Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 5, 2003 P & ZMeridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg2of 100 Borup: All right. Rohm: I'll second that. Borup: Do we have a second? Rohm: Yes. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Do we have a motion on the Consent Agenda? Centers: Did you have any revision on the minutes? Zaremba: No. Centers: Well, yes, Mr. Chairman, I would make the motion that we approve the Consent Agenda as submitted, the minutes and the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for approval of MCU 03-001 as written and submitted. Rohm: I will second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 5. Public Hearing: PP 03-009 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 12 building lots and 6 other lots on 10.92 acres in an R-4 zone for Bear Creek No. 7 by Bear Creek, LLC -north of West Victory Road and east of South Stoddard Road: Borup: Okay. The first Public Hearing is PP 03-009, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 12 building lots and six other lots on 10.92 acres in an R-4 zone for Bear Creek No. 7. I'd like to open the Public Hearing at this time and start with the staff report. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I have highlighted on the overhead the area that we are going to be talking about tonight. It's located in the southwest corner of Stoddard and Victory Road. This is going to be called Bear Creek No. 7. This portion of the subdivision was originally approved as part of the Preliminary Plat for the original Bear Creek Subdivision. However, tonight they have requested a Preliminary Plat, so this is a new item that's not tied to the original plat, this is something entirely separate from that. As you can tell from this site -- from this overhead, there is a large canal that runs along the north boundary of the proposed subdivision. That's the Ridenbaugh Canal. The aerial shows how there is a separation Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 3 of 100 from the rest of the Bear Creek with the canal. The applicant is not proposing to connect this project to the other portions of Bear Creek rather they would prefer to do a gated community with large estate size lots. The gate would be located near the entrance off of Stoddard, with a cul-de-sac that terminates near Victory Road. The applicant will be applying for a Variance for the cul-de-sac length. The Landscape Plan shows the landscaping adjacent to Victory and Stoddard, plus the entryway. The subdivision itself does not have a large degree -- a large amount of open space. As you know, the subdivision ordinance requires that five percent of all subdivisions that are larger than five acres in size to have five percent of the gross area of the subdivision to be an open space. The open space that they have provided is located in the drainage lot, a small landscape island by the gate, a little more there -- and I got a shaky hand, I can see some in the audience -- and there is some landscaping that's part of a parkway adjacent to the road. Those are the pictures. The issues that we have tonight, I think if you take a look at the staff report really quick, have you tum to page three of the staff report, just the additional considerations. I have already mentioned the cul-de-sac length and they will be applying for a Variance for that. It's approximately 600 feet in length and the maximum allowed is 450 feet. The second item under the additional considerations is the construction of a pathway. When this project was originally approved as part of the Bear Creek Preliminary Plat, the Comprehensive Plan had not yet been adopted and there were no plans for a pathway adjacent to the Ridenbaugh Canal. Since that time the Comprehensive Plan has been adopted that shows part of the master planning with a pathway adjacent to the Ridenbaugh Canal as part of the master plan for the city's park system. Because this is a new application for a new plat, something different than was originally approved, the Comprehensive Plan would -- in order to comply with the Comprehensive Plan, they should have to build the pathway and that's what this comment makes reference to. The Parks Department has requested a 10-foot wide hard surfaced asphalt pathway and they would like that to be located on the south side of the Ridenbaugh Canal. The reason for it to be on the south side of the Ridenbaugh Canal is because there is currently no connection on the north side of the Ridenbaugh Canal for the rest of the Bear Creek Subdivision. As part of the Bear Creek No. 7 Subdivision, they could provide apathway -- connection to the path -- a micropath connection to the multi-use pathway through the subdivision. The Parks Department has requested that. Item Number 3 underneath the additional considerations, the five percent over space requirement. If there were a pathway constructed, they would meet the five percent open space requirement. Without the construction of the pathway, they would not meet the five percent open space requirement and they should be required to provide additional open space. Number 4, the sidewalks, at the bottom of Page 3 when Bear Creek Subdivision was originally approved for the entire plat, there was no sidewalk requirements on the Ridenbaugh Canal. The sidewalk would come down Stoddard, down Victory, and, then, stop once it got to the bridge and, then, continue again once it got passed the bridge and that was a requirement to add some sidewalk to the bridge, if at all possible. The intent on that is to provide connectivity, not to require them to build a new bridge. If there is no space for that, there wouldn't be a requirement, but if there is space, they need to place sidewalks adjacent to the bridge. Item Number 5 if you could turn to the next page, on Page 4 the landscape island, the small tic-tac shaped landscape island located right there next to the gate, is located too close to the gate, so that people, when they pull up, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 4 of 100 they would have to back out. We have asked them to move it further to the west, so that people can pull up to the gate. If they can't access the gate, instead of having to go in reverse, they can pull forward and make a u-turn around the island, rather than having to back up into oncoming traffic. I have had an opportunity to talk with the applicant about a number of these issues. I haven't seen him here tonight, but one of the members of the partnership is here tonight. They can answer any questions. The items that are located in additional considerations are in the comments as conditions of approval, including the sidewalk and the multi-use pathways. If you have any questions, I will take those at this time and turn the time back over to you for a Public Hearing. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Mr. McKinnon, you say you have had a chance to talk with the applicant on the issues. What did they have as a response? McKinnon: They did have a response and one of the things that the applicant said he was going to do is talk with the Parks Department this afternoon and get together with Doug Strong, the Parks Director, to, again, meet with him to discuss the multi-use path and that was about 3:30 this afternoon. I have not heard back from him at that time to discuss his -- his discussion that they had on the phone earlier today. The landscape island they have agreed to move. The cul-de-sac length they have agreed to submit for a Variance. The five percent open space is an issue that they would like to discuss with you tonight. The sidewalks, if they can fit one in, they are agreeable to that. If they can't fit one in, they do not want to be required to build new bridge crossings that would be wide enough to accommodate a sidewalk and staff understands that, but if there is room, there should be a requirement for that. They have agreed to most of the issues here tonight. Again, this is a private road and it's going to be built to ACHD standards. It's a gated community. We don't have very many of these in Meridian and that's something that you may want to discuss tonight as to whether or not this should be a community that's gated. In the staff report, I had mentioned that in the Comprehensive Plan there are goals to state that there should be a variety of housing types and there are not a lot of gated communities in Meridian, so this provides some variety to what we currently have in the City of Meridian right now. I'll entertain any other questions at this time. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Centers: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: Yes. Mr. McKinnon, the pathway -- what would be the connectivity or is the pathway just usable basically by that little subdivision? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, the pathway is shown on the Comprehensive Plan as continuing across Victory Road. Again, we discussed in the past how the land -- how the pathway system was never land truthed, nobody actually went out and made the follow up. If you look on the Comprehensive Plan, the road -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg5of 100 Victory actually cuts across the Ridenbaugh Canal three times before it gets back over to Eagle, so that would be three crossings. What we envision happening, in discussions with the Parks Department, is for it to connect to a sidewalk on Victory Road and continue down to a point where it can cross with the crosswalk at Eagle and, then, come back to the pathway. On the north side we envision that it would cross across Stoddard, which is a collector street, it doesn't carry the same volume of traffic as Eagle Road or even Victory, for that matter, although Victory also is classified as a collector at this time. That it would come across and follow the Ridenbaugh Canal all the way back up around to Black Cat to complete the master circuit. Centers: What do we have right here and right here? Vacant land or -- McKinnon: More residential. I can go back to the aerial. This is where it comes back. The Ridenbaugh Canal follows this route. Then, there is more residential and it is true there is not a great deal of houses out there at this time. Centers: Does Bear Creek have a pathway, the main portion of Bear Creek? McKinnon: Bear Creek does not have a master pathway. There are pathways within Bear Creek. Centers: Within the sub. McKinnon: To provide interconnectivity. Centers: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: Do we know the Fire Department and Police Department's opinion on gated communities? McKinnon: I have got with Joe Silva in the Fire would support that with the conditions that he's condition that he had was a knox box, so that their fire engine. Department and he has stated that he placed upon that. I believe the major they could get access to the gate with Zaremba: Okay. McKinnon: One issue that they may have in the future would be the cul-de-sac length and we will address that with the variance. Borup: Thank you. Is the applicant here and would like to make their presentation? Arnold: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, for the record my name is Steve Amold. Work address is 1800 West Overland Road. I'm here representing the applicant for Westpark Company. I missed the beginning of the presentation, so if I duplicate some of the things that were stated by staff, I apologize. What we have here before you tonight is, basically, the same plan that was approved back in '99, with the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg6of 100 one exception of the private road. The client wishes to get -- to make this kind of the premier portion of Bear Creek. If you have been out to Bear Creek, the further south you go, the larger the lots and the nicer the subdivision becomes. Essentially, the only thing that has changed from our original approval is that -- it is the private road and we do plan on getting it off. We will comply with all of the conditions. The only one that we have exception with is the pathway. Speaking from experiencing, I have dealt with another subdivision, it's The Lakes at Cherry Lane No. 9, dealing with the Eight Mile Lateral trying to put a pathway along that. That subdivision was approved in '90 -- late '98. I still have yet to build a pathway. The Council directed me to bring the subdivision back. I am to submit a modification, because, basically, Nampa-Meridian does not want us to put a pathway next to a ditch that's not piped. The Ridenbaugh Canal is a little bit too large to pipe. I don't think they would allow us to pipe it. Again, I missed some of the earlier discussions, but Idon't -- I have not had a conversation with the Parks Department to find out if any of that has been resolved. Meaning if the -- if they have got some sort of master agreement -- they did have an agreement along drains to where the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District would allow the city or the developer to construct pathways along those drains, because of the low volume, slow moving water. Live canals and, especially, this one -- this is a headache that -- it will go on forever and we will be back before the Council that -- basically having that condition removed. That would be one item tonight that I would request that this Commission not require us to do. There were several other items within the staff report that (believe -- I don't know if they did get addressed -- Borup: Well, it did. You said you will comply with all of those, moving the island at the gate back far enough for a car to turn around and -- Arnold: That's correct. Borup: I think that was probably the main one, other than apply for a Variance on the -- Arnold: Cul-de-sac. Borup: -- on the cul-de-sac length I mean, Commission, in my mind one of the factors -- and maybe the distance does make a difference. One of the factors is how many homes are on that length and the larger the lots, the fewer the homes are, and I think in this case we have fewer homes than we would on some shorter ones, so -- Zaremba: Well, I think the logic behind a cul-de-sac length is that if some accident happened at the beginning of the opening of the cul-de-sac you don't want to be trapping too many people -- Borup: Right. Zaremba: -- down the cul-de-sac and I -- the solution to that is the bigger lots and if we are only having 12 building lots here, if you had 450 foot cul-de-sac with apartments on it, you could have thousands of people and I see no reason why this Variance wouldn't be an easy one to grant. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg7of 100 Borup: The other question I have is you said -- have you made a decision to revise the plat or just because you don't have the five percent open space, which you cannot -- I mean the pathway would solve that problem. Arnold: Chairman Borup, actually, the way I have calculated it, if you take the Ridenbaugh lot out, which is 2.95 acres, you take that out of the total of the sub, because you're not allowing us to count it as open space, so we will -- if we take that out, you're down to 7.92 acres. The required amount of open space for that would be 17,358 square feet. I believe when staff calculated my open space they didn't include the street buffer along the private road. That equated to approximately 8,276 square feet. If you take, the 9,000 square feet that we got for the common lot in the front, along with the 8,000 -- or, excuse me, the 8,276 square feet -- Borup: Now, what are you referring to as the street buffer? You mean the divided -- or the separated sidewalks? Arnold: Separated sidewalks. Borup: Doesn't the ordinance call for usable open space? Arnold: I don't believe that it does specify. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Mr. Arnold, if I could just interject. The subdivision ordinance actually says that we have to calculate the five percent based on the gross area of the subdivision, so you can't exclude the Ridenbaugh Canal from the gross calculations of the subdivision. The way Steve calculated the open space area, that the five-foot parkway, plus the drainage lot, plus some of the additional landscaping it doesn't quite meet the five percent requirement. If you add the pathway to that, then, all of a sudden you do reach that threshold of the five percent. Borup: Okay. The other question I had, Mr. McKinnon, is have there been any substantive discussions with Nampa-Meridian on pathways on a canal? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, yes, there has been discussions with the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation system concerning the pathways located along drainage canals, especially, those that have been included as part of the master pathway plan. A few minutes ago Mr. Arnold alluded to the Cherry Lane -- Lakes at Cherry Lane No. 9 and he is correct, there has been a great deal of confusion and struggle to get something to happen there. However, that pathway on -- within that subdivision is not part of the master plan, it's not one of the ones that you see on the Comprehensive Plan, and so that was, you know, a subdivision amenity, not something that was basically integral to the master plan of the city in the future. There is a master plan in place with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation. It's approximately three pages of conditions and we have to give them six months notice as to what it is. They have laid Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg8of 100 out certain standards that they will allow pathways on those drains with notice from the city. Borup: So, have we had any approved since we have had the Comprehensive Plan adopted? McKinnon: Case in point with the Ridenbaugh Canal, I believe EI Dorado Subdivision backs up to the Ridenbaugh Canal. Borup: Okay. McKinnon: Further to that would be the Sutherland Farms application, which is kitty- corner across Eagle from the EI Dorado, with the pathway that runs on the other side of Eagle adjacent to the Ridenbaugh Canal. Centers: The Ridenbaugh runs through EI Dorado at Eagle and Overland? McKinnon: It runs back by Victory. Centers: All right. I had a question. You know, we keep referring to the Parks Department, but I didn't see any comments from them. I didn't see a memo or anything from them. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, I did request something in writing. I did talk with Doug Strong, actually, today, to double-check with him concerning his request for the subdivision. Centers: How long has he known about this -- McKinnon: When he received his referral, Wendy and I, actually, about two weeks ago -- we did it at his office and sat down with Elroy Huff and Doug Strong to discuss this issue. Centers: So, he's had plenty of time to get us something in writing. Thank you. Borup: Okay. Anything else you'd like to add, Steve? Amold: Well, yes. Borup: Go ahead. Amold: Well, I guess the -- Commissioners, one of the other things to look at here is we have got a pathway system that's along both Victory and Stoddard Road that we are required to construct as a condition of approval from ACHD. I have not yet worked with Nampa-Meridian along this canal way and I'm a little bit skeptical that they are approving things. I'd like to see one built, but my only reference is back to my own experience with the Lakes at Cherry Lane Nine with a lot smaller ditch. That being said, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 9 of 700 that apart from that issue, the -- I think the other thing that we need to look at here is it appears to be duplicating what we are already putting out onto Victory and Stoddard. In regards to the open space, we are showing currently right now a 23-foot wide right-of- way lot along Stoddard Road that's approximately 13 feet wider than we need to. If we reduced that right-of-way lot down to 10 feet, use that 13 feet as the common open space, I can count approximately half of that additional buffer as the open space requirement. When I counted that earlier, that's approximately 5,000 square feet. It looked like we needed only 23,000. If I add what I have got to the 17,500, we will be right there. Meeting that five percent is not an issue. We don't need -- for our subdivision, we don't need to put the pathway in to meet the other ordinance about the landscaping requirement. Again, I guess I would reiterate that we are only doing this for the private road. Currently, we do have a subdivision that is almost exactly the same as that one that is approved. We'd just request the Commission to not require the pathway. I'll stand for any other questions and I believe the client is here that would also like to discuss this. Borup: Any questions, then, Commissioners? Okay. Schultz: Good evening, Commissioners. Matt Schultz, 660 East Franklin, representing Bear Creek, LLC. I won't keep you very long. To kind of comment on the whole pathway system, Steve touched on it, that we are providing a very nice, wide landscape buffer along both Victory and Stoddard. It's, actually, going to have the creek amenity. There is some elevation there to allow us to have actually falling. water. That will come off the hillside. We think it's going to be a very attractive place to walk and we want to encourage people -- the Ridenbaugh Canal, however, is concrete lined, dangerous, dirt road, you know, on the side of the ditch that we have never really planned to landscape. We were going to keep the weeds down and the lots will be elevated over it, kind of looking towards the Boise front. It really doesn't make sense for us to landscape that from a -- from any kind of standpoint, other than the Parks Department, but, like Steve reiterated, we believe we do have that same pathway to get from Victory to Stoddard across there. We basically are surrounded by a pathway. It just seems a little redundant to us. As far as the other conditions go, we already did have a variance approved with the original Preliminary Plat for cul-de-sac length. Because this is a new Preliminary Plat, yes, I guess, technically, we do need to submit for another applicant for the Variance, just another fee we need to pay to get that in -- to get that done. We think it's well justified, given the unique shape of the property we are dealing with here and kind of -- there is only one way to do it, in our opinion. The five percent open space, we believe we have it, it's just how you interpret it and kind of splitting hairs at this -- coming out of acres -- I'm used to dealing with acres and acres of open space and this is such a small plat, dealing with thousands of square feet is kind of splitting hairs, in my opinion. An ordinance is an ordinance and we will comply with it one way or another and we believe we do, it's just a matter of interpreting it the correct way. The landscape island, I don't have a problem moving that back. The sidewalks, we will fit those in crossing the Ridenbaugh from our Bear Creek 4 and Bear Creek 1, if we can fit them in there and still get safe pedestrian access. It is pretty tight visually it looks to me. I haven't gone out and measured it yet, but it looks pretty tight where the road narrows down. It will be a real huge bridge expansion for us to get more room, maybe, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 10 of 100 but maybe not. If we can, we will, we will connect those all the way across. Other than that, that's kind of where we are at. We ask for your approval tonight and stand for any questions if you have any. Thanks. Centers: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Schultz, so the pathway -- giving up the -- you're not giving up any land for the lots for the pathway. It doesn't really affect the lots that back up to the Ridenbaugh. Schultz: No. We have to give up a 50-foot easement to Nampa-Meridian anyway. Centers: Yes so, it doesn't affect your lots to do the pathway. Schultz: No. Centers: I was looking at another application tonight where they wanted a 10-foot pathway with four feet on each side of gravel. I guess, you know, the Parks Department or the city, wanting a 10-foot paved pathway, is inconsistent there and I'm disappointed we didn't get anything from the parks department, but I like to see the consistency but you did say you intend to keep the weeds down. Schultz: Yes. It's, actually, the city -- it's actually a common lot is what it is. We will dedicate it as a common lot, so the HOA is responsible to take care it for weed maintenance, keeping it down, and everything. Centers: So, it's just the cost to put the pathway in. Schultz: The pathway and full landscaping and sprinklers or whatever else, which -- Centers: But they didn't say anything about that. Schultz: They didn't say, did they? Centers: No. Schultz: That's what Iwould -- Centers: Ten-foot hard surface pathway. That's it. Schultz: Yes. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but that's just my opinion, just to put that in. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if I could just jump in. In my discussions with Doug Strong, the Parks Director, he had requested to me and I'm sorry if it didn't make it into the report, the 10-foot pathway, with five-foot gravel shoulders, just the five feet of gravel on each side of the pathway, just as he requested in Trailway. Centers: So, they can come and spray weeds. Meddian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 11 of 100 McKinnon: That's correct. The reason they request five feet of gravel on each side is because their equipment is currently set up to spray five feet on either side. Borup: So, if this pathway goes in, even though it's a common subdivision lot, the Parks Department would be maintaining it? McKinnon: They would be maintaining it. That's correct. Not the whole lot, just the pathway, and the five feet of gravel on the sides. Borup: Well -- Zaremba: If I may ask, I understand the pathways around the smaller canals and drains. I have not walked along the Ridenbaugh Canal, but I have looked at it and, I agree, this is a large, swift moving body of water. Are we doing a pathway along as much of the Ridenbaugh Canal as we can and is there any fencing between the pathway and the canal or what's happening other places? Borup: And that was a question I had, too, along that same line, is that the other section of the Ridenbaugh, are they cement lined? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if memory serves me correctly, in EI Dorado it is fenced and it's also below the Ridenbaugh Canal within EI Dorado. It's not immediately adjacent to it within EI Dorado it runs along the base of the slope that runs up to the Ridenbaugh Canal. In Sutherland Farms, they have asix-acre park that lies adjacent to a majority of that pathway and I do not remember whether or not there was a fencing requirement adjacent to the pathway and the canal at that location. Borup: And I'm not sure if the other canals were concrete Centers: Is this fenced over here? Excuse me. Schultz: Yes. There is a wrought iron fence on the north side and we are planning on putting one on the south side at the back of our lots on the top of the berm as it slopes down. Essentially, to keep people out of the canal, you would have to put a second fence, you know, basically, a tunnel through there if you're going to keep people out, if you want to. I'd prefer not to have that open. I don't know. I'd like to keep that as a -- you know, Nampa-Meridian puts like no trespassing signs across there. I'd prefer people, from a liability standpoint, not to walk along there, but that's just me personally. Borup: And I think, Mr. Schultz, you can see that -- the benefit to the city on the pathway systems that we are talking about. It seems to me like what you're saying here is you are already putting in a sidewalk on Victory and on Stoddard that would tie into a trailway system that did go on Ridenbaugh and once you have a full system and that -- maybe they are the same two out of line with me either, because they would still tie into each other. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 12 of 100 Schultz: Excuse me real quick, Commissioner. I agree, in general, the pathway concept adjacent to natural drains or low flow drains is very appropriate, very natural, very esthetically pleasing. Even if this were a natural drain, I would still agree -- or disagree with it, in that we are providing in this location an alternate route in this one specific location just because it was a little unique. I'm not sure I agree with it next to the swift moving, concrete lined Ridenbaugh. Borup: That's the biggest concern to me is the concrete lined. I know the areas in Boise those are very dangerous canals. Schultz: It's hard to get out of them, because they get slick ahd it's hard to climb out of them and they have ladders occasionally, but, still, they are tough to get out of and the water is moving fast, I know that. Not from experience, but I have seen that happen, so - Borup: Any comment from staff on the concrete lining? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I have a question for the legal department concerning the liability issue adjacent to the canal and, then, after her response I'll take the time to answer that question, if that's okay. Borup: You think she's going to have an answer tonight? Holinka: I would probably have to look into that and get back to you. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, this is part of the regional pathway system that was shown on the Comprehensive Plan that I know that you discussed for a number of years. In making this as part of the regional pathway system mentioned earlier, there was no ground truthing done to the pathway system as to whether or not each one of those locations made sense. However, they did try to find a way to make them all interconnect and the major watervuays and where they placed it, just regardless of whether or not it was concrete lined, fast, or slow. We do have a pathway system that's adjacent to the Five Mile Canal that runs between Meridian and Linder Road right now and Tulley Park. There is no fence adjacent to that. That's an open ditch onto the side of the pathway and it's -- it's open, people are using it, and I don't know if we have had a loss of live yet. I -- Borup: But there is a little vegetation along that canal. McKinnon: There is vegetation along that canal, but it's not what you would consider to be a safe canal slope where a youngster could climb out of. .There is no four-to-one slope on that and there is water that is moving in that canal. Borup: Okay. Anything else, Commission? Thank you, Mr. Schultz Schultz: Thank you. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 13 of 100 Borup: Do we have anyone else here to testify on this application? If so, come forward. Seeing none, Commissioners? Centers: I'd like to move to close the Public Hearing. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Would we like a little discussion first? Zaremba: Yes, I could comment that I could go either way on the pathway. I see should surrounding subdivisions -- future subdivisions make a pathway along the Ridenbaugh Canal, there is still connectivity here using the Stoddard and Victory pathway that they are putting in. What that leaves me, though, is they were running through the calculations a little faster than I could keep up on whether there is enough open space. Borup: Well, they said if there weren't they would revise the plat to make sure that there would be. Zaremba: Somewhere. Borup: Right. That's -- that's what I gathered from the testimony. Sounds to me like they weren't quite there, but it was close. Zaremba: I agree with the pathway system and -- but I could be sold on the connectivity to a future pathway being there, with the path that they are providing that doesnY actually go along the canal, as long as the other open space issue is covered. Personal opinion. Borup: Well, that's what we are asking for at this point. Centers: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I agree with that, and, in my opinion, it would save the city the expense of going in there and spraying weeds when the developer doesn't want them. The question regarding the attorney and talking about the liability later on, I don't think you want an answer to that, because it could address other issues on canals that you just mentioned that there hasn't been a problem and I would say thank God. I would also say two wrongs doesn't make a right. I agree with connectivity by the sidewalks and let them go around and I know why the developer doesn't want, it's not the expense, he doesn't -- he wants the privacy. He doesn't want people walking through their subdivision, the private gate is there, and I understand that. To be honest with you, I like the large lots and that will create a lot of tax revenue with four or five hundred thousand dollar homes in there, rather than 110 or 120,000 dollar homes that don't even break even with the city. That's the way I feel about it. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 14 of 100 Borup: Well, I'm a real strong advocate of the pathways, but I guess the biggest argument that sways me is the pathway along a cement canal is really not aesthetically pleasing, I don't think, that -- and the safety concerns of the people in my mind, but -- any other comments? Do we want to discuss a motion or we just -- is someone ready to do that? Centers: Well, I'm looking for the reference to the open space. Well, it's site-specific. Yes. Well, it could just be added. In place of Number 12 on Page 5, we would just add that the applicant would have to provide a minimum five percent open space and you -- if you're in favor, Commission, we would strike Number 12 on Page 5. It's that simple and insert -- McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, addressing the five percent open space, if they are going to revise their plat, is that something that you want to see come back before you again before it goes onto Council to see how that would affect this subdivision? Borup: You know, I guess part of that would depend on how it's revised, wouldn't it? Earlier the applicant talked about the extra 13 feet. Did that make sense to you? McKinnon: Yes. Borup: And, then, it appeared that they may need to enlarge -- McKinnon: The landscape buffer on Victory Road. Borup: Right. McKinnon: They could count 50 percent of the excess towards the open space. Centers: With the size of the lots there he's not going to do much damage to the size of the lots, so -- McKinnon: That's true. Borup: And you may need to adjust the lots a little bit or maybe increase Lot 31, if that's what's necessary. Commissioners, are you feeling you want to see it back or -- Centers: I wouldn't -- Zaremba: I'm not sure I need to see it. Borup: It sounds like the answer is no. Zaremba: Ten days before the City Council hearing. McKinnon: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 15 of 100 Zaremba: To staff. McKinnon: All right. Borup: Okay. Centers: So, Mr. Chairman, I'm prepared to make a motion. Borup: Okay. Let's go ahead. Centers: I would recommend approval of Item 5 on our Agenda for PP 03-009, request for a Preliminary Plat approval of 12 building lots and six other lots on 10.92 acres in an R-4 zone for Bear Creek No. 7 by Bear Creek, LLC. North of West Victory Road and east of South Stoddard Road, including all staff comments, with the exception of on Page 5 strike Number 12 and insert applicant to provide a minimum five percent open space and revise the plat prior to City Council. End of motion. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 12. Public Hearing: PP 03-007 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 36 building lots and 7 other lots on 11.65 acres in an R-4 zone for Clearbrook Estates Subdivision by R.K. Development, LLC -west of North Meridian Road and south of West Ustick Road: Centers: Mr. Chairman, maybe you'd want to address Item Number 12 on our Agenda. They had requested a postponement. Borup: Oh, I should have mentioned that earlier. If anyone is here for Item Number 12, Clearbrook Estates, there is some additional information the applicant is working on, they have asked for that to be continued and so we probably will be doing that tonight, there would not be a Public Hearing on that item, if there is anyone here for that. Zaremba: They asked for it to be moved to our June 191h Borup: Right. I'm sorry. Two weeks. Zaremba: Are we anticipating agreeing with that? Centers: Yes. Borup: We would anticipate it would go to two weeks on our June 191h meeting