to you .under suggested modification to staff comments. That ; ~'~' modification reads in that letter: Sanitary sewer and water service to this site shall be ~ ^ ^ ^ ~~ '~ f ' ..,~ Ilkridian Planning,and Zoning (~;Illmission Illeeting November 15, 2001 Page 70 '^ a • ~ i ~ '~t~ ~~ ^~ i ^~ via extensions from existing mainlines adjacent to the property. The applicant shall b~ required to either pay the Five Mile Trunk sewer latecomer's fee in full or, with City ;~' Council approval, make arrangements for payment prior to obtaining the city signatures~~ ~ on the final plat. We are near to where we think there is an agreement between the cit ~u' ~ and us. We are happy with the fee structure and they are happy with the fee structure, we just want to make sure that we have the ability to be in front of the CoLncil~for that `' goes into effect. No. 2, the water connection to the high pressure zone. As you play be ~~ ;'' aware -- and I'm not sure if there is a general map, Brad, but we are watered now on the ^ low pressure zone which comes in through the regular entry to Woodbridge, but St. _ ~ Luke's went in there as a high pressure zone and now it's pulled further dowl->I to atlbut ^~~ the middle of the 1Vlagic View. Ultimately, the Public Works Department an'd ourselves ~' feel that it is important to connect to the high pressure zone to the low pressure~one'~~^~ ~^_ We agree with staff that it should be connected. We think it's good for Woodbridge ~d~~+ A it will be good for the homeovJhers in Woodbridge, but it also is good for the'overall Ity ~" and the circulation of the water system, so there is a benefit to more people than j~ ~' ^~~~ Woodbridge. We are prepared to do that with phase two construction as well. We'd IITce to just get it all done at once. However, there are a couple of things we want to rAeri'tion.. ij ~r The water model for this project shows that it will exceed the state and DEQ's ti. requirements for water pressure in a project. It may not be where the Public Works ~`~ Department wants to see it ultimately. It will be there eventually. But we believe that we can provide water to the site and we can provide it at pressures that the state arid Department of Environmental Quality would be satisfied with. So, therefore, we'~r-e~ ~ f .a going to ask that the cost of the off-site improvement, which would be improvements not within Woodbridge, but the off-site improvements to get the high pressure zone to Woodbridge would be shared with the city and that's what that condition number 2 modification, if you look down to the very last thing, that's what we are asking. Yhose .~~ are the site specific comments, the only ones that we have. I would like to mention that this is probably the best staff report that we have and compliment the staff for putting it together. We got it well in advance. We have had a chance to react to it and I think it's ^ really good. Now we move into neighborhood comments and ther'b is some '"`-' .~~ ~, neighborhood folks who will talk tonight. We had a neighborhood meeting with^tfie ^ ~ ~ Greenhill Estates Homeowners Association Board. We did not have a meeting with all. . r of the Homeowners in Greenhill Estates, we figured that going to the board would be a~ ti ~; way to get with as many of them as we can them and that they would represent ghat ~^ : • neighborhood. At that meeting we discussed emergency access, we discussed 4 secondary access, and we discussed fencing and we feel that our answers to thole ~t r issues were okay with the board gat that time. We discussed fencing, that it would be ~' consistent with the conditional use approval and the phase one fencing that we have ins ~ there. We also met with several individuals not as a group with the Magic View '~ residents and we met with them individually. They were primarily concerned about tf~e,~~~~ ~~' secondary access. Individual neighbors and comments, I had the opportunity to meet '~ " ~ • with Mr. Osborne this evening prior to the meeting and he gave me some comments ~ . • and concerns. Unfortunately, he wasn't made aware that there was a homeowne{'s association meeting, apparently, so he didn't participate in that. We did not communicate prior to tonight, so some of these comments I'm reacting to. The first comment was he'd like to see a berm and fence between the property. I'd like to -- Mr. Osborne's property -- I think you're all aware what it is, down there in the corner, itrs a ~~~ ~ ,` .~~1 . ~.~'w ti Meridian Planning and Zoning I~mission Meeting November 15, 2001 Page 71 ^ f~ ~ r' pie-shaped property. Right here. I think he had some good comments and com'rrTeri we definitely will work with him on and some that I'm not sure we agree with. HiS fir comment was he would like to see a berm and a fence between the property along o~ boundary there. As some of you will recall who were on the commission ~1rf{en w' through this originally, there was a great debate about this and we are comforta6r"e wi the fencing consistent with the conditional use approval. We also had a fencing ~I and diagram approved by the City Council and we are comfortable with that fer~ce~a we'd like to see it stay that way. I think there will be some problems if we but a berm there. There is a drainage ditch on their property and some problems that would made tough to put a berm and fence there. Borup: Would you elaborate on what the fencing --what was the fencing agreement? ^ O'Neill: It's 6 foot fencing, a good neighbor fence, and it would be consistent witK vbhat we have currently in Woodbridge. ~' ^ ~}, `A ~~ -: Borup: 6 foot fencing. _ x i ~^ O'Neill: Cedar. It would be cedar and a good neighbor fence. .' ^ - .. ~ .^ Borup: Thank you. ~,: '~~, ~}~ O'Neill: It would be on our property, so it will be on our property and it will be maintained' • by the homeowners who have that individual section of their fence. The next questio ro~~ comment he had is he wants to make sure that the Five Mile Creek pathway that w~ wil have come through the property is consistent with the path that's along Five File ri r , his storage facility and we are perfectly comfortable with that. I think the P~ks~_ ' Department has a plan and we'd like to make it stay consistent so. It's a path that I~fas - benefit to the entire community. So we are comfortable with making it consistent. The, ~~_^. ^, next comment is he wanted to see some open space at the corner of the property at ~.~ ; that location and there was some open spaces you recall in his storage facility and die wants to see it compliment that and I think that's a good thought, however, I just ~a~n~t_fcf~ y point out that Woodbridge has over 20 percent of its project in open space, whicl'~i ~ ~ over 16 acres, and a large portion of that is down there right along the boundary. Sao I'^ ~ ' 8 not sure we are in favor of that. But we are open to talking to him. The next corihm~n ~~ ; "' he had was management of the dirt and the fact that he has a pool and that it was just '^ pure havoc on his pool last year and I certainly apologize for that, but when you're . ~~ ^ constructing on an 80 acre project there is going to be dirt. We certainly will comply with the city requirements and do the best we can to minimize the effect of dust and dirt '~ when we build this project. It's an ongoing battle and we'll do the best we can to do that' ~ ~~ and we will certainly meet the city requirements. The next comment he had was the ~~ • banner on the back of a house in phase one that he could see from his house that says _' for sale. We don't own that house, we are not selling that house, the house I~ap~ened" +- ^to sell last week, so that banner will go down. We certainly will work with oui-bui~~ers0 ~ R and ask them not to put banners up on houses that are facing other houses. That's nod ~e ' a problem. But we can't control that, we don't own that house. So those are some'of' ~' ~ his general comments and hopefully some responses to those. We are certainly ~~~ `~ ^ ~~ u i~ ,~ ,~• M J ~' ^ ,... ^ ^ ~= L ^ Rleridian Planning and Zoning -~ ~ fission All~ting ~ ~ ~ November 15, 2001 ^ Page 72 x~~ ,v:.i prepared to stay consistent with the original conditional use approval and all the d~tailg ~~ "' in that approval. We would be happy to meet again with the homeowners associa~ioi~'~~ ~ ~ ^ ~ board if they want to review more in detail those conditions. I would like to try to kee it ~-: - to meeting with the board or people as part of a board meeting, insteaTd of tiring to with probably over 80 homeowners in that area and so I would like to do that if possi~~~. ~ ^'~ ` ^ I mean we will do that and show them the details before we submit the final plat, which ~ „~" is when we are required to submit the minute details. So, in conclusion, we ask that you• recommend approval of the preliminary plat with the modifications as written in our letter to you by Scott Beacham, dated November 14, 2001. I'll stand for any questions. ' ~- Borup: Any questions from the Commissioners? I have got one probably for the staff . and that's on the high pressure zone tie in and the shared off-site costs. Any corrTment;;~"~ " on that, Mr. Freckleton? ^ ~~~~ . ~~~' `~" Freckleton: Absolutely. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'd just like to pointia , out to you that the state of Idaho and the Department of Environmental Quality cfon•'t~' ~, ~~ operate our system, therefore, they are not on the receiving end of the phone caller ~~~ when they start rolling in for low pressure complaints. We strive for a higher level^of~ ~- service than 40 to 50 psi. We would like to see pressures in the range at a minimum inti~ ~ the 60s. Provision was made in phase one for the installation of a -- we call it a clay valve, it is a pressure regulating station with full intent of this development being brought; ti - `' into the high pressure zone. In the last couple of weeks I have had the water ^'~ department go out with our pressure recorders, they area 24 hour recorder, and I have ,`; ~' got 2 charts. Pressures were taken at the end of the cul-de-sac that you see that's in phase one, which would be on the west side of Five Mile Creek. Pressures during thdt ~ period of time indicate that it will be about 42 pounds of pressure and that's at ground ~~` level. You don't want to put a 2 story home on there or you can probably expect in fh~ neighborhood of 34 pounds. According to our plumbing official, a standard toilet ^ minimum operating pressure is 20 psi. You can see that that doesn't leave you much - ~ ~ room for cushion. I'd point out that at this point in time the development -- .Mere ark ~i ~ x only 23 houses that are occupied and we are seeing these kind of pressures aft `s"' e ~_ point in time. It's just going to continue to get worse. The pressurized irrigation syste ~ ~ ~ in the development does have a single point connection that is to the city system. As; ~~_ ~~ you know this year irrigation water was shut off in September. During the month'of ~ ~ _ R -~„ October the Woodbridge development consumed two million 90 gallons of water. Th r _ a pretty good demand on our system. We feel very strongly that this subdivision sh~ul•d ~~` be brought into the high pressure zone. ~ ~ ~~ Borup: Maybe just to interrupt a little bit. I think that's what Mr. O'Neill agreed with. } They want to be brought in -- ~'~.s_ d~~- O'Neill: I'm not debating that at all. We are prepared fully to go ahead and do that. ~ ~ ~~:~ Freckleton: We don't have any mechanism to cost share this. I have explained - ~~t Y Borup: Where do they need to go to tie in? Right now it's not a loop system; is that - ~. correct? It dead ends in -- ' ^ ~ ti r ~ . ~.• ~~~ ~~ ~~. ~. __~- ~~ ii Meridian Planning and Zoning } ~ fission Meeting ~ ~ ~ ~ 'r November 15, 2001 ~~ ~~ Pie 73 ~' ~~ 1 ^ e ~' Freckleton: It dead ends in Woodbridge phase one. Correct. ' Borup: Where do they need to go to -- . r •ti. Freckleton: They will go right out the secondary access that they are going to provide to'~'~ _ ~ ~~ ^ the east and they are going to tie in with an existing high pressure main that's in tH'e ~~' ~ "' 1 H Magic View Subdivision. r+ ~~+= ^ Borup: That is clear down there? ~ ~ e. M f O'Neill: Right in here. ~ !,_ ' '' ~Y ti Borup: Is that a main that goes under the freeway at this time? -. .1.. r . Freckleton: Correct. Borup: Comes from -- ~ ~ . . Freckleton: Correct. It ties in Overland Road and it ties into Eagle Road, the St. Luke's ~~ ^ area. We have talked to Mr. O'Neill about the latecomer's process and that is the „ mechanists that I would propose that they pursue. We don't have any means of cost _ sharing with them. I mean in our respective it's a development cost. ~ 1. Borup: Are there easements available for them to tie in then? ~ ~ -' ~~ "r~ . ~ ~. Freckleton: It's a public road. They are going to have to provide the access into Magid ~'.~ 1 View from that secondary access -- public access. So they will be in public right of way; '~ ~ ~1 Borup: Okay. So the cost is the piping, essentially? ~ ~r~ Freckleton: Correct. I would point out that they did -- in phase one they installed the ~ ~ vault and they posted surety with the city for the cost of the installation of the equipm~nf ~~ ~ in that vault, so that -- as soon as this tie-in can be made the city will install 't~ia#: ^ equipment and the conversion to high pressure will be accomplished. "` ~ ^~ • '~ Borup: Okay. Thank you. Any questions from any Commissioners? ~~~ ~ 1 ~. `~ Nary: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Just so I understand, Bruce, there is 2 suggested modifications in this letter from Mr. O'Neill and what he indicated was that you h~F ~ - either authored or had agreed with the first one, the first modification, essentially. Thee ~ only addition was that the latecomer fees would be paid or that they make'L~~ " . arrangements with City Council to do that -- do that some other way, as long as it gets^ ." ~ paid. Did you not agree with that? : ~ f ~; . ;~ - L' ~ :1 Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Nary, I did author that and I do fully agree ~~ *t~~ . with that first modification. x ~ ~~ _ ~r~ ~i ^ 4, Meridian Planning and Zoning ~ fission Meeting ~ ^r}" ^ November 15, 201 '^ +• 'J ^_ Page 74 ~•~y~, ~,~Jti ~ ^^__ ° K ` Nary: The other one -- l .-' Freckleton: The second one I strongly am opposed to. ~~~~ - Nary: Okay. Okay. ^ .~' . ^ O'Neill: I knew that before the meeting. "' r:^i~"u Nary: I assumed you probably did. Centers: What's the rationale for wanting the city to pay half of the water -- ~' ^: ~~ O'Neill: I didn't necessarily say that they -- ' 4; - Centers: I thought that's what you said earlier. , ~~.~ . y ~. Nary: Cost share. ~~. " s Centers: Cost share? ~ - ^ ,. ^ r O'Neill: Yes. Cost share. I think the rationale was 2 fold. One -- and I'm not gdin~ t ~ ~ s, debate Bruce's tests at all. We did some tests ourselves and they are a lithe blt~--__, :~ `' different, but I trust his tests probably better than ours, so I'm not going to debate the~'~~V ~ tests. I think the rationale was -- is that by connecting the system and pulling it from'~ff " Y.~„""' site we are not just -- we are not just providing the benefit to Woodbridge, we are•' _'. probably providing the benefit to the other projects that are on this water line and tl~e ^ city by having a loop system. So I don't think it's just a pure benefit for Woodbridge. I •~ ~ ~ think it is a b~hefit for the overall city and it is also a benefit to others and I realize the'"re, ~ ^~ is a latecomer's fee program and we are prepared to do that if we have to, I just -- it's"~~ ' ~~ going to be about a 60,000 dollar cost to us, we have already put about $1(~,0~0 o~z~ ~ r .~ costs in the pressure reducing deal and that's a large number. ~ .!r~~-p Borup: Any other questions? Bruce, on the -- what's been the normal experienc4~_,~n`~ ~ ~x the latecomer pay back? That's going to be -- in this case I assume it's goi~g• t~ b~ ~ ' ~ '~ when commercial development comes in. Is that the assumption? ' ~' ~~; - Frecklet4n: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I -- you know, the way~t ~x ~' Magic View Subdivision is changing -- ~-1~. Borup: I mean it would be development within Magic View would be the ones tH'~t be -- Freckleton: Correct. Borup: -- on the -- ^ r ^ I ~y ~ .. :L~^ _ .~ '~ ~~ ^ ^~ ~ ' ~ •. - ~•~ ~ -No- . - ^•. ~ , -- - Meridian Planning and Zoning ~ission Meeting - ^ ~ ~rt'~ .~; November 15, 2001 ~ ~• J ~ ~ Page 75 • ~' .ti 1 .. ^ Freckleton: Correct. So I guess I would foresee the chances of getting pay back ale} ~ ,~ very good. ~ ~ ~r ~ ~r Borup: But it's not going to be next year. Probably. ~ ~~ Freckleton: That's a crystal ball question. . :~~ :,~ ^ ~~ O'Neill: My only concern with that is I believe under the latecomer's agreement there is~ ~r-'„ ~;_ a 10 year clause on that and if, for some reason, that within 10 years that didn't'develop; ~~ then we would not be able to recoup that money. So if there is some way we cdn'v~lb?I~' '_ ~ 4' within that I might be open to that, but -- ? ' ~ '~- ~~ ~ . ~ . ~. Centers: You knew that when you signed. ~r ~ n ~. ~~~ ~_ r O'Neill: Well, we had to build it and then we submit it. Freckleton: Built right into that agreement is a clause that would allow a time extension beyond the 10 year term. It does have a caveat, because the city's ordinance does not ~ ;'' provide for that right now. So the way this comment is worded -- or the agreem~ht is ~ ~ ~_~ worded is that it says something to the effect that when and if the city ordinances allow ~ ' this by mutual agreement this can be extended out beyond the 10 year term. So ~he~ reason we did that was because we wanted to open the door. .~ ti ~ -~~~ ~~ Borup: But I agree in light of hopefully a new comprehensive plan, 10 years ~ul~'~~ =,'--~ probably be very conservative. Okay. Thank you. ~~'," ~~' O'Neill: You bet. ~~~; ~ ~ ~ ~ } 'r. Borup: Do we have further testimony on this item? If so, please come forward. +~_,~ • Forsberg: My name is John Forsberg. I live at 2320 Cadillac Drive. My property is or~'~F" ~ ' ~' ~' the only 2 properties that abuts this phase 2 from the Locust Heights Subdvisi~ .' guess my main concern is the density of houses in that area. You know, I am righon - ~-~ ~~ the creek, I have quite a bit of wildlife in that area and I just hate to see it go awl . ~ There are foxes that live down in there and there is a family of raccoons and quite a bit of birds and such things and I feel that if there were just, you know, maybe one or tV3o less houses in that area right there would be a little bit more beneficial for the wildlife ,~ that are already being scattered with the rest of the subdivision now. Originally when I. saw this -- the original proposal, there was not as many houses in there, the lots were' bigger in this area, and I'm speaking about this -- this area right in here, right Qn ~' ~ ~_ . _. creek, and, again, my -- probably 90 percent of it is selfishness on my part, bec ~ ~! ~+ ~~ you know, I bought the property because I like the wildlife and I've tried real hard toy ~ ~ maintain that and if there was a little bit more buffer zone, a little less density in t~i'a~' ;° ~'~~' . area, then that would be protected a little bit better and Ijust -- ' " ~ ~"°' :~~ Borup: Sir, was your lot the one on -- the furthest to the east? ~ s ~~~ ~ • }~~-' . ~~ ~~ - ,~ . ~. ti '~ ~~ ~' ^ ~ f . ^ ~ ^ ii ~ I ^~' ^ Meridian Planning and Zoning fission Meeting ' Novemrer 15, 2001 ~~ Page 76 -~ ~~~~ i Forsberg: No. Mine is the second one in. .. ' ~~;., _. ~~~~. Borup: Second one in? i ~ Forsberg: That's correct. That one there. So it's looking like to me they aid puf~in~ ink ~ ^ ~ ' - 4 lots up against my one lot and it just seems like a lot of people are going to be^in ~ ^ that area and the original plans that I saw held for a pedestrian path down througtti there ~ and not so many houses. So I guess that's all I really have to say. I'm just, again, concerned for the wildlife and, you know, you just don't see that many foxes in this area anymore and it's kind of a nice thing. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Any questions, Commissioners? Thank you, sir. ~, Centers: Just one. Does that creek run full year around? .~ Forsberg: It's not running full this year. In the past it has -- it has trickled winter. This year it has not. Centers: Okay. J . ~ ,~ ~ ^ through~t~ie:'~-, Norton: Excuse me. I have one question. How long have you lived on that property '~ Forsberg: 3, almost 4 years. Norton: Okay. Thank you. r~ Borup: Do we have anyone else? '~ '~ r Fender: Fred Fender at 2134 Autumn Way, which is immediately to the north of the ~ property in question and the property that's immediately to the west of the proposed^ - ~~ ^ ^ er~'T~rgency access. I'd just like to address the emergency access. 2 years ago wh n' we were going through all of this -- some of you were here, some of you are new to th~eA ' Commission, but we s ent man hours with ACRD first and then came here in front of ~ ~ ^` P Y the Planning and Zoning and thought we had aft this ironed out and hopefully we df~a`'"r~d•`1,~~ I just would like to speak to that and encourage you to keep that emergency acces t ,, ~ ~ would make a lot more sense to come in off of Eagle Road with the way the traffic tlo are going to have a primary access through our subdivision in line in and around mikes ~ ~~~~ _~ +~ little sense because of the construction of the road, the density of the housing, it's rather closed, tight-knit community there, and we would really not like to see a main , access through that. .+ ti~ ~ ~ Borup: There has been no proposal to change that. ~ ~~~ .;' Fender: Okay. ' ^ ~,'L Y ^1 ~ Borup: It's still emergency access with the bollards and no vehicle access. ^ ~~ t _~ 1 ~' •• +. - - ~ Meridian Plannir~p and Zoning emission Meeting ~ ~ '~ r November 15, 2001 Page 77 ~ '~ . _i ^ ~ Fender: Okay. Good. Congratulations. Thank you. M •/ Borup: Well, but that's what the applicant proposed. There was a mistake that was '~ '• ~ `~. mentioned. ~ ~~ Fender: That's what I thought. I just wanted to confirm and that -- I also just ~i'ian~d~' ~ ~ i r ~,~ ~ ' affirm their project. I think it's a very nice project=they have done, they have~~la td~th~ word, and those of us that live next door I enjoy looking off to the project and the'house' `~ ~ • y„ they are building. They are doing a nice project and I want to congratulate th~ri`~ fo that, so -- ' ~ :, ,' ., Borup: Thank you, sir. Any questions? Thank you, sir. - .. ~ ._~ Cooley: My name is Keith Cooley, I live at 2586 Autumn Way in Greenhill Estates and .,~ ~ , I'm on the committee of the Greenhill Estates Homeowners. We did have just a board `~• ~ ~~ meeting, we had a very hard time for some reason getting even that many together and ~ ~~ '~~ on a very short notice and we haven't talked to all the homeowners, but our mein ; `~ concern was the access and we appreciate that that's going to stay the same. I ha~ nr ~~ one more item and that was that we would like to have a chance to have' the ~r+~ homeowners, particularly those that live next to the Woodbridge, have a chance to get„ together and discuss the fence and possibly work with the Woodbridge people to work + ~~' out an agreeable fence situation there, so that would be all my comments. ~~ Borup: Are you -- you've got a concern with the fence that's agreed upon now? ^'~~~ ~~ I ~~ ~~ ~.~ Coo ey. We ve heard some comment about they would prefer some other type o~fencg~,:~=.. but only from a couple of the people that live next there. ,~~C ~ . Borup: Do you know whether those are the people that expressed the same con years ago? ~ i~-~ , Cooley: I don't know, because I was not able to meet in some of the meetings at th -. ~ : ~ time. ~~ r' ^ ~~' . Boru :Thank ou. An uestions? ~ - • ~~ p Y Yq ~T iii ~~ ~ JI^1 Norton: I do have a question. A~Ir. Chairman, considering you were the only one on h ~ ~~ Commission at that time, we are all since December 1999, I came on in Jan~Fary 2000,' ~! 4• what type of fence are we talking about? - ~~ ^ S~ ^ ~.w~i i Cooley: Well, the fence that was approved is a good neighbor fence and we don't -- Norton: What does that mean? ~~ ~~ ~~~ Cooley: That means it's the same on both sides, so you don't have one side th''at Id~1"cs ~` like a back and one side that looks like a front. I'm not sure that that's gojpg to ~~ a real- ~ j~ concern, but we want to have a chance to have the homeowners meet and discuss trh~~ ~:- ~~ w .. ~~ M ~ ~` ~~ ri ~ ~ ~• Meridian Planning and Zoning ~ ~ission Meeting °_ ~' I ~ November 15, 2001 ~ ' ^ Page 78 and meet with the Woodbridge people to discuss what the majority want. I'm not'su're~. ~ ~- . we'll get everybody that wants the same thing anyway, but -- : '~ Borup: So you're saying that some might not want a fence at all? r,. ~ _=~: Cooley: I don't know, to tell you the truth. That may be -- . ~~ - ~'~- Y. .~.. Borup: Yes. Yes. They are putting it on their property, so I mean I think there is probably going to be a fence. But I think you're certainly welcome to discuss that with -- ~~ " ~M x e Cooley: Thank you. _ ~, ~' Borup: Thank you. ~ ~~ ^ Mecham: My name is Bryan I'1Yfecham, I live at 2159 Autumn Way, which is north of^t~i~ *~~~ project and I'm the home - ~~" Borup: Right next to the access road. ~.r' i~ h, Mecham: Exactly. Just a couple of points I'd like to make. I was involved in a lof'of the ~ ~~'~! discussion 2 years ago. I think Woodbridge and the late hours has something in ~~ + " r common. We were here until 3:00 in the morning discussing atone time I thiP~k -- ~~~d~ Borup: It won't be that late tonight. ' :~. Mecham: -- Commissioner Borup knows about that one. Anyway, what we'd like fd -- r ~ I'd just like to say that I'm glad to hear that this emergency access is staying. One o~ ' our concerns is, just so the rest of the Commissioners know, is that in the decision that } ~~ it was going to stay -- I mean the emergency access, there is still that concern about the ~ '~~ r 1 -. secondary access and in our discussions last time it was said that if at the 2bOth home ~ ' '_ they didn't have a secondary access that the project would be stopped end that th~~'~~ couldn't go and petition to have the emergency access turned into their secondary' ' ~~^ access and that was agreed upon. So I just wanted to bring that up again, that if it"~; ~~~ comes to the 200th home, we are not expecting to have the ACHD here. W ^ have` ^^ ~' ACHD -- I almost said AC-DC -- the ACHD come in and put that road in. Th ~~~ie ~~'~ question -- or the one point I was going to make, I was involved in the m~etings~ ^;x' regarding the fence. We did have a discussion to the east of our property alorrg~ ~ r^ subdivision, our half acre division, there is a berm with trees that separate their ho~~s "'~ " from the development that's going in and it's -- one of the things that's going to hap~~n ~ „^ is that we have thought about having a berm with a fence type a little bit higher. We•didr; -- we didn't push for that completely when we -- when we signed on. We would'lik~o be able to discuss that, because we now see that it's -- the development's continuing ' down our subdivision from the east and there is a berm and I believe in our whole subdivision we are going to have half a berm with trees and the other half is going to t?e ~~ this little fence with -- you know, cedar fence and the other thing that -- Borup: You're talking about the berms in the commercial subdivision; right? ~ }^ ti ~ :~ ..~~ :~ ~~~ ^ ~' 1~ Meridian Planning and Zoning C~~issipn Meeting ~ '~ ~1 _ ~ November 15, 2001 Page 79 ^'~!, - Mecham: Right. But if you notice, it's going to come halfway down into our half acres' and into the full acre lots. Right to there would be bermed. Then the rest of the ~iay~ ~. down is going to be a picket fence in our subdivision. So the same for cl5nsist~n'~jY~i maybe would like to have the opportunity to discuss that. We did find out tFiat on~~o~' j our close neighbors, that O'Neill Enterprises made sure they put a berm u'p to profe~t ~' their subdivision from looking into the storage facility. So they requested a berm, so w~' ~ ~,,~ think that, you know, it's something that we should be able to look at. If that's what ~„ neighborhood agreed upon, it's allowed to be able to look at that. The last coupl~~ comments is the good neighbor fence. I heard Mr. O'Neill say that the r~gighboi"s' '~=' mean that the homeowners would maintain that good neighbor fence. Tlie ques~io~ir i:ti ~ ~~ is that both sides or is it just one side? I mean are we going to be required tb -- since' " ~~ it's on their property are we going to be required to maintain our side or is that --~~~1 , ~ want to get a clarification of what he meant by -- he did say that they would maintain the ' ti ^ .<~ fence, so, you know, I assume both sides, but -- the other point was on the emerge~icy~,~ access. I wasn't sure who -- on our property who's going to develop that. Is that tfi~e~ Y ACHD? Is it a requirement of O'Neill Enterprises or Woodbridge to -- so that that" pathway between our subdivision and their subdivision is consistent or is there going ~o be two different organizations that we are going to be dealing with? Borup: Do you remember what was agreed to 2 years ago? ~~ x^ i -^A~~ . ^~,~- ~, Mecham: Well, my recollection was that O'Neill Enterprises and the homeowners v~~ work together to put that together, but I didn't know if ACRD and -- if they are in~eoly~ ~ ~ or who's involved with that. So I was just hoping for some clarification what's kfel~i~~'r ~ =,i required of -- so I know who I get to work with. -~,~ w Borup: I think, yes, we will get some clarification. But my thought is I'm not sure what ;~ '^ they can do. It's not their property. ,a ~ y a Mecham: I didn't know if that was a requirement of theirs to tie it in or if it's ours -- I jus~~~ ~~ didn't know, so -- ~. - . Borup: Yes. That's ACHD property, is that not right? ~1 . . ~~ l~. f~llecham: Yes. It's the ACHD's property. ~, ~~ . x.~^ Borup: All right. ^ 1' ~ 7 C ^ Mecham: So they would be responsible for that. Do we need to be meeting with them ^ ~ or - ^- ' ~,~~, Borup: I would assume if anything's going to happen it probably would -- I meth if they' are -- whether they would look at doing something different, I - 2 years ~gd, I don't " x Y remember the details. I guess in my mind I was expecting to see the grass creek antl~ 4 ~_~' landscaping area done on the Woodbridge side and then what happened on the other =" side would be up to your subdivision. ~ '- ^il ~' C i ~C fi=r ti ^=^ ~~ . Meridian Planning and Zoning ~9 fission Meeting ~- ~~ ^ November 15, 2001 ~ .~. Page 80 =_••~~ a ~~ ~ k~lecham: I guess I'm just a little concerned -- ^ Y` ~• y ' Borup: But I don't remember what was -- .. ~ ~~`~- ,~.. ~; ,, Rllecham: I remember we were going to work together and -- ~ `~~ - ,, . Borup: I think we can get some clarification on that. ' . ~~ ~ `~ '•~' Mecham: Then the last thing -- I think Mr. Cooley mentioned it -- you know, in these ~ ~ ,. board meetings, if they have board meeting tFiat are homeowners association, that tf~e :a ~-~~ Fenders and the Mechams could be invited, since we are the ones that are going to b ~' affected by this project and I guess the question as homeowners what do we ado, do we- :, '~ ~ contact ACHD for the access and discuss with them how they are going to do it or -- ~~~ ~~~~ ^~^ Borup: Yes. ~ ."~~ Mecham: Is that what we have to do? i~ r ~~ ~.~. Borup: It sounds like maybe you need to talk to your board members for notification. o x . ~• Mecham: Okay. `~ ' - ~r ~.. Borup: Any questions? Thank you. Anyone else? Last chance. Okay. Oh, Mr. Osborne ~'~ ~~ . ~~ Osborne: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Ron Osborne, 373 Thornwood brive. Also } ^ owner of the recently approved Franklin Mini Storage. It's almost midnight and we ~f'e ' meeting too often. A couple comments. First of all, Commissioner Norton, the horses are doing fine. Okay? The colts are doing nicely. I appreciate ~u4r. O'Neill's comments .~ about our discussion prior to the meeting and it wasn't quite as positive when we wef~ ~ having that discussion as he portrayed, but I appreciate that that's changed a little bit' ~ or 3 issues I'd like to address. Thought we were going to have to break out the bd`Scir~ gloves out there, so -- the berm issue and the fencing. The -- along the south bd1-der o~ = the property, as mentioned by Mr. Mecham, the east side is currently beitmed tre'e_d ~r and a fence. That will run down to the middle of tHb property. I was one of~tHbse~ 2 ~ ~ years ago that did request the berming, so -- at the meeting they had at ~at f ma', ar~d ~~s~~ 'x r . ~,-~ +~ ' was in a minority. I think also the Fenders were interested in the berming at that time , r . and it may have been discussed. But we'd like to see something done a little different ~ ~ ^ there than the good neighbor fence, because I'm afraid it will become the good ship ~ . lollypop, beings that everybody paints or stains it different colors on both sid~s.~'+ ~ } Perhaps berming may not work and Mr. O'Neill may be right there, but I'd like tp discuss~+ that. But certainly trees, shrubbery, and particularly trees that would grow really fall; I, ~~~" don't want to see in their neighbor's bedrooms or anywhere else in their house'and with the proximity of the houses along that side, including my own, that will take place _~ ~~' ~~ would think some type of berming, fencing, and particularly trees that may grow rapidly would be appropriate there and then would be consistent along the entire prdperty line.-' ~ ^ ^ Secondly, on the corner just where it meets the south corner of my property wee did talTc ^ ~~ ~ '. . ~` ^ ~ '~. .~ Meridian Planning and Zoning C~iission Meeting -i ' November 15, 2001 e ~ ~~ Page 81 ~.~ ~ to them about approximately a 120 foot setback there that could be treed and then Ifs. ~~_~ Vbould blend with my adjacent mini storage property and I'm sure, you know, that Iral~ ~ sense to them, because we, you know, put in that little -- what we are going"fo ca I : ' ,. affectionately the Snorting Bull Park at the backbf My property and -- •~ ~ ~ -, ~ .. Nary: I thought it was Osborne. ~ .~~~~~~ ~~+ ~~ _. Osborne: Well, Osbornes can maintain it, but it wasn't Osborne's~idea'aT~d so -- o~k"ay~~ ~ }~ t We think that would -- as I mentioned before, to be for the benefit of the communit". - ,~' Since that pathway will come right along Five Mile there, it would set back with sd . trees that would -- between the back of our property. We think that makes some ~~ns~',, ~ ~' . A couple other things, too, we'd like to address. The lighting issue, I haven't I-I~ard'^. much about that, and that is a concern, depending upon what kind o~ lighting will b~ ,, .i allowed on the houses on the back, porch lighting, outside lighting. ~ ^~ ~' Borup: Mr. Osborne, your time is getting close, but I'm not sure if all your comments are' really that serious. ~ :, ,, Osborne: Oh, they are. Very. Borup: The concern about residential lighting? ~~ • ~+ ~, Osborne: Absolutely. ! .'~~~ , i~ti~, . Borup: Okay. r7~ " '~',~ ~^ } 7 V ~ ^ Osborne: Absolutely. If we could have berming, trees, and fencing there, I think~it ~.+: ~L would resolve many of those lighting concerns. The next item, they have immediatel~!`t5 ~^_ the south of my residence currently an extremely large mound of dirt that has been~~ - there for some time. It used to be 35 tons and now a large portion of that is in vaPibus places, such adjacent to the houses, and we expressed a concern about what the futirre~"' ~ ,~~ dirt would be and we recognize with a project like that there is going to be dirt, but it~i ^ been for a year plus and it was stacked immediately behind those houses in th "~^ southwest part of that. So that was a concern there. He addre`ss~d tie banners".~~ The. banners were hung on the back of the houses that were right behin"d our proper^fy. That.. r~ ~~~ seems to be oin awa .And those are the issues we would. Be ha to starTti for~'~~~ g 9 Y PPY questions, Mr. Chairman. ti ~~"~ s~ ^ .r ~~- Borup: Any questions from any Commissioners? Thank you. Maybe just one sh'~rt~k~ ^` '^ one. It sounds like you're proposing to make a change in the agreement that wa"s - '~5 ~~ agreed on 2 years ago and not -- the developer not necessarily comply with all tft~ ^ things they agreed to at that time. ~ ~~~ ' ^ _ _ „~~I!~ Osborne: What change in what agreement are you -- .~1 _ .tip ~,~ Borup: The fence and the berming, etc. ^~~~ R ~. ~'" r ' •~il' Er ti i 1 r ~ ~~ rvleridian Planning and Zoning mission Meeting ~-- ^ ti November 15, 2001 L ^ - =~ Page 82 :s Osborne: Yes, I am encouraging a change there. .+ Borup: Okay. Would you also feel okay if we let them change a few other thins th~~~ R'~' agreed to also? ~ _' Osborne: I would be open for those discussions. ^ ~~ ~ `'. R ~~ Borup: Thank you. ^'~ . ~ =n Osborne: I'm not sure which ones you're referring to, so I don't know. .' a Borup: Lot sizes, maybe. Have a few more smaller lots against your subdivision or ~~ things like that that they agreed to at that -- ~. Osborne: If they can get them any smaller, that's great. They addressed the issue a~. ~ ~± ~ '~~ that time about the house pricing, the value of the house along there and a~feed td.~t ; ~- the higher valued houses there, which was my concern at that time grid th ~ bias' ~~ ` ' ^ satisfactory. ' ~~' Borup: Okay. Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Okay. Mr. O'Neill. Because oft ~ lateness, I think I would like to limit maybe your comments to questions that t~ Commissioners have, does that sound satisfactory? I have got -- actually, I have got -- ~~ have only got two, and we will see what the other Commissioners have. That wa"s or~a~~ ~ ~ ~~ comment by Mr. Thornberry, I believe that was his name, that the original plat that'Elr` approved had -- that the amount of lots had increased and then a comment old the pathway on File IVlile Creek. original density -- we are actual 4 I~ O'Neill: Along his property line, as you may recall, we had an access -- a ro~~'cTi - ~~ would; have brought vehicles in this area I was concerned about. That's w ernet ~~' showed the access. So there was a road t~i~l-e. So there was one fewer Fiorr~e IS~, because it was a road. I certainly think probably for his purposes and the conce' n= has, having that road further away from thatarea will probably benefit him.xThl i a 20 foot buffer where that sanitary sewer easement is that can't be built on, ~^Q~t~e i buffer there and, in addition to that, he had mentioned a pathway and there c ~air~~~'il _ O'Neill: I can answer both those questions. The home sites fewer than the approved original density Borup: Overall. But how about along his property? Is a pathway that will run all the way along Five Mile Creek up to the edge f nth" property. So there will be a pathway. Borup: The pathway is still there? ~• ~:; O'Neill: You bet. That pathway is still there. Borup: Is there any concerns, questions the other Commissioners have? . So we have less home sites -- ' ^ ~ • ~, . y r'' "~~ ~L ti ~ti"~~ 3 ^ 1 y .. ., ~. = r^ _ 7 .+ i y _ ~1 ': r~r~~~.' Meridian Planning and Zoning J~~~ fission Meeting - it November 15, 2001 ~ ~,~ Page 83 ~ _ .M 1 ~ ~1 ^ _ ~. Nary: I guess, R/1r. Chairman, I'm a little unclear on -- and maybe I guest I shol~Id'~`sl~ ~ ~ Mr. Osborne, but on the residential lighting, I guess I'm not really that clear. . ,~ _ O'Neill: I can give you some thoughts on that. I mean those neighbors ha~7e I~jh~ well, so our people living in our houses are just as concerned about the lights't~ia over there. Typically we have lights on the back that are focused down and nd't fo~1 ,: . out. Some homeowners today like to have those motion sensors and they like't lights that come on and off. I certainly don't want to put a homeowner in a positio~ir they can't have security and do things for them. So I guess we are open to ligl Y~ v ideas, but what's good for them, it's good for us. o with the lighting requirem t certainly would like to see them have those, too. Shreeve: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Shreeve. Shreeve: Then back to the berm. What's your thoughts on that berm? ^ !~.~~ iere~~_i z . - ~tiri~ t - ~~" ~r. ~~ _.. V ~ ~~~ 1 ^~` ^.: ~e~ ii ~ O'Neill: I'm not in support of the berm. There is a ditch or a lateral that goes along their ~ property line and I'd hate to put a berm in there and to be able to put a berm on botR ~~'~~ sides of that I think is going to be very difficult and I think we can provide them privacy. ^ ~ - We have neighbors, too, that have backyards a'hd they are concerned about tFios~~ ~~ things as well. So I'm not in support of a berm. ~ ^ 1 1 ~ ~ ~ ~~e~ Shreeve: Okay. Then just for clarification on the maintenance of the fence. ~ r ~_ ~ ~ r ~ O'Neill: Good question. The fence is on our property. It will be the responsi$ility of~ t~i~e _ . homeowners who have that property to maintain it. Just to you let you know, we wild -- ~.~ ~. Shreeve: Just on the back side? ^'~= . w. ' O'Neill: We will have to work out an agreement with those folks and that's always a~ ~ ~; ^ problem in projects that are fence to fence, but we certainly have been able to do it in ^ `, past projects and hope the neighbors can be good neighbors and can work ~r t~,~ ~ that. Just to let you know, we will stain the fence to begin with at our cost, so we ill~'ut ~}„ -~. an original stain on it, but it will last a little bit longer than some of the other fences yt~tY '~ ~ ~ see. But if the homeowner doesn't want us to get on their property to maintain it, it's ~~ going to be hard to do that. Hopefully they will be in support of that. ~ E~'~ . ~1~ •~ti= . Borup: Any of other concerns from the Commissioners? Okay. Unless there is ~ ~ S something you feel is really important, then go ahead and then make any ~f~ial' ~~'~ti~ comments. ~ ~'~ ^~ -~ ,1~~-- O'Neill: I probably should stop, but I'm -- it's hard for me not to respond to a coupl~~o~~~ things. One, Mr. Mecham's comments about the highway district or our responsibility~o~:~ .' ^ improve the highway district's right of way. I have the approval conditions and'tFl'~'-. ~^ * - ~u~ ;~~ Meridian Planning and Zoning G~ission Meeting November 15, 2001 Page 84 ii highway district's condition is to extend Weatherby Drive form Autumn 1l~ay into the s1t~• and emergency access and pedestrian pathway with a 50 foot right of way. So itrs' c~ea'r in the original condition that we were going to take it up to the propert~T and v~Je ~~f'~ going to improve it and then we couldn't control what happened on Elie fi gfiv~a'' district's property. We certainly will work with them, we will share with them our d~si and we will do everything we can so they hope that it's consistent, but we cal5't c tr ~ what happens on their property. Borup: Okay. la~1r. Mecham wondered if they should contact the ACHD be your assessment, too? So that would O'Neill: Absolutely. But we'd participate in the meeting with them if they wanted to. Borup: Okay. O'Neil: I don't have any other substantive comments. Borup: Okay. Thank you. O'Neill: Thank you for your time tonight. Borup: Any final comments from staff? None. Okay. Commissioners, any discussion?~ ~~ of the comments from the applicant was -- the one I think was handled on th'e'-- bit tie other on the off-site high pressure water tie in is probably one of the issues. ~ "~ Nary: Iguess -- b1r. Chairman, Iguess -- first I'd move that we close the Public H~a Norton: I second. Borup: Okay. Motion and second. All in favor? i~ r~lx ~: ^ ,~ r~ r.•r ~. -;, •ti R~ .r o ^ ~~ ~I' _.~ t.. 'MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. ~~ ~~. Nary: Iguess my only comment would be in looking at the staff report and looki~~ -v. ~ .~^ how this project got to this point, I guess I'm not ready tonight to revisi a lot of ~i s~ • other issues regarding the berm and the trees and all those things. That was doF e'~ It~' ,~~ just doesn't seem like something that we should be revisiting tonight on this, I'g~ess. I think the vehicular access I think makes some sense on what they wanted to do. Tl~e ~r• ~ ~'~ . fencing I think makes some sense. I agree there probably may be some problems v'~ith~ ~~~ it, but I still think it's pretty reasonable how they are trying to do that. Iguess -- r~ay~e ^ V it's just our experience with Mr. O'Neill on a couple of other projects. It seems like he been pretty cooperative in trying to work through these things. I guess I don't's~e~ reason to start over with the whole Conditional Use Permit. All we are looking at~is ti basically the phase of the plat, looks like the second phase. It appears to^meLfha basically there is 2 modifications that have been suggested by Woodbridge. O e, the ' ti city staff has agreed -- agreeing to this modification and the second one it's not and tie ~'}~~' latecomer fee agreement can probably deal with that and that's something they^~an ~, ~: ....~. ~_^ ., :~ ' Meridian Planning and Zoning ~~rT~ission Meeting November 15, 2001 :..r ^ ~~~~ ~~~~ ^ _ ~^ Page 85 ' ' °~' ^a• work out together. So I guess -- I don't think we probably need to do a whole lot. I dgp't ~ ~~~ see that this is something we should be revisiting some old issues and start over again,.. -~ . I think it just opens us up for more problems than just looking at this for what it is,^ { different phase of a project that's essentially been approved to some degree and there is a little bit of change in there, so -- ~, . T ,~ Borup: Any other comments? ~~ ~~~~ Centers: That's my feeling. , ~ , ~ ~ = 1 Borup: Okay. ~r Norton: Mr. Chairman, I didn't see the applicant objecting to staff comments. ' 1 Borup: Just those 2. ^ ^ ~. Nary: Yes. ^ Borup: The one was in agreement already. I guess comments one and 2 from the --and __, 3. Okay. Do we have any other questions or concerns? ^ _ Nary: ~Vlr. Chairman, I guess I'd move that we recommend approval of PP 01-0'x,9, ti ^ request for preliminary plat approval of 115 building lots and 10 other lots on 29`.'9 '~' acres in an R-4 zone for proposed Woodbridge No. 2 by Woodbridge Community, LLB, °~' `t ~ east of South Locust Grove and south of East Franklin Road, to include all of staff^~~ ~ ~~ comments of the staff report of October 23, 2001, with the only amendment is tl5 site _ specific comment number one, that it can be amended to include the sentence: `Agr upon by the a plicant, as well as the city in the letter from Woodridge of cS'~~o Beacham, date November 14, 2001, essentially adding one sentence to that conditlbn~-~ .^~,~ ^ that says the applicant shall be required to do A, the Five Mile Trunk sewer lafecom~r~ ~. ~ ~ fees in full or, with City Council approval, make arrangements to obtain -- pri6~i-'~t~` obtaining city signatures on the final plat. To include all the remainder of th~ sta~f•~ II =comments as well and on this letter, as far as public record, to not include tt~e '~' modification to site specific comment number 2. ^ ; ' . ' r~ r Borup: Okay. We have a motion. ~~,; ~. Centers: Second. Borup: Second. Any further discussion? Norton: I just want to put on the record that it seemed to be very important to these Y ~~ residents that this emergency vehicle access remain only as an emergency vehicular W access and not revert to a main access. I think it should be important and stated to Cit~1 " " Council that it should remain only an emergency access. ~' ~- ^ .~ '~ ~; R~,~~ .~ ~Y . ii ~ y ~~~• ^. ~ `U ~^ Meridian Planning and Zoning C i~ssiq~ Meeting ^ ,:,`, November 15, 2001 ti"' ~ Page 86 ~. ^ ~~ ' :~ Borup: That -- you know, we do not have a revised plat, but I'm assuming that the plat {' ~ will go to City Council and will show that with the detail and that's --. I'll reiterate th~t~ - that's what was approved, strictly that. Any other --. All in favor? Any opposed. - E. ~. ~ ~ ~ ~r' :~ . ~ MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES ` r^ Borup: Thank you. '~ .'~~ Item 10. Public Hearing: PFP 01-006 Request for Prelminary/Final Plat '^ approval of 2 building lots on 10 acres in an L-O zong for ^ Tramore Subdivision by Thomas Development Co. - south of ~ West Pine Avenue and East of North Linder Road: ~ ~~.~^- Item 11. Public Hearing: CUP 01-036 Request for a Conditional Use Perr~t f~h~." a ~ s ~ , ~ rra , ~. ~, the construction of a 72 unit wood rarr}~, three story senior apaftm~nt i complex in an L-O zone for proposed Tramore Senior Gommunit~i ~by~ ~~ Thomas Development, Co. -south of West Pink Avenue did eas~ d'F~ ~^ North Linder Road: ~` .. Borup: Let's reconvene from our short break and the next item is 10 and 11, Ptib~lic' ' Hearing on PFP 01-006, request for Preliminary/Final Plat approval of 2 building lo~s'on '~'~~` 10 acres in an L-O zone for Tramore Subdivision and related is a request fob ~r ~ ' Conditional Use Permit, construction of a 72 unit, 3 story, senior apartment compl~k~i-n'~'f' an L-O zone for proposed Tramore Senior Community by Thomas Development. It's~~.~' south of Pine Avenue, east of North Linder. I'd like to open both these Public Hearih~~'s and start with the staff report. ^ +~, Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup. Aerial photo on the screen of the proposed site. Pine Avenue on the north side. I think you're generally aware. We've already hack a request tonight for a school at the -- just down there -- right here. We've also had ~ _ ~ " request for aday-care just right over in this area. So I think you're well familiar with t~• ^ k area here, South Pine. Here is a more detailed site plan of the proposed lot. the ~ ~' ~~~ existing Sunbridge Rehabilitation Senior Center is immediately adjacent here to tht~ - west. This is a -- one of those Preliminary/Final Plat applications before you, so'w~ao ~ = .'~ ' have detailed comments on both the preliminary and final. It is vacant pi~'c~ of group `~ ~~~ right now. There are I believe about 6 residences adjacent immediately to,t~ie n~rt ~ ^ r ^' across Pine Street that would -- that would be impacted by the project. Nere ar a ~ ~ couple of site photos of the Nine Mile Creek, which bisects the plat. This is the exist ^g~ pathway, which I reference in the staff report here, that stubs in Tremont Subdivi~~or~ ~ r and it is referenced. Again, this would just continue directly west along the Nine'Mil'e. ~ - ' ~ ^ This actually is not the plat itself. We didnt have an 8 and a half by 11, so I a~bltigize~ for that. But this is -- this is more or less the layout that they are proposing. Wei do ~ -~ ' they are proposing a 2 lot subdivision. The flag lot here that would access Pine ark come down across the Nine Mile. This Conditional Use Permit is for this northerly Idt~ G' here for the 72 unit senior apartment complex, so there is just the 2 lots. Before I go on~4 "- Iwill refer to a couple of particular points. You should have received a November 13tH ' letter from Mr. Tom Mannschreck that did address a couple of the issues. So I refer you; ~' ~ .~ ~, ^-. eeCi ~,- Qecerr~ber 18, 2Q01 Page 70 De Weerd: I would second that. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and second to approve the Conditional Use Permit with staff conditions, the bollards, and the public testimony of the time. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote, please. Role Call: Bird, aye; de Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, absent. Corrie: All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. ONE ABSENT. ~.> . Itert~ 21. Public Hearing quest for Preliminary Plat approval of 115 building to s an- o er lots on 29.93 acres in an R-4 zone for proposed Woodbridge No. 2 by Woodbridge Community, LLC - east of South Locust Grove Road and south of East Franklin Road: Corrie: Item No. 21 is a Public Hearing on a request for a Preliminary Plat approval for 115 building lots and 10 other lots on 28.83 acres in an R-4 zone for proposed Woodbridge No. 2 by Woodbridge Community, LLC, east of South Locust Grove and South of East Franklin Road. At this time we will the open Public Hearing. Staff comments first. Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is for the remainder of the property in Woodbridge Subdivision that's located east of the Five Mile Creek adjacent to the Magic View Subdivision and also the Locust View Heights Subdivision. Greenhill Estates is to the north and this is all county property here. We have -- there is a revised plan. They did get overall approval for this at one time, but they had revised their plan and so that's why they are coming back with a new Preliminary Plat. One of the conditions of the -- I don't know if it was the planned development or the original plat, was that they would have to have a second access into the subdivision after the -- I think it was the 200th home and they haven't got this location tied down yet. They do have a public road that the roadway is going to be dedicated through to Greenhill Estates. However, at this time they are not proposing a roadway section or the typical public street, it was going to be a pedestrian and emergency vehicle only at this time. I believe Gary Smith or Brad Watson had some issues related to this subdivision that they can address. There will be pathway along Five Mile Creek and the applicant to speak to the details of that as they have been worked out with the Parks and Rec director. There is a sewer easement existing along the eastern side of Five le Creek that they will have to maintain for access for the vehicles. I will let Gary or Brad speak to the public works issues. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council. There were two issues that the applicant responded to in the staff comments with the request for revision. i~ City Cour~il i ' ~ ate! 18, 2gD1 ~ P 71 De eerd: r, ayor? Corrie: rs. de Weerd. e Weerd: 0, Gary, what is staffs recommendation on participating on the City side? I mean is this something that a have done before or is this setting a precedence far something else? _ i~t City Cnurrbil i ~ ~ 18, 2QD1 Page 72 I think it's near the half mile grid to get us aver to Eagle Road eventually, which would be the IElagic View Drive. De Weerd: And is that a usual requirement to bring it to and through the -- Smith: Yes. That is a usual requirement on mid section line and on section lines that they upsize the diameter of the water line. De Weerd: Thank you. Corrie: Okay. Any other questions for staff? Bird: I have none. Corrie: Okay. Public Hearing. The developer. O'Neal: . Mayor, embers of the Council, my name is Derrick O"Neal, 168 North 9th, Suite 200. I just ran in the door from a four hour trip down from IGcCall and I'm having a little trouble getting up to speed here. De Weerd: And you haven't had time to shave. ' City C it ' 18, 2001 P 73 eerd: r. yor? Carrie: rs. a eerd. e eerd: o o you feel that you're being asked to o something that other developments are not being asked to do? ^ ' City Caur~i! ing~ ~~'' 18, 2001 P 74 little different and this is giving s additional pressure, but I' not sure that answers your question. De erd: Yeah. Currie: Any other questions? ir: I have none, aor. Currie: I guess I have one, rrick. a just tabled slate-co ers fee until the 15th of Janus for discussion purposes. Can you shed any light --are you sing to ask for the thin on this one as you're asking for that -- the one previous that tabled, that -- the five year, four percent? ' l: I' not -- Currie: You're not with s -- O' l: I' not with you. I missed that part of eting. You deferred the -- Currie: i h. i ht. And a -- I guess it says here on the Item o. 1, lte- comers fees be paid prior to City signatures an the Final Plat or applicant shall enter into n agreement with the i prior to the signature. ut is it dour intention o do the same thing as you r sin o that other one, first phase? ' el: Yes. a prefer to take that en#ir later-co rs fee and I think, s addressed in the letter, "d like to have payment pro r s autlin for Phase 1 and for the total 134,000, whatever that was. Currie: Five year period t four percent? ' al: Yes. Currie: That y have s tin to o with the i participation at the end of It, t00, .'!O -- ' el: Yeah. Currie: -- I just wanted the Council to be aware of that . Thank y. Anyone else from the public that would like to issue testimony? eecha Scott eecha 18 o 9th Street, Suite 200. Derrick did not have an opportuni to take a lank # the packet, so I will just add #at it appears that the rcoentin fra Tanning and onin includes cum nts from C on Phase 1, as opposed to Phase 2. There are new comments from ACH td ctoer 24th, that should be included s n alternative. ~ti ' i City Caarril i . -- 18, 2Q01 P 75 Corrie: Okay. Beecham: Thank you, Corrie: Thank you. Anyone else for public testimony for? Against? Okay. Council, any questions for the Public Hearing falks? I'tl entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing on Item o. 21. e Weerd: I'd move a close the Public Hearing. Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to close the Public Hearing. Any further discussion? II those in favor of the motion say aye. Opposed no. All ayes. ~ otion carried. - OTIO CARRIED: ALL AYES. ONE ABSENT. Corrie: Council, comments? Discussion? e eerd: r. ayor? Corrie: rs. de Weerd. De Weerd: s far as the language regarding the late-comers on the PZ recommendation, page two, number one, that's sufficient language so that we can deal with that late-comers at a later time? Smith: a believe so. De eerd: Then as far as the domestic water system and the City's participation in that, are a asking the applicant to do something beyond going to and through that would warrant the City's participation? - , (aft C{t}/ CCU{{ { .. 18, 2{01 P ~ 76 r i t t far politic i r? i t pic Il our r it t i toe the s ice lines t o r develop nt. it : r. or? ith: itut these li nations. rri r. ird. it : , 1 r t t the dvl r i illi to ri i ru n hat -- the the east t t a are lki o i d to the I I, I fi v, there a ~ is ie I not ri ht? I don't believe that os a to the hk t the i tr, are they? it: I k h t l l s i. ird: That's the one ri t behin i in eri .You at ter b l all the n there an -- ith: Yes. er i s e a t -- fro l d to II n r t, I eliv, and I' not sure -- ird: They o't o tr -- ass II trt? ih: 1' not sure far it east -- r t II , i i as est. ird: it there i s evelo n t i kin lace o the rt corn r o Iln n is i , I believe r is. It is in ogre's subdivision -- i~ it That's alr of atr r n there, b s have of Lrncaln faz n gin k has Ire of ter. 6 ~'' ' ian City Calr~il i 18, 2001 P 77 ith: key. ell, i he's developed alon a is Vie , then I uld sus ct the water has been a ended to his st bounda , but I couldn't say for sure. ird: Yeah. That's -- hat are a looking at, ,cos is to brin it on down - - If they brin it to, what i the i 's liabili t brin it on d ? ith: ell, I -- you can i ter s of cost? ird: Yeah. ith: I haven't -- I haven't looked t the cost of the tr line. rric si that it around $50,0 0 t a it fro here it is to their east bounda o I don't kno of any ether cost besides that. ird: ,0 0? o many feet? it: a said it was about a quarter of a mile. ird: quarter of il? ith: 1,300 feet. ird: So a are probe l looi t 100,000 if a are a half a Ilea . S it I uld assume o, i that's the case. Yes. a have of pavement to replace, a well s the installation of the water main. ird: Is that tr ain i ri t in the idle of the road? it : here is the 11, a ,that's pu pin into the xii oobri e, the location o the ell? hich well n r i of that? it isn't the one ca i fro -- over by the speedway, i it? it: t ylf oriented real nick here. ell 1, hich i the ell # the art er I in ould pu p that direction ut into atr r Lane and h east o ar r L to Locust rove would probe l the ain supply ell. CEty C rail ~ ;18, 2 1 P 78 it : Is -- u s i J it n y is it u n il, i t in o n r r r -- is n i r t li i ? i t r s -- s. II, lic t i is o in t t t r lin t r r L n, is wilt i s ri first s wilt. ir:s. i t ri is t r r in i t it l I c r i t i t, r r ltli it t i II is rn to n r , o? it: it : r II r t, is i , i t t II is . uk '? i II i II Is II , 1 t r i o h int r t n -- i t L s I its iii n. it : I' t tc s c r i c -- i I c sun r it rs 1 u n t I it : i; 1 1 r I i t i r r rri : r c t ? ~+ city comma i-~eetiig . _ s 18, 2t)01 Page 79 Bird: You can comment. Corrie: I know I can. I said my part. Okay. Any other comments? Okay. Then that°s -- if everybody is through, I will entertain a motion on the request for Preliminary Plat. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: N1r. Bird. De Weerd: 1~Ir. Mayor? Corrie: ~4rs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I would like to compliment Woodbridge. This is turning out to be a real nice subdivision. It looks really nice. Item 22. Public Hearing: PFP 01,006 Request for Preliminary/Final Plat approval of 2 buildii'tig lots on 10 acres in an L-0 zone for Tramore Subdivision by Thomas Development Co. -south of West Pine Avenue and east of North Linder Road: