Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 6, 2003 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Mee~ng February 6. 2003 Page 65 of 106 Borup: Okay. Commissioner Centers, you were about ready to make a motion, believe. Centers: Yes. I would move that we continue the Public Hearing Number 11 and 12 on our agenda, specifically AZ 02-031 and PP 02-032, to our second scheduled meeting in March, which would be March 20th. Zaremba: I will second that. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Anyopposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Okay. Thank you, everyone, for being here. This meeting - or this hearing has been continued to March 20th. Item 13. Public Hearing: AZ 02.030 Request for annexation and zoning of 38.65 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for proposed Silverleaf Subdivision by Crestline Development, LLC - 2683 West Chinden Boulevard: Public Hearing: PP 02.031 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 72 building lots and 8 other lots on 38.65 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Silverleaf Subdivision by Crestline Development, LLC - 2683 West Chinden Boulevard: Item 14. Borup: Okay. The next Public Hearings are Numbers 13 and 14, AZ 02-030, request for annexation and zoning of 38.65 acres from RUT to R-4 in a proposed Silverleaf Subdivision by Crestline Development and Public Hearing PP 02-031, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 72 building lots and 8 other lots on the same 38.65 acres in a proposed R-4 zone. We would like to open both these Public Hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The proposed Silverleaf Subdivision is up on Chinden Boulevard, up at the northern edge of our area of impact. It is adjacent to the northern portion of the recently approved Lochsa Falls Subdivision. It does encompass 38.65 acres. They are requesting an R-4 zone. This is a -- it shows the current proposed layout of that subdivision. The large green area shown in this layout is the proposed school site to be purchased by the Meridian School District. This is the proposed Landscape Plan for the landscape areas that are within the subdivision and the street buffer out on Chinden Boulevard. You should have a staff report dated January 27th from David McKinnon and Bruce Freckleton. In general, I can tell you that the major issues with this have been related to access, water, and sewer. I'm going to have Bruce talk about some of these here in a minute. I'm going to start at the back of this staff report with the recommendation. The first one, the paragraph starts with the recommendation for denial, because of the water, sewer, and road issues. I have got information tonight from the applicant that they may be able to address the timing of those things in a manner that would not cause it to be denied. The reason for the denial -- recommendation for denial is because of -- the timing seems so far out for those Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Mee~ng February 6, 2003 Page 66 of 106 services to be able to reach this location, so we need to talk about that with the applicant. The second portion of that does say that the Commission does recommend approval -- they recommend adopting one of the findings that were sug~ested by ITD, which would require substantial redesign. Just today, dated February 6 ,there was a letter to Kevin Amar from Dan Kuntz at the Idaho Transportation Department. Did the Commissioners receive a copy of this? As I read this, it seems to suggest that it would not require that major redesign, that their -- it seems to be saying that the 70 feet of right of way as proposed in the draft plat is acceptable to them, without the frontage or backage road as their previous letter had required. I can go though that a little bit as I go through the staff report. The thing I'd like to point out in here -- I start on page two, Item A, of the staff report. Down at the third paragraph it talks about the school district site and this was an issue that came up during the Lochsa Falls Subdivision, that there was not a school site provided in that subdivision and that one would likely be needed on the adjacent property. This is that adjacent property and they are working with the school district on a school site. On Page 4 at the top, it talks about the finding that's required to say that it's provided adequate services. In that -- in that finding staff states that it cannot currently be served adequately by public road access, water, or sewer. Those seem to be the main issues that need to be worked out. Under the additional considerations on Page 5 it talks about the timing of the development, as well as the sanitary sewer lift station. I'm going to pause here and as Bruce, do you want to talk about the lift station right here? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the permanent sewer service area for this development -- I wish I had a better map. Have you got one that shows more of the -- the Black Cat Service area that I spoke of earlier with the previous application, in our facilities plan there will be a -- we call it the North Black Cat area, which is -- which is the northern portion that serves this area and the rest of our urban service planning boundary up in this area. The plan that is being developed by JUB is for the southern Black Cat service area. We have no plan on the radar screen for this area at this time for the northern area. The applicant is proposing installing a lift station and pumping back into a future phase of the Lochsa Falls project. That's what they are proposing for sewer service. Water service, they are proposing getting water service through a future phase of Lochsa Falls Subdivision as well. The timing of the phasing of Lochsa Falls is, you know, totally dependent upon the developer of Lochsa Falls and the public street access, although it -- Ms. Wildwood did have a proposal tonight, still kind of mulling that around a little bit. The accesses for the subdivision are into Lochsa Falls Subdivision, those future phases so, that maybe answers the questions you have. Siddoway: I will just expound a little bit on the timing of development issue as related to some of the other things. The access into this subdivision, as Bruce was just saying, comes off of the collector road that's going to be built in a future phase of Lochsa Falls. It's not currently built and so there is nothing for them to take access from currently so that's going to be one issue. Then, the water and sewer that Bruce was just talking about, the -- also this being extended from a future phase of Lochsa, which isn't currently there, is the difficulty that we face. Moving on in the staff report. At the bottom of Page 5, we do recommend that a Development Agreement will be required to address specific items as noted in that condition. Moving on for Page 6, there are some additional considerations specifically related to the plat. The first is the requirement for Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission MeeUng February 6. 2003 Page 67 of 106 five percent open space. This plat does not meet the requirement for five percent open space, if you exclude the school site. Excluding the school site and looking just at the residential subdivision on its own, there is only two percent open space in the storm drainage lots that are provided and the micropath that connects to the school. The proposed solution from the developer would be to make up that remaining land area as a donation to the school. That would amount to 1.2 acres of land would meet their five percent open space requirement, in addition to what they have currently shown, and they would donate that to the school district. To count that, as open space does not currently meet the requirements of the Meridian Code and the staff report suggests that they would need to obtain a variance from City Council in order for it to be calculated in that fashion. One of the main considerations is the fact that the school site is not one that's been - that's currently on the radar screen for construction and I think Wendell is here. He may be able to talk to the timing a little better, but it may remain undeveloped for some time. Zaremba: Steve? Siddoway: Yes. Zaremba: While you're on that subject -- excuse me. Even if it were considered as open space, it will eventually have buildings built on it, which means it couldn't be considered 100 percent open space, could it? Siddoway: Correct. The entire site for the school property is in the neighborhood of 10 acres, so it's much -- they would just be donating, you know, the lower one acre of that 10. The school site would incorporate open space. How public that open space is or how available it is to the residents of the subdivision is a question. Centers: Well, I don't have any problem with that, because I think it would be available, you know, personally, I think, and there would be a lot of lawn area out there, I'm sure, for ball playing, et cetera. I had a question here. Maybe you don't know or -- I think you do. The owner developer of this is the sa.me as the owner developer of Lochsa? 'Siddoway: No. It's the same as Castlebrook. Centers: You know a person would just kind of assume that they might be, but they are not. Siddoway: No, it's not. Centers: Okay. Siddoway: Different players entirely. Item Number 2 on Page 7 is block length. When the staff report was written there were two blocks that exceeded the maximum block length. They had submitted a revised plat. I'm uncertain if this is the revised plat or not. Is it? Okay so that would leave Block 3 still needing the Variance to the block length and that would have to be approved by Council. Item 3 is the Simpson Lateral. There were no easements for that lateral shown on the plat and they would need to be Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Mee~ng February 6, 2003 Page 66 of 106 depicted on the plat. Item 4 deals with Highway 20-26. This is where it ~ets into the letter from ITD, as I was referencing on their letter dated December 30 , they were requesting either 120 feet for a future frontage road or 70 feet if the developer were to provide an internal frontage or what they call a backage road. That is what the developers of Lochsa did where they have lots fronting along Chinden with a road that went along the rear of those lots. This proposal technically does neither of those, but, like I pointed out per the letter received today, it appears to be that the proposed layout is fine with lTD. I will have the applicant address that to find out what conversations they have had with lTD. Item Number 5 on Page 8 is the street buffer landscaping. The street buffer lot as proposed along Chinden is currently shown at 30 feet. It needs to be revised per ordinance to be a minimum of 35 feet, plus it needs to continue and extend across the frontage of the school site. Item Number 6 is storm water integration. We have heard this issue before. It's simply stating that we need to find out on the record if they know of any depth-to-groundwater issues that would cause the proposed storm water facility open space areas to require a hard surface to prevent groundwater penetration. If so, we would recommend that they not be counted toward the open space calculation. Item seven is the sanitary sewer lift station, which Bruce just addressed. Item 8 is a tot lot. There is a tot lot shown on the Preliminary Plat, but no other details are given. We would like some details provided on the record regarding the design and construction and whether or not play equipment is intended to be part of that. Item 9 on Page 9 is the phasing. There is no phasing shown. We need to find out if the applicant intends to do it as one phase or if they intend to phase it, we need to have that depicted on the plat. Item 10 is the school site. I have already pointed this issue out. It is not scheduled for construction at this time. I think that fairly well summarizes the issues. We can -- I'll stand for any questions. Borup: Questions for Steve? Okay. Is the applicant ready for their presentation? You have a nice list of item there. Amar: Again, for the record, representing Silverleaf Subdivision, my name is Kevin Amar, address 114 East Idaho, Suite 230, in Meridian. This project -- I will go over it real quickly, because Bruce -- or Steve did a great job. This project is on the 20-26 corridor. Susan, could you put up the other one? Access to this project, due to 20-26 and ITD requirements, is restricted to the half - mile mark, which is off of this property and on the Lochsa subdivision. We would be requiring access through Lochsa subdivision for a permanent nature. Ms. Wildwood has had discussions with ITD and I think we do have some solutions and she will address those, because she's had those discussions. Lochsa subdivision, as I'm sure you're aware, was recently approved with a park in it. When we brought this project forward -- in fact, the first time we ever met with staff, the first comments that were out of their mouths were you got to have a school site. At that time, we immediately ran to Wendell Bigham, who we confer with anyway, and he also confirmed that it has to have a school site. Since that time we have been working on -- I'll use this one. We have been working with Wendell. There is a 10-acre school site on the property. There are 73 residential lots. There is one existing house on this property here so there will be 72 new residential lots. This area - it is the school district's desire to have one elementary school site per square mile. This is one of the large -- last large parcels that can accommodate a school site in this square mile. Wendell's desire -- the school district's desire to have property for a future Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 6, 2003 Page 69 of 106 date of construction, it's our desire as developers to develop a subdivision. It's also the city's desire to have growth or planned growth for the school district and we feel that this subdivision actually promotes and enhances the plans of all parties involved. The school district will get their site, the selfish developer will get their subdivision, and the city will also have the progressive planning that they are looking for. The sewer -- we are working with the sewer -- with the Engineering Department. This would require a lift station for this project. However, for a school to be on any other property out here would require a lift station. T his lift station is - as we are proposing it, would be a private lift station to be owned and maintained by the homeowners association and a cooperative effort with the school district. We have done t his in other locations, we actually hire a third party to maintain those, as typically homeowners associations aren't qualified to maintain a sewer lift station. In most instances, we use Rotor-Rooter and it has a contract. That contract would need to be reviewed and approved also by the City of Meridian, so they feel comfortable. In some cases, the City of Meridian may want to have the contract them selves. In any event, that is something that the homeowners association would pay for and each resident in that subdivision until the time the lift station is abandoned, would have a monthly service fee to pay for that lift station. The exact location of the lift station, we will put it where the Engineering Department would like. We put it in this location, because at the time we did there was only one stub street to the -- to the west. Since then we went to ACHD and they asked us to put an additional stub street in, if they would like us to move that sewer lift station to this point or any other point for that matter, we will do that. Again, as I said, access -- Ms. Wildwood will be addressing that, as will Mr. Bigham. What I can say is we are working in a cooperative effort with the school and also the developers, we feel we can resolve the issue of access. We do understand we have to have a permanent access, a portion of the Lochsa Subdivision has to be developed, and we feel we can address that. The same goes for the water and sewer. We have had conversations with Marty Goldsmith, Farwest Development, we have not reached conclusions, but we feel like we can do that. We will be asking to be continued this evening in order to address those issues prior to a recommendation of approval or denial. The open space requirement, we are providing in this subdivision - there is, actually, a tot lot and as we did in Castlebrook, we will be providing a recreation area for those children who will immediately move into this subdivision to play. Eventually, there is going to be a school site out here with a number of acres for children to play pretty much whatever they want to, whatever they do at schools. In the interim, until that is developed, we do want to provide an area for kids to go out and recreate, they can play whatever they play on those tot lots, but it will provide an area for them to recreate. The additional open space, we felt that it would be a better use of that land to dedicate or donate that portion to the school, rather than have them buy another portion and develop it, an additional open space. Eventually, when this school is developed, all the kids are going to go there and play anyway. It's a bigger area and they have much cooler playground equipment than most subdivisions have. We are providing a pathway to the school site in order for these residents to get there and we provided in the entrances to the -- we have been working with the architect to the school district. Primarily there will be two entrances at this location accessing the school, which will sit in this area and, then, an additional exit for buses on this area. For that reason we have put -- we didn't want any front-on housing that bordered the school property where b uses and cars will bet raveling. This will be a landscaped area. Fence, again, with vinyl fencing. On this -- in this case it probably will Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Mee~ng February 6, 2003 Page 70 of 106 be six feet in height. The pathways, of course, will be four-foot maximum height, solid wall fence, as per Meridian City Ordinance. The buffer area on the Highway 20-26 will go the entire distance of the project. It will be 35 feet and, again, it will have the vinyl fencing. Again, part of the staff report, it requested that there be a sidewalk also put along that area. We are in agreement with the staff report and we will be doing that. The groundwater issue, we have done a test well and I can't tell you the depth of the groundwater, because we didn't find any. We dug down 14 feet and there was no groundwater. Again, we do have monitoring wells in this property and they have been monitoring that throughout use year. The only time they found groundwater in there is when they were doing surface watering a nd there was groundwater a II over, surface water. Those will be reports that will be turned in at the time of development to the Engineering Department, as well as to DEQ. We understand that there is an issue with groundwater in Meridian and we want to make sure all those open spaces that we have are usable and functional open spaces. With respect to the block length, due to the nature of the subdivision and where the a ccess point is a t this location that I TD will allow, we are requesting a Variance here. We can't sub any of those and the school doesn't want any roads stubbing into their property. This is the only lot -- or block, rather, that we are requesting a Variance we have broken it up with a pathway to the school district. This is, actually, a common lot for these four lots to access back in this area. These neighbors are here -- I forgot their names, but their house -- and I took some pictures of the area to show the location of their house. It is very close to the property line. We did, again, have a neighborhood meeting on this property. This road is, actually, the western property line of this development. At the neighborhood meeting, they requested that we fence that property with a six-foot vinyl fence. That's something we will be doing also. We will fence their entire boundary with that six-foot vinyl fence. The Simpson - or Simpson Lateral, that's something of size that it will be tiled per the City of Meridian requirements. That will be in an easement appropriate to both the City of Meridian and to the Settler's Irrigation District. Any other open - there is a drain at this location. That drain would be fenced in accordance, again, with City of Meridian policy. We have CC&Rs on this project very similar to the other project with the exception of t his is a 1,400 square foot minimum on this property. There are a variety of lot sizes. Susan has colored up the map and we show those lot sizes and the mix of those lot sizes. We d id want to point 0 ut that we are 0 nly proposing an R-8 subdivision within this -- within the city. I know that was a concern of this body. This property is actually -- if you include the school, I think it's 1.8 units per acre. If you take the school out, we are still at 2 point -- I think it's 2.6 units per acre. The lots that we have in here are a significant size and aren't maximizing that smallest that we can get. We feel that a variety is a good idea and that's what we are trying to provide. Centers: This is a walking path? Amar: No. Actually, that's going to be a common lot -- access lot for these four properties. A flag lot, if you will. Zaremba: A driveway? Amar: A driveway. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission MeeUng February 6, 2003 Page 71 of 106 Centers: Yes I was wondering how these two lots are going get to there. Amar: They will drive down that driveway. Centers: Okay so that's a driveway, that's not -- Amar: Yes and that's -- although it's not -- that was not included in the open space calculations. Centers: Yes I wouldn't think so. Amar: Just wanted to point that out. When we are done, we have about three percent open space in this subdivision. We need an additional two percent. We have our figures backwards. As I said, we felt it was a better use of the land to actually donate that property to the school district, rather than making them buy it. I think that benefits everyone. Ms. Wildwood will address the ITD concems. As far as phasing, at this time we anticipate doing this in one construction phase. There are 72 lots, as I stated, and that would - what we'd like to do is do this in one phase. With that, I believe I would stand for any questions. Actually, I think Ms. Wildwood provided you a packet and that had a lot of the same types of information with the last packet that was in it. Borup: Okay. Are there any questions for Mr. Amar? I have got a couple, then. You said you felt you could address the access, but not at this point? Amar: Yes. We had discussions with Mr. Goldsmith and his representatives and we feel that we can come to an agreement there. There is some additional negotiations that need to happen, but there is also another option that Ms. Wildwood will address on a temporary basis that ITD will allow -- or said they would allow, they haven't gotten us a letter yet and that's something -- we want to present you with a letter before we give any assurances, obviously. Borup: Okay. That would be the access question? Amar: Correct. Borup: So, then, the other would be the services. Amar: The services. Again, those would be back from Farwest Development, Marty Goldsmith, and his representatives. We have had discussions this them. Mr. Bigham has been a part of those discussions. We feel that we can answer those questions, but we need more time to negotiate those answers, and so we would ask to be continued for approximately a month. We feel like we can have those concerns answered. We feel this subdivision will benefit everybody involved, including Mr. Goldsmith, due to the fact that this does have a school site on it and that is a selling feature of any subdivision, whether it be this one or any others. People that move into subdivisions want to know that their kids are going to go to school close to where they live. Meridian Planning and Zoning CommIssion Meeting February 6, 2003 Page 72 of 106 Borup: I was just curious on why ITD changed their mind on their requirements or will someone else address that? Amar: I will let Susan address that. Borup: Okay. Well, I think I agree with the comments Commissioner Centers made on the open area and the school site access, makes sense along - I mean the other -- the other aspect to me is the size of these lots, have a big factor on the necessity of open space. Did you give -- did you propose to sell that property to the school at a fair and reasonable price for that -- Amar: They won't buy it without a fair and reasonable price. Borup: Well, I don't know. I have seen them pay a lot more than I think they should have. Amar: We haven't -- we haven't actually got the contract with the school district, but what we told Mr. Bigham is it will be a fair and reasonable price and he's told us it will also be a fair and reasonable price, so I -- Zaremba: I thought I heard you say you were donating it. Amar: We are donating a portion of it, 1.2 acres of -- Zaremba: Out of the 10? Amar: Yes. Borup: Okay. Are there any other questions from the Commissioners? Ms. Wildwood, do you have -- Wildwood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. For the record, my name is Susan Wildwood, I'm an attorney with offices in Boise and I'm here on behalf of the applicant. Primarily, I'm here to address two things, the lot sizes, which are kind of self-explanatory. Again, the key is in there. You will notice we have rather a nice mix throughout the subdivision of the various lot sizes, so there is rather - probably more of a mix than you may have seen in other projects that have come before you, so I'm not going to go any farther into that. They have sizes that, obviously, that are going to be commensurate with that. The issue that I believe that is most of interest to the Commission is with regard to access. As part of your packet, the last is a letter a confirmation letter that I wrote to ITD based on the meeting that I had with Matt Ward on __ let's see, I guess it was Wednesday morning, actually. To go back to IT D's original letter, when they say they want to have 70 -- 120 feet if you're going to have a frontage road and 70 feet if you're going to have a backage road, most people think that that means the backage road has to be immediately adjacent to 20-26 or not -- a limited access highway. In fact, this road here constitutes a backage road. A backage road is simply something that is behind the residence, instead of closest to 20-26 and would offer traffic that goes out to another collector road that, then, accesses 20-26. Because Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission MeeUng February 6, 2003 Page 73 of 106 of that, the required road right of way from the centerline of 20-26 is actually 70 feet, which we have accommodated on our revised plat. That's what the 70 feet line is. It's very confusing, unless you meet with them, and we spent about two hours on another project learning what frontage and package roads were and did it have to be here and how close do they have to be. In fact, this road, when connected, becomes a backage road and, hence, the 70 feet, 120 feet, so that the next time that issue comes up, we can assure you that we spent two hours learning what backage roads actually were. What the discussion with IDT was, with regard to the temporary access onto 20-26, the existing residence in this location has an existing access off of 20-26 that goes down to that residence so, this is an existing legal access. Our discussions with ITD were to take that access and move it over to directly north of this cul-d-sac. It would be a temporary access that they would approve and it would be a Temporary Access Permit and as soon as it's -- there is a connection into Lochsa, that would have to be abandoned, removed. My discussion - very brief discussion with Bruce is that he would -- t he city would require, realistically enough, the same curb, gutter, sidewalk, improvements, as if it was going to be a permanent road, so that until that road was abandoned, this building lot would actually be the temporary road access onto 20-26. We would have - and I have asked for a confirming letter, but, obviously, it's got to go through the chain of command and come back. Then -- so that they can look at the plans, have those same kinds of discussions, and make sure that there aren't any other issues. The only reason we can do that, is because there is an existing access onto 20- 26. In essence, the individuals who are in this residence would access onto this roadway and would not require their existing driveway. What we would have, we hope, is that confirming letter before we come back to meet with you again. Zaremba: Does that align with Spur Wing Way, which is somewhere near there? Wildwood: I'm hearing Shawn say no. We have got that other map. Vicinity map so it would? Okay so it would. Zaremba: It's got to be fairly close to it. Wildwood: Yes really, really close. Zaremba: You wouldn't want it to be like 20 feet offset from it. Wildwood: No. No. That would be -- again, it's a matter of sitting and -- sitting down with ITD and getting the plans out. They are going to look at it, they would have to make that decision whether it came in off of this lot or where ever ITD would say here is where we want to see your access. Most likely, they are going to want to see it line up directly. Centers: Well, I see your letter is just dated today. Wildwood: Yes. Centers: Lochsa Falls sewer and water is not over to here? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 6. 2003 Page 74 of 106 Wildwood: Not yet. Centers: You want to talk about Lochsa Falls? I mean because -- Wildwood: The sewer and water - Centers: -- before you can even put in a lift station -- Wildwood: Correct. Correct. Centers: -- you have got to have it available. Wildwood: Absolutely and what Kevin was saying is that that's the discussion and negotiations that are going on with Marty Goldsmith and that that's what Wendell is assisting us with. Centers: And, then, there was no -- you didn't address water. It's all predicated on when Lochsa Falls builds out that phase, which is market driven. Wildwood: We can have Kevin address that. Amar: In our discussions with -- Kevin Amar. In our discussions with Farwest Development, Marty Goldsmith, and his representatives, their first -- this is Ten Mile. Their first phase, they will bring sewer approximately to this location over to Linder. What we had requested was to get an easement to their right of way, their eventual roads, and bring sewer and water from that point up to our proposed subdivision. We would have sewer and water, but we still need to negotiate those details with them. Centers: So, you're saying you're not relying on the development you're relying on the developer to give you an easement to bring the sewer and water up to your southerly location? Amar: Correct. Our proposal to the developer is we will build it in a location he establishes. Centers: This is probably, you know, irrelevant to ask, but why did you even bring the application at this time, when you didn't have negotiated with the developer? You didn't have negotiated with the Idaho Department of Transportation for that temporary access, why did you make application just to get on the docket? Amar: At the time we made application we thought we -- we have had meetings with ITD and we have had meetings with the developer and we thought - Centers: But you had no decisions. Amar: Correct but we thought we would have those decisions prior to this meeting and we apologize for that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Mee~ng February 6, 2003 Page 75 of 106 Centers: Thank you. Borup: Did you finish, Susan? Did you have some more? Wildwood: Yes. Borup: Okay. Centers: Mr. Chairman, I would like to hear from Mr. Bigham as to when that school might be built, because that open space would not be considered by this person until it's built. I want to -- and I know you will be honest with me, Mr. Bigham. When do you think that school will be built? Borup: And I'm assuming -- well, go ahead. Centers: Because it's weeds until then. Bigham: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. For the record, Wendell Bigham, representing Joint School District No.2, 911 Meridian Street, here in Meridian. A little preamble to your -- the answer to your question. As you're well aware, the school district, of recent, has been trying to acquire the elementary -- at least the elementary school sites as, if you will, platted lot and blocks within a subdivision, to make maximize the land use planning and the access issues that we have. To that end, our desire was to have a school in this area. This school will, all kidding aside, primarily serve those houses in Lochsa Falls, since that is, by far, the largest development in this square mile. We are in support of this, in its current location and configuration provides us the right safe access and stuff that we need. Borup: Excuse me. I was going to ask that, but Lochsa and this subdivision essentially fill that school? Bigham: Mr. Chairman -- Borup: At build out. Bigham: Essentially, yes. At three houses per acre, a square mile fills an elementary school, plus or minus 100 kids. It takes all of the development within the square mile, roughly, to accomplish this, unless we go up into that more than three houses per acre. We are desirous, in terms of our land use planning activities and site acquisition, to pin down the sights either by option or by ownership or any combination in between. I'm just reluctant to see this potential school site go by the wayside. Having said all of that now, when do we build on that site? I cannot give you a firm date, but it is at least out -- it's not in the 2004, 2006, possibly in the 2008, '9, '10 bond issues. I would say it is out there on the five to seven year horizon. You need to understand again, what will drive the construction of this school is the success of Lochsa Falls Subdivision and whatever might be happening slightly west of this. It is out there for a protracted number of years. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Mee~ng February 6, 2003 Page 76 of 106 Centers: I appreciate your honesty. Do you know how many -- and you might know this. How many homes have been built in Lochsa? I know it provides for 500 plus. Borup: None yet. Centers: What? Borup: There hasn't been any yet. Centers: Zero? Borup: At this point, yes. Centers: Right they haven't even broke ground or - whatever. It's not very many, then. Right? Borup: I don't think that there is -- Centers: And it's a 500-lot subdivision, plus or minus? I appreciate your honesty, Mr. Bigham. It could be as far out as 2010, depending on the market and how fast Lochsa fills out. Bigham: Or further. Centers: Yeah. Borup: But if Lochsa develops in five -- fully develops in five years that would put it at 2007. Where are those students going to be going? You would be busing them elsewhere, then? Bigham: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, to try to give you a -- to paint with a very broad brush here, this is a constant, ongoing discussion we have. If we had to make our best shot that where the schools would go and some of the next upcoming bond issues, I would guess first and foremost the elementary school will go into Bridgetower, since it's well into its multiple phases of its development. The second guess would probably be -- excuse me - in the - one of the phases that you're about to see coming from Murdoch _ or coming out on Cedar Springs. Possibly a third site in this area would be on the Havasu Subdivision through Farwest Development. Again, we tend -- we are making kind of an assumption here that the growth is, if you will, stemming from the Bridgetower area and is probably more likely to move in an eastern and a southern direction, than to start heading north and west, simply because of the Black Cat sewer extension. This thing is out four, five, six elementary schools so, the answer to your question is these students will probably be bused into that -- into the Bridgetower Subdivision or Cedar Springs or some combination of boundary shifts and that it would take quite a number of houses in this area to trigger the construction of this school. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission ~ng February 6. 2003 Page 77 of 106 Borup: Those other schools, even though they would probably be filled by the subdivisions around them, they are not going to fill immediately, so they are going to have capacity. Centers: And if -- let's say, for example, this were approved tonight and approved by the Council in 30 days, you don't have the money to pay for this, I don't believe. I think this is probably public record. I mean what do you do, you option it and you -- then you wait to build it out, you payoff the land when you need to build it out. Bigham: No Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, we allocate a certain amount of dollars every year on plant facilities dollars, we will call it a millions dollars for a small number. In the last bond issue, the 2000 -- September 2002 bond issue, we got permission to set aside six million dollars for land acquisition. In that six million dollars was - I don't have my list with me, but probably at least seven elementary schools that were more or less defined by a geographic square mile. At this juncture we have not spent any of that six million dollars, but we are in pending negotiations. All of our purchases are contingent upon preliminary, if not always Final Plat approval, and agreements that guarantee us sewer and water. If we buy it before the sewer and water gets there, the developer either bonds or gives us a letter of credit to protect the taxpayers in the event of their default. We have the funds to buy it. We tie up the land. It's usually is a protracted process, but unless all of the pieces of property, excuse me, that we are negotiating on come on all at once, I think it's a pretty fair statement to say that we have the money in the bank, so - Centers: But you wouldn't develop this until needed? You would let it sit there? Bigham: Yes, sir. Centers: Okay. Thank you so, the nice lawn, soccer fields and ball fields would not be there. Bigham: Mr. Chairman, Commission Centers, not at the school district's expense, no. Centers: Good answer. Borup: Any other questions for Mr. Bigham. Is that -- and I think that's real smart planning to be able to have the money to buy them? That's something of more recent development, isn't it, or has that been an ongoing policy? Bigham: Mr. Chairman, that has pretty much been my single responsibility for the last two years. We think we are getting a good handle on the growth, the -- certainly, the new Meridian Comprehensive Plan has helped us, the considerations for the north Meridian planning area has helped us get our hands around it the taxpayer support of six million dollars. The real big number is to meet our goals we need 35 million dollars over a period of years. Borup: And that's what I meant by more recent, the last couple of years. I think that's real good planning. I'm really glad to see we can look ahead like that. Thank you. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Mee~g February 6, 2003 Page 76 of 106 Centers: Thank you. Borup: Did you have anything? Okay anyone else to testify on this application? We have no one else here for this. Any other questions for staff or the applicant from any of the Commissioners at this point? I don't -- Kevin, how much time are you thinking you need to workout some of those questions? I have got some -- I mean I think you have got a lot to take care of. As Steve was giving his report, he said some of the concerns were road access, sewer, and water, and my thought was other than that, everything looks fine. Amar: You're right. The road access, we feel like we do have that issue worked out either the temporary solution that Susan had mentioned -- we don't have a letter for you, unfortunately, but we have had verbal commitment by ITD saying we can relocate the existing access for a temporary access. We do feel like we do have the road access issue worked out. The sewer access issue would be a matter of cooperative effort with the developer of Farwest. Borup: And the water would come down the same right of way? Amar: Correct. Borup: Okay. Amar: I can't imagine it would take longer than a month. If it does, then, we won't be here in that time and we'd just ask to be continued. Borup: Well, one of the -- well -- and I don't know that we have room on our -- on that 20th agenda. Our policy is we try to be -- that we don't hold Public Hearings after midnight. No. We are okay for the next hearing. We will be able to get to that. I was just looking ahead on a future date or -- I guess that hasn't been discussed. We need to discuss that among the Commissioners if that's an option to continue it or someone's got an altemative motion. I think you answered the question I had. You're talking more than a month. Amar: Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Okay. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Yes, Mr. Siddoway. Siddoway: We were trading ideas about that temporary access and the concern that we have is to access a public street through an easement, which is what that sounds like it would amount to, there would be an easement drawn across lots -- it's not an easement? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 6. 2003 Page 79 of 106 Borup: It would be a regular dedicated public highway that would be abandoned in the future? Amar: Yes. We would propose dedicating that right 0 f way to be abandoned upon access through Lochsa Subdivision. Siddoway: Okay that would be what we were talking about, because we were saying it probably should be dedicated as a public right of way and, then, vacated in the future when it's no longer needed. We should probably get ACHD's input on that as well. Borup: In addition to ITD? Siddoway: Yes. Amar: We can do that. Borup: Thank you discussion among the Commissioners? What's their -- Commissioner -- Centers: Well, I can tell you on the -- you know, I guess I would not be objectionable to continuing. I would not be Objectionable to denying it, but I can tell you if I see it again, that open space is not going to be approved unless it's improved. If they are going to give 1.2 acres to the school district, then, they need to plant lawn on it and have the homeowners taken care of it until that school goes in there in eight, nine years. Mr. Bigham said tonight 2010, max. It's eight -- seven years so, there is no way I'm going to give them consideration for open space when it sits there in weeds. You know, I think they have got to plan that, show a Landscaping Plan, underground sprinkling with pressurized irrigation, and which will tie into the school district's plan when they build, so there won't be any disruption and it would be valuable money spent. If they want to come back with something like that, that's fine with me. Borup: I think that's the kind of input that is important to give to them at this point, as far as where -- but it looks to me like either maybe adjoining the tot lot or adjoining the access path, something like that. Centers: Ms. Wildwood just wrote her letter today, so, you know, I guess I'd go with the majority here, but I'd go either way, deny it, or continue it. Borup: Commissioner Rohm, were you going to say something? Rohm: Well, I was just going to say that a continuance doesn't deny them the opportunity to address the issues that are before this Commission at this point in time. If, in fact, they can work with the access onto the roadway and other issues, I don't see any reason why we don't hear it maybe -- not in March, but -- Borup: The second meeting in April would be the next available. Rohm: Right the second meeting in April. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Mee~ng February 6, 2003 Page 80 of 106 Centers: Well -- and my point earlier, that's when we should have first heard it, rather than spend an hour and a half on it tonight. That's what's upsetting to me. Rohm: And that may be-- Borup: Okay. Commissioner Zaremba, any comments or-- Zaremba: No comment. Borup: Commissioner Mathes? Mathes: That's fine with me. Borup: Okay and I think I feel the same way as Commissioner Centers, with the information we have tonight, a denial is probably appropriate, but, like I said, it would probably make sense to give them the opportunity to overcome those things, if they can be provided for. That's really the crux of staff's concerns and objections, is those services aren't available. If it can be provided, I don't know why we would look at it any difficultly than any other project. Centers: Well, let's ask a question to Bruce. If they get the easement, how is Public Works going to view that? I mean are we wasting our time here? They talked to Marty Goldsmith, they get an easement up to the southerly portion of their development, you know, they are talking about their fancy dancy lift station, how is Public Works going to view it? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'll point out that in our staff report I did try to -- tried to point out on Page 4, the annexation and zoning analysis, ItemG. Centers: Which one? Freckleton: G. Centers: G that's on Page 3, isn't it? Freckleton: Page 4. Centers: Oh. Okay. Yes. Freckleton: Beginning about the middle of the paragraph where I say permanent sanitary sewer service to this development is to be provided by the undeveloped north Black Cat service area. The applicant proposes temporary pumping of the sewage generated within the development to a discharge point in a future in Lochsa Falls. No. Wait a minute. I'm screwed up. I'm sorry. Borup: Well, that was a true statement. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission MeeUng February 6, 2003 Page 81 of 106 Freckleton: Yes Page 5. Additional considerations, Item Number 2 under sanitary sewer lift station. Last sentence. Staff does not support the temporary lift station concept at this time, without plans being in place and a timeline being set for a permanent service to the area via the north Black Cat trunk. As I mentioned before, we have hired a consultant to develop plans and do the study for the South Black Cat trunk service area. At this point in time, it's not even on our radar screen to provide service to that north area. Centers: So, if you had a time line for the north -- for the north trunk, you would support it, but since you don't have a time line -- Freckleton: Typically, in the past when the Public Works Department has supported a temporary lift station situation, it's been when we have a time line. We know service is going to be here within a certain time frame and it truly is temporary. We know -- we know where the light is at the end of the tunnel. This is just a big unknown right now for us. Borup: How would you be providing sewer access to the park site? Freckleton: To the park site? Sorry, I'm not- Borup: Lochsa's park, which is -- which is south -- southwest of here or has that even been looked at? Freckleton: That is served off of the south -- yes, out of the North Slough Trunk. All of the Lochsa Falls project is served by facilities that are being extended by Lochsa Falls. Borup: Okay. That's on the North Slough. Freckleton: Right. This comer-- Borup: So this corner is in a different drainage -- Freckleton: This corner is a different sewer drainage and it has to go to that northwest end of our service boundary - urban service planning boundary. Borup: And that's already engineered and shown? Freckleton: That's part of our facilities in our Facility Plan. Centers: I would point out that if we deny this application, the applicant has every right and my blessing to go to the City Council and appeal our decision. Saying that, I will make that motion to -- Item Number 13 -- Borup: I don't know that it would be ready in time to be on the agenda. Centers: What's that? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission MeeUng February 6, 2003 Page 82 of 106 Borup: I don't know that they would have their presentation ready for the time -_ Centers: Well, let me ask this when a motion is approved or denied by the Planning Commission -- Borup: They still go to City Council. Centers: - can an applicant go to the City Council at a meeting of their choice, like two months down the road? Can they request that or do they have to take the next available slot? Freckleton: I'm not sure. Borup: Does Legal Counsel have any comment on that? Holinka: I would have to look it up, but I'm sure there is probably a time limit. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I believe it's 45 days. Borup: That's what I was thinking. Freckleton: We'd have to verify that, but -- Borup: I like it when we put the attorney to work. Zaremba: The purpose of such a time limit would be so that applicants don't get strong out forever if the applicant wanted to waive that or ask for a continuance or something. Freckleton: Ask for a continuance prior to it hitting Council. I mean it can get scheduled for a meeting and, then, they can ask for a continuance. Centers: Yes. Which we had and we always honor them. We had a request for continuance - we haven't closed the Public Hearing, have we? Borup: No. Centers: I would move we close the Public Hearing. Borup: Well-- Zaremba: Unless we are going to continue it. Borup: Yes that's what I was going to say. Okay that's your motion? Centers: Yes. I would move we close the Public Hearing. Borup: Do we have a second? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 6. 2003 Page 83 of 106 Mathes: I will second that. Rohm: Can you open the Public Hearing back up at a later date? Borup: Yes, we can. Depending on what motion is made. Zaremba: I think the thrust of closing the Public Hearing was to follow it with a motion of denial. Borup: Yes. Centers: Or approval. Borup: Okay we have got a motion and second. Any discussion? Zaremba: I can see continuing it, but I'm not real strong on that. Rohm: Personally, I like the layout ofthe subdivision. Centers: Oh, I do, too. Rohm: But there are issues that need to be addressed that are outside of the layout itself. My personal preference is to offer up a continuance and let them take the time to work out those issues. If they can't, then, if it will be denied via their own inability to respond. That seems logical to me. Centers: Well, I would point out that -- Mr. Freckleton's comment that even with the lift station they don't want the lift station, they want it tied to a proposed North Black Trunk that's not even on the drawing board. Rohm: Well, then, that's one of those issues that they haven't got worked out yet and by us offering up a continuance, doesn't preclude them from working that issue with Bruce's office. Centers: I don't think he's going to change his mind on that. You can ask him. Rohm: I'm not suggesting that he is, I'm just saying that it's their responsibility to provide solutions, not ours. Mathes: It depends on how long you want to continue it. Centers: Until they come back before the board with a solution that meets Mr. Freckleton's expectations. Borup: Yes ss we discussed earlier, probably the earliest date would be April 171h. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission MeeUng February 6, 2003 Page 84 of 106 Centers: What about the City Council question? They could go to the City Council if we deny it and, then, they could request a continuance if they didn't have their act together? Rig ht. Freckleton: That's correct. Ordinance 12-3-7F speaks to this. Council action. Within 45 days following receipt of the application, the Council shall consider the requirements of the Preliminary Plat and comments from concemed persons and agencies to arrive at a decision on a Final Plat. The Council shall approve, approve conditionally, disapprove, or table the Final Plat. If the Final Plat is tabled, it may be considered by the Council within 45 days of the date of initial consideration. Centers: See, that's my point. They can go to the Council. Zaremba: Well, except that the Council has so many other things to deal with as well that I know from talking to Council Members, they prefer for us to resolve as much as we can resolve and not hand them unresolved things. Centers: I agree. I have heard the same comments and that's why I'm hanging my hat on Mr. Freckleton's last comment, that they don't want the lift station tied into that sewer trunk. They want it tied into the North Black Trunk that is not even on the radar screen, the way Mr. Freckleton said. That was the -- I mean it's obvious that was what made up my mind and I was on the fence before. I told you that. Zaremba: I call the question. Borup: Okay all in favor? Centers: We are closing the Public Hearing. Borup: On Jerry's motion to close the Public Hearing. Zaremba: On both items. Borup: Right for both items? Centers: Yes correct. Borup: Okay all in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Centers: I will just move forward asp lanned. M r. Chairman, I'd I ike to recommend denial of Item Number 13, AZ 02-030, request for annexation and zoning of 38.65 acres from RUT to R-4 for proposed Silverleaf Sub by Crestline Development, LLC. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Anyone wish to speak to the motion? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 6. 2003 Page 85 of 106 Rohm: I just think that that cuts them off where they have no place to go, other than to the Council and request exceptions, even with the Commission's denial. By continuing it, it at least gives them an opportunity to get lined back up and come up with some sort of solution that would meet Bruce's expectations. If they can't do it, then, it dies it's own death and rather than us putting a nail in it ourselves. I'm not in favor of that myself. Borup: Okay any other comments? Centers: Well, I'll just address that comment, meets Bruce's expectations. There are no expectations, other than the North Black trunk line and it's not on the radar screen. He's not going to change his mind. Rohm: And I'm not suggesting that he does. I'm just saying that it's their responsibility to meet his expectations, not us to put him -- put them in a -- Centers: Well, I'm saying they can't meet them. Rohm: That's up to them to work that deal, not us. That's my opinion. Centers: Okay. Borup: You're saying they may have a persuasive argument and Bruce may change his mind. Rohm: And they can work that and if it doesn't come to fruition, then, we haven't denied them the opportunity to pursue and that's my position. Borup: I think what hasn't been discussed is future projects to the west of this, if there is anything in the planning stage there or not. We don't know at least at this point. Okay all in favor? Opposed? Okay. That was three to one. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE NAY Centers: Mr. Chairman, continuing on. I'd like to recommend denial of PP 02-031, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 72 building lots and eight other lots on 38.65 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Silverleaf Subdivision by Crestline Development, LLC. Zaremba: I would ask Counsel if we are not annexing and zoning this, whether we can even deal with it. I would say it's a non-issue. Borup: Well, essentially, it is, but I think we need to move on the -- we need to make a motion on that particular Public Hearing, don't we? Centers: I agree with you in a sense. Borup: It is a moot point. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 6. 2003 Page 86 of 106 Centers: Yes. Borup: But I think we need to still address it. Zaremba: Okay I'll second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE NAY Item 15. Public Hearing: RZ 02.009 Request for a Rezone of 0.17 acres from R- 8 to O-T zones for Bentley Apartments by Tamura and Associates - 518 East Broadway Avenue: Item 16. Public Hearing: CUP 02-048 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family dwelling unit in a proposed O-T zone for Bentley Apartments by Tamura and Associates - 518 East Broadway Avenue: Borup: Okay that does conclude those two items. Okay. We'd like to continue our meeting this evening with Item Numbers 15 and 16, Public Hearing RZ 02-009, request for a rezone of .17 acres from R-8 to O-T zones for Bentley Apartments by Tamura and Associates, at 518 East Broadway. Accompanying that, CUP 02-048, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family dwelling unit for a proposed 0- T zone. I'll open both of these Public Hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is a proposed Rezone, as well as a Conditional Use Permit. The Rezone would take the property from its existing R-8 zone to the Old Town zone. The Comprehensive Plan does designate this area as Old Town, so it would be eligible for the Old Town zone per the Comprehensive Plan. It is located at 518 East Broadway, about halfway between East 5th and East 6th Street. The proposal is to construct a 4-plex on the property. That 4- plex would be 3,884 square feet and two stories tall. They are proposing four covered stalls and two uncovered compact stalls, within the additional, two uncovered stalls in a tandem arrangement. You should have a staff report dated January 16th. I have a couple of photos. This is an aerial photo of the property. This is where Broadway comes up and dead ends to the east currently. You can see the existing residential character of the area. There are some existing multi-family dwellings. Borup: That's what I was going to ask. The building to the left, is that what that is? Siddoway: I believe it's another 4-plex. Oh and the other side, too so, there is - I think they are actually on both sides, surrounded by -- Centers: Kind of makes sense, doesn't it? Zaremba: Yes.