Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 19, 2003 P & ZMeridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 5 of 34 signature copy would be presented at some future time. I don't believe that the Commission would be forced to wait until the next hearing to accept the Findings and Conclusions, if they choose to. Borup: I think that's what we have done before back when we-used to do Findings. If it were a minor change, we would go ahead and just amend it. If it something -- a major rewrite, which Ican't -- I don't think that happened hardly ever. Zaremba: I'm prepared to make such a motion. Borup: Okay Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Denial of PP 03-012, to include the following amendments. On Page 3, Paragraph 11 should read. The applicant will need to get the owners of the out parcel's cooperation to annex and will also submit proof that the lot split is legal. Same page, Conclusions of Law Number 1, the end of the paragraph should read Preliminary Plat, instead of Accessory Use Permit, and -- pause for a question. On Page 4, should we add a Number 7 that says one of the reasons is that it's not annexed at this point? Wollen: And my only question, Commissioner Zaremba, was if you recall if that was one of the reasons that the maker of the motion had for denial of this Preliminary Plat. Zaremba: Having read the minutes of that meeting today, it was not stated in that manner. So, let's leave Number 7 ofF and conclude with Number 6. Is that what you're saying? Wollen: I believe that would be the best. Zaremba: Okay. Then, I'm finished with the motion. Borup: We have a motion. Centers: Second. Borup: And second. Roll call vote. Roll call: Zaremba, aye; Mathes, aye; Centers, aye; Rohm, aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 4. Continued Public Hearing from June 5, 2003: 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: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 6 of 34 Borup: The next item is a Continued Public Hearing from June 5th, PP 03-007, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 36 building lots and seven other lots on 11.65 acres in an R-4 zone for Clearbrook Estates Subdivision by R.K. Development. Like to open this continued hearing at this time and start with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The Clearbrook Subdivision was on the last agenda, but was continued, so the applicant would have time to respond to some of the concerns raised in the staff report. You should have some revised plans that were submitted by the applicant since the last meeting. I have a revised plat stamped June 12th by the Clerk's Office and a revised Landscape Plan stamped June 16th. Actually, the applicant has brought with him tonight some newer Landscape Plans that should have today's date on them as well. This project, Clearbrook Subdivision, is located on Meridian Road between Ustick Road and Cherry Lane on the west side. It is an already annexed piece, so we are only doing the Preliminary Plat tonight. There is no accompanying annexation or rezone. It's already zoned R-4 it's surrounded on the north by the existing Lansbury Lane Subdivision and on the south by Waterbury Park Subdivision. The property behind it to the -- to the west is currently in the county. There is, actually, a small sliver of land that is right on the property's west boundary that is not part of the project and one of the modifications the applicant made was to pull back the plat line to that edge. Here is an existing site photo. You can see the subdivisions and the surrounding pasture land to the west. This is a copy of the revised Preliminary Plat. Before I go through the staff report, let me just see -- this is the revised Landscape Plan that was originally submitted. Tonight you should have received this one, it should be stamped .June 19`h, and, basically, removes the street trees running east and west, because they were not required by the ordinance. Okay. Okay, on the plat. You should have a staff report that was a transmittal date of June 2nd and today's hearing date -- or the June 5`h hearing date. I'm sorry. The main things I want to go with are in these special considerations on page three. The o ne o n b lock I ength i s j ust for the C ommission's i nformation. The block length is over 1,000 feet. They are required to submit a variance, they have already done so, and this will go onto City Council with the accompanying variance, which does have staff support. Number 2, the entrance, we have recommended that the entrance to the subdivision include an island. In the revised plat that the applicant submitted they have accommodated that island. They show the island in the right of way. The curb line was not modified to match that and is a modification to the Preliminary Plat that would still -- should be shown. However, they are fully intending to comply with that request. Number 3, the pathway, there is a pathway along the south side of the property that's required by the Comprehensive Plan along the South Slough. The applicant is in favor of accommodating that requirement and they do show on their plans a 10-foot wide asphalt pathway. Item Number 4 is the Irrigation District easement, which is not shown on the plat. W e would like to have it called out. Between the original plat and this one, the lots along the south side have shrunk by a few feet, because it was discovered that the -- those lots did encroach in the original submittal into that Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District easement for the South Slough. That has, apparently, been corrected, but the easement itself is still not noted and we would like to have the easement line noted on the plat. Okay. Number 5 is the micropaths. The applicant does show -- probably you can see on the Landscape Plan -- in their open Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 7 of 34 space drainage lots, they do have micropaths that connect through from the sidewalk in the subdivision to the pathway at the rear. We are simply asking that those micropaths shift five feet away from the side property line, so they are not butted right up against the fence, but have at least five feet of landscaping between the path and the fence. That modification still needs to be made. Number 6 is the open space and drainage pond issue. Due to requirements from the Department of Environmental Quality, they -- they have high groundwater out here and the DEQ is requiring a certain separation between the groundwater and the bottom of their storm water swales. Because they cannot meet the required separation distance, they are being required by DEQ to line that Swale to become what we call a wet pond. It's going to be surfaced so that the water is not allowed to percolate down through the soil and has to -- it just remains on the surface and evaporates over time. We don't like that solution and it's been -- we have several examples in the city that have been a nuisance. Our ordinance related to open space prohibits such open water areas from being included in the required open space areas. I have asked the applicant to show that they have sufficient open space to meet the five percent requirement without counting those wet pond areas. Number 7 is the sidewalks, while, not depicted on the original plan, they have been shown on the new Preliminary Plat and we were just noting that sidewalks are required. As a final issue, there is a separate memo that requested the tabling of -- from Bruce and myself. We had discovered after this was written one additional issue, which was, as I mentioned a minute ago, the inclusion of the sliver of property along their west boundary into the plat. We received a phone call from the owner of that property and they asked to make sure it was removed. The revised plat as submitted by the applicant does remove that area from their plat and they are in the process of revising their legal descriptions and things accordingly to depict that. With that, I will stand for any questions. I don't know if you have anything right now, Bruce. Okay. Centers: Mr. Chairman. Yes. Mr. Siddoway, you also wanted to include Item 2 on Page 3 regarding the entrance in any -- the split entry. Siddoway: Yes. They are showing that they will accommodate the split entry. They have -- it's difficult to see on this scale. Let me see the Landscape Plan. You can see on the Landscape Plan that they -- well, actually, it's on the one they submitted tonight, actually. Okay. Here is the new one from tonight that you can see that there is an island, that there is an area where the right of way bumps out. They simply need to modify their road alignment and curb to be in conformance with ACHD requirements for split entries, but they are -- they are showing the right of way to do that, they just need to tweak their curbs a little bit. Zaremba: Would you index through all of the pictures that you have of this property? There was one of them that I saw that I thought looked different than the others that I want to ask about. No. No. No. Yes. Siddoway: Okay. Zaremba: Okay. I was looking at the wrong subdivision. I was looking at Lansbury. Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commisslon Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 8 of 34 Siddoway: Yes. It's the blank one Zaremba: Okay. Then, that brings up my -- the rest of my questions. In ACHD's report, on Page 5 of that, under see special notification to the applicant and the City of Meridian, Item 2, they are suggesting that this -- the streets that's -- and, let's see, you can go forward to one of the Landscape Plans or something, so it does show this subdivision. That street is such a long reasonably straightaway, that the traffic from this subdivision and probably the traffic from the landlocked subdivision behind it that will have to use this street to get up some speed, they were asking for chokers, bulb outs, or islands within the right of way, in addition to the one that you asked at the entrance. The s ubdivision right a bove i t has a s econd i sland farther back and m y -- t hat i s a n absolutely straight road. This one has a little bit of meander. Are we satisfying traffic calming by having the meander or should we have another island as the other subdivision does? Siddoway: Certainly another island provides additional traffic calming. I don't know that the meander itself is enough. It will create some visual interest, but probably not a traffic calming affect. I'd let the applicant address that. Borup: Is anyone aware of any speeding problems on -- in Lansbury? Siddoway: I'm not. Zaremba: I'm not personally. I can see ACHD's logic, particularly when there is another subdivision farther away using the street. Pass-through traffic is -- Siddoway: The meander was shown on the original plat that ACHD was considering when they wrote that, too. Zaremba: So, they did see the meander and they still asked to have something in the way of chokers, bulb outs, or islands? Siddoway: That's correct. Zaremba: Let's see. Then, I guess my other questions were kind of bookkeeping things. On your remarks, Page 4, conditions of approval Preliminary Plat, Paragraph 2, it appears to be that they have now made that lot part of what was Lot 1. Siddoway: Yes. They made that area part of Lot 1, but the plat note itself is still missing, so they have not added the note. I have talked to the applicant, they are in agreement to add it, but it has not been added yet. Zaremba: It needs a note, but the note is for Lot 1 in Block 1, I believe. Siddoway: Yes. Block 1 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 9 of 34 Zaremba: Am I correct that Lot 1 is now a long L shaped lot? Siddoway: That is how I show it, yes. Zaremba: Okay. Then, that also would make a change to Paragraph 9 on Page 5 to name all common lots in the subdivision to be owned and maintained by the homeowners a ssociation, i ncluding Lots 1, 6, 1 3 a nd 21 -- n o. Cross o ut a nd 2 2 i n Block 1. Siddoway: Yes. Zaremba: And I would also cross out Lot 9, Block 2, because that appears to have disappeared. Siddoway: Yes. Zaremba: And Lot 1, Block 3 should remain. Then, it appears on the new plat that Paragraph 10 has been satisfied. Siddoway: You will need to add Lot 1, Block 4, which is the island in the middle of the road now. Zaremba: Okay. In case any other island gets added, we'd need to add that, too, but -- Okay. They did change -- on Item 10, they did change the square footage from 12 to 14, and it looked like to me on that one. Those are my only staff questions. Just making sure I was correct on those observations. Thank you. Borup: Questions from any of the other Commissioners? Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Cook: My name is Richard Cook -once again, my name is Rich Cook. I'm with Briggs Engineering, 1800 West Overland Road in Boise. Most of you I am not familiar with. Borup: You need to come see us more often. Cook: Yes. Due to some changes in our staff, I have been thrown into the fray for handling applications over here in Meridian, as well as other areas of the county that we work in. I'm sure you're used to seeing Steve Arnold come before you with many different plats, what have you. I do the same thing, just less of it. We have conferred with staff and gone over their comments and what have you and we don't have any problems whatsoever with complying with the conditions that they have set forth. The little glitch with the entranceway and the sidewalks, that was a technical snafu, so we will be sure that we wrap the sidewalks around and follow the right of way to give the entrance the wider -- wider area that we require. On our open space, we have, counting our greenbelt, which will be landscaped, and our micropaths along the drainage ponds we have 1.15 acres of open space, which exceeds nearly double the required amount of five percent. We feel that the subdivision itself is very compatible with existing Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 10 of 34 developments to the north and south of us and the issue on the Ada County Highway District islands that they would like to see or another island in that street. My experience has been that those kinds of islands in mid block like you see in Lansbury Lane there become more of a traffic hazard than a safety valve, so to speak, with people trying to get around the island and other people trying to back out of their driveways. It really does create some problems and also people end up backing into the curbs and whatnot of the island itself. It really gets to be a real big pain in the neck. Centers: Going the wrong way on it? Cook: Or going the wrong way on it. That happens frequently. We really are at odds, I guess, with ACRD. They didn't -- they didn't nail us down and make us do it, they are just recommending it, and we are opposed to it. We feel that the meander of the street in the mid block -well, not quite mid block, but intersection of -- what street is that? Siddoway: 3`d Street. Zaremba: I think it's 3`d Cook: Is that Northwest 3rd? Siddoway: 3rd Cook: Okay. The intersection down there with Northwest 3`d I think will really serve us well and it will help control our traffic and the speed on that street. Like with any subdivision, the speeds on your streets, who drives the streets? The people who live there. Okay? I know when I -- you know, in my neighborhood more than once I have gone out and flagged somebody down and had a few words with them, you know, this is a residential street, we have got kids out there, slow it down. You know, I mean it becomes aself-regulating thing and if it gets to be a real big issue, then, you can always rely on the Police Department to give you some assistance in that area. I think that about wraps it up. The Variance, I think, is, again, pretty self-explanatory. We have the support of staff on that and that came about on the south side of the street, because the Waterbury Subdivision was not required to stub to the north. With that, I'll stand for any questions you may have. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Zaremba: I think that covers most of my -- I guess my only concern -- I tend to agree that the meander is going to help, and with the island at the entrance I think that helps. My only concern on the speed of the traffic isn't necessarily the people that live in this subdivision, but what's going to happen -- your pass-through traffic are the ones that are likely to get up to some kind of speed and Iwonder -- I know it couldn't be done now, where you have the turn arounds, it n eeds to remain a turn around, b ut a t the time where that stub -- stub end of that turn around actually goes someplace, could there be an island put in the turn around? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 11 of 34 Cook: I think that is a very feasible solution in the future when it is extended, because we have already -- already have allowed for a turn around and we have the room there to go ahead and put some kind of an island, whether it be round or oblong or whatever, down in that turn around area. I think that's something that can be done when the road is extended. Zaremba: Yes. I'm not sure I would do it while it's still being used as a turn around, because that kind of defeats the purpose. Cook: Right. The Fire Department wouldn't like that. Zaremba: Yes. Once it's a pass through, probably on the end of your development when y ou're a Imost d one w ith i t, t hen, y ou'd h ave t o c ome b ack i n a nd do t hat I ittle island. Borup: Would you look at -here? In redesigning that, would you be looking at moving it to the north a little bit, if you were planning for the future on that? I like Commissioner Zaremba's idea. I agree, I think just the subdivision alone, the traffic is probably not going to be a problem, but -- because I don't believe it is in Lansbury, but Lansbury doesn't have any drive-thru traffic like this one will have, potentially. Cook: That's correct. I think to make that happen at this point or to insure that it will happen in the future, we would have to modify the front lot line of those two end lots on the north there. Borup: I am assuming you have got to incorporate -- when the turn around goes away that that lot will be reconfigured as a building lot, the one to the south. Oh, I'm sorry. That's a pond anyway. Cook: Right. Right. That lot will never become a building lot. Borup: But, then, you're not going to be needing that turn around anymore. Cook: Right. The turn around -- the need for it will, obviously, go away. That particular area, I guess, could be at that time reclaimed and become part of a landscaped area. Zaremba: More open space. Cook: More open space. Correct. Like I say, the two lots to the north across from the turn around, we can make allowance on the plat to provide for a future island in that street. Centers: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Centers. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 19, 2D03 Page 12 of 34 Centers: I noted on the plat this shows a drain pond here. Is this a development in the county? Cook: That particular area is still vacant. It's not developed. I don't know what the purpose of that drain pond is, but it's not part of our development. Centers: Your open space comment, was that exclusive of the drain ponds or inclusive? Cook: That is exclusive of the drain ponds. We have the 15-foot wide pathways, the micropaths that go along the side of the drainage areas, are 15 feet wide by approximately 101 long and those are landscaped. Centers: So, you have ten percent open space exclusive of? Cook: The drainage ponds, yes. Centers: And the staff would agree with that? Siddoway: Yes. The reason -- where it all comes from is they have the long linear strip along the south side. By landscaping that, we would let them count it. If they were just leaving it unimproved, we wouldn't want it counted, but if the applicant is willing to landscape it and have the homeowners association maintain it, we will let it be counted toward their open space and that piece along is almost an acre. Centers: Good. Do we have that in our site-specific comments from you or should it be added, Steve? Siddoway: I believe it's in there. It's Item Number 7 on Page 5. It says all areas being counted towards the five percent open space requirement shall be free of wet ponds, etc. Is that what you're asking? Centers: Yes. We are covered. Okay. Good. That's all I had, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Borup: Okay. Those are the two things I had, too, that both of you brought up. Other than I'm -- and this is probably something for the engineers to work out on the design. I could maybe envision a circle island down there, incorporate the present turn around, and not have to do any redesigning when the street goes through, not have any expense in the future. Still keep your 50-foot radius -- or is that -- does the radius need to increase when you put an island in, then? Do you know? Cook: Commissioner Borup, no. Once the need for the turn around goes away, the need for the radius also disappears and if you're talking like putting a circular island in there, similar to what you'd find on the traffic circle, that's something that is doable. Meridian Planning antl Zoning Commission Meeting June 19, 20D3 Page 13 of 34 Borup: I mean could that be done right now and, then, you wouldn't even have to do any redesigning later? Cook: Oh, no. No, it cannot, because the Fire Department would -- would really frown on that. We could not meet the radius -- turning radius requirements and street width that would be needed by the Fire Department to put that in there now. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: For now they would want a clear space in that turn around. Cook: Correct. Zaremba: There couldn't be an island right now. Cook: No. Zaremba: Is that what you're saying? Cook: Correct. Centers: Mr. Chairman, the way I feel about it --and that's the reason I asked about the adjoining land, I can't see the point in requiring anything on this plat for this developer, but I think we need to require it of who develops this. Borup: Because they are the ones that are going to be causing the problem. Centers: Right. I can't see putting that on the back of this applicant, but if we all are here when this guy comes, then, that would be a different story. That's my feeling on it. Zaremba: I can agree with that logic. I'm not sure I would remember it when it comes up. Borup: You will remember it. Zaremba: I'll remember it. Cook: No. If it's -- you know, if it's an issue today, it will certainly be an issue whenever this -- Borup: And ACHD would hopefully still have the same comment. Cook: Right. Centers: They are good. Cook: Okay. Thank you. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 19,2003 Page 14 of 34 Borup: Do we have anyone else? Any other Commissioners have -- Zaremba: I have no more. Borup: Okay, anyone else to testify on this application? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, the only comment, then, that we have probably all received a letter from a Mr. Christopher B. -- probably Broer -- I'm not sure. It's Broer or something like -- who doesn't give any address, so we don't know how near he lives to this proposed subdivision, but he expresses his displeasure, essentially, with all the growth that's going on. Centers: I read it. Borup: I thought he was also quite disgusted with this prime farm ground being gobbled up. I wonder if he's looked at that private farm ground. Zaremba: Just thought that should be noted. Borup: Okay, any final comments from staff? I assume we are okay on sewer? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I have got a few things. The discussion of the turn around on the end, I just wanted to -- there was some discussion here tonight that you might want them to come back in and build that afterwards. Borup: I think we have re-thought that. Freckleton: Okay. It might be 10 years before that property out to the west develops and this developer could be in Tahiti, so -- the only other thing that comes to mind is, you know, if you did want to have a requirement on this development for some sort of traffic calming for the future, there might be an avenue of doing a road trust with ACRD, having this developer put up money for the road trust for that improvement in the future I think the drawback to that is -- I think ACRD can only hold funds ter s~~ i~~nr~, ~,~~.~ '~~~ ~~~, are not spent they have to return them, so I think that's -- that's un ~ss~~~~~ ~~h~~r~. other item I wanted to point out -- and this is really the only b,g ,tem that I have a problem with is with this development and that is the design of these wet ponds and I just wanted you to be aware of what these are and what they look like, and the kind of problems that we have had. I'd like to show you some photos of some of them that we have taken throughout the city that we've had problems with lately and -- this one here is in Devlin Place Subdivision. You can see the bottom, the standing water. This, actually, looks really good in this picture, compared to what it looks like today. I wish I would have gotten a current picture. Borup: Now, is that weeds or was that planted to - Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 15 of 34 Freckleton: It was hydro seeded. Well, the hydra seed doesn't grow, because it's ;;nder water, so now we have cattails and all kinds of pasties growing in there, The devE;loF~~.r on this one is currently working with ACHD to come up with a remedy to the situation. They still haven't landed on one yet. This particular pond is lined and the bottom of ~t s lined with the Bentonite seal. They come in and they spread the material on the yrounJ and they till it with a tiller and rake it out and it puts the clay into the soil and Bentonite is a material that when it gets wet that's when it expands and it seals. Let's look at the next picture. This picture is in the same subdivision. This particular pond is not lined and the bottom of it is not lined. They were able to meet the three-foot separation. You can see how nice these things can look. Centers: So, excuse me, Bruce, what are you saying? Maybe they are better not lined. The lining them tells me that, you know, you're creating a swimming pool. Freckleton: The lining is what causes the standing water problem. That causes the weed growth and the mosquitoes and the algae and everything else. That's -- no question about that. Centers: So, who is requiring the lining? Freckleton: The lining is being required by ACHD, because of rules with the Division of Environmental Quality. Zaremba: And that has to do with where the water table is -- Freckleton: Correct. Zaremba: -- is that correct? If it is within three feet of the surface, then, they have -- Freckleton: That's correct. Zaremba: -- so it doesn't contaminate the water table. Freckleton: That's correct. Now, part of the problem the design community has right now is you got two state agencies that are on the same track headed towards each other. You have Central District Health Department that's fighting the mosquito problems and West Nile virus and everything else and, then, you have DEQ requiring the creation of these, so -- Zaremba: What regulations a re there on changing the grade of t his area? What -- using -- well, even this picture as an example. If they went around the perimeter of this holding pond and bermed the perimeter of it two feet higher, then, they would be allowed to have the base of it two feet higher and maybe be out of the lining. so -- Borup: But the water has got to gravity drain. Freckleton: Yes. The problem is the -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meedng June 19, 2003 Page 16 of 34 Zaremba: Apparently, it's okay if it filters through three feet of dirt, it's okay to get into the -- Freckleton: It is. The water that gets into these ponds comes off the streets and gravity flows into the catch basins and goes into a sand and grease and has to flow through those a nd, t hen, b ack o ut a gain, s o i is c oming o ut a t a n e levation t hat's I ower t ha n streets. That elevation -- Zaremba: Okay so, just raising the pond doesn't solve the -- Freckleton: No. No, because that elevation is pretty much fixed by the locahor, -- ~_,r th~~ elevation of the street grade. The engineers really have clot -- a tough one r,r r~~ don't know -- I wish I had a good solution. I would be very rich, Zaremba: Okay. Freckleton: This is that same pond in Blackstone, Coral Creek Subdivision. This pond was not constructed properly. The way this one works is the water flows in, there is a couple of pipes on this end of the pond, the water flows into the pond, is supposed to travel through the grass and, then, is supposed to go out through a pipe here that goes over into Ten Mile Creek. The problem is that during construction this pond was not built properly, the bottom of the pond was too low, it does not slop to the drain and this is the result. They have gone in and rehabbed this pond, re-graded the bottom of it, and we are still kind of -- the jury is still out on that one. This is in that same subdivision. You can see how the bottom of it is standing water here. I don't know if you can tell, but right here is the outlet, well above this water elevation here, of where that water is suppose to get out of this pond, so -- Centers: But, Bruce, to the best of anyone's knowledge, other than maybe mosquitoes and that type of thing, it's not a major health hazard. My concern is that -- or I would like to see the buyers aware of this beforehand, if we approved it, with a note on the slat that the drainage ponds have been developed to comply with eertaln standards, meaning the lining, et cetera, and spell it out on the plat, and that said Ilning coul_i cause standing water. Thank you. Buyer beware. Freckleton: I think it's an excellent idea to make the buying public knowledgeable of these things. I don't think that the final plat is the proper document to do that. Centers: Where do you do it? Freckleton: The CC&R's would be a good place. Putting a note in the Codes, Covenants, and Restrictions -- Centers: Well, you could do both, then. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 17 of 34 Freckleton: Every buyer -- a Final Plat is a document that is -- it's a survey document, it's not really a document that's supposed convey that kind of information. Centers: Well -- and, you're right, the Buyers usuauy don t see feat unw [ney sign at closing and, then, it's asmall --small item that they can barely read. Freckleton: Right. Right. Centers: Right. Freckleton: I wish I had a good solution to these -- Borup: That's what I was just going to ask. You have brought up some good points. Are there any recommendations to solving it, other than getting rid of DEO? Freckleton: I wish had a good recommendation. You know, there was some discussion -- Ihad apre-construction meeting on a subdivision a couple weeks ago and they had a situation similar to this that they were talking about in a subdivision in Boise. They made some modifications to the sand and grease trap, which, basically, the outfall from the sand and grease trap was at a higher elevation than they normally are. By discharging into the pond at a high elevation, they were able to raise the bottom of the pond to a higher elevation and, you know, maybe with some modifications to, you know, some of the tools we have available to us, like these sand and grease traps, maybe the separation could be attained. I don't know. I think it merits, you know, looking into to try and avoid these situations. Borup: I think it makes sense for the developer, if there is another alternative it's certainly going to increase the value of the property, too. Freckleton: Right. Right. You know -- and when you shallow up the bottom of the pond, it's going to chew up more real estate, because you have to change the geometry to -- to contain the same volume of storm water. You're going to have to spread them out if you're going to make them shallower, so it eats up more real estate. Getting back to --just to what Jerry said, you know, about the health hazard, beyond the mosquitoes, you know, the only other thing is we have had some where we have had, you know, the green algae growth and you get a lot of stagnant water smell off of them and you could have children playing in that and -- Mathes: How come you can't make them ponds and put circulating pumps in them? Borup: There is not a consistent supply of water, is there? Unless you had a consistent supply of water. Is there anything being done with the drainage -- or the drainage pits anymore? Is that -- Freckleton: Oh, yes. Yes. We will see them go in -- you will -- the only areas that they work, though, is when you have, you know, ground water at 12-foot of depth to where Meddian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 16 of 34 you can get the three foot of separation and have a seepage pit that's five or six feet tall, so -- Borup: I was wondering if anyone's looked into if you can combine the drainage with the pond and being able to raise -- still have the Bentonite in there, have the large drain rock, and, then, cover that with top soil to have the green space. Freckleton: No. It would create a gallery for the water to go to, but it's just higher. A drain field. Borup: And it would be under the grass. Freckleton: There was a -- there was a d rainage bed -- o r drainage pond that A da County Highway District constructed right there, just north of the Waterbury Park Subdivision. That pond -- well, there is a story to that one. That pond -- there was a lot of complaints flying in, because it had water in it and it was nasty and so ACHD came in and their solution was they dumped in several truck loads of large river cobble. I mean it made it look a little bit better, but that water is still going to be there. Then, that one also is enclosed in the chain link, asix-foot high chain link fence to try and keep kids out, and garbage. Borup: Okay. I don't know what that accomplished, but it was interesting. Freckleton: Well, I don't know either. My main purpose in that dissertation was just to try and show you what the potential is for these ponds. Borup: Mr. Cook, do you know whether you have looked into any of the alternatives on trying to -- Cook: Commissioner Borup, like Mr. Freckleton pointed out, if we had a solution, he and I would be very rich. The suggestion of putting in large boulders and what have you and, then, covering that with soil or sod or whatever, again, as Bruce pointed out, the water still goes in there and the problem that that would create is you would have the water going in and absolutely or virtually no evaporation whatsoever, so you'd really end up with a major stagnant water situation between your surface and the bottom of your pond. I'm -- Borup: Are these ponds draining, then, into the ditch? Cook: No, they are not. Borup: So, they are not designed like some of the other examples he showed? Cook: No. No. We have -- we have nowhere to -- Borup: They wouldn't allow that to go into the -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 19 of 34 Cook: South Slough? Borup: Yes. Cook: No, they won't. The only -- Borup: Why is that, when they have allowed it in other areas? Cook: Irrigation. Irrigation water. Borup: The South Slough is strictly irrigation? Freckleton: It's drainage. Cook: It's all drainage they don't use of it for irrigation? Borup: That's what I thought. I thought it was drainage. That's why I asked. Cook: Well, let me make a note to myself and I will look into that a little bit. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, that is one question I did have that I failed to ask. Throughout the documentation that has been provided they have been referred to as retention ponds. By definition, a retention pond is a temporary holding facility until it can discharge to a surface ditch. I wanted clarification on that, too, it doesn't call them detention ponds, and it calls them retention ponds. Centers: Mr. Cook, couldn't you have a -- you know, at the low point of that retention pond have a collecting area and have a pump and pump it into the outlet area when it became severe, as it is -- as it is in that one picture at Devlin Place? Couldn't you do that? Cook: Commissioner Centers, yes, if we have a place that we can pump into. Centers: Yes. Well, you have to have an outlet for that pond. You don't? See page Cook: At this point we don't, it's not -- it's not even seepage, it's evaporation. Centers: Evaporation. Cook: Evaporation pond. The only thing I can say that's really majorly different from -- between our ponds and the ones that Bruce was showing, is that ours are nicely landscaped. We do have the wetland grasses for the bottom of the pond and, then, we have trees and shrubs that will be around the ponds themselves, so they won't be quite as ugly, but that still doesn't solve the water -- the standing water problem. I'll certainly look into the possibility of us being able to discharge into the South Slough and what the feasibility would be of -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 20 of 34 Centers: Right behind you? Cook: -- some kind of a pump. Correct. Borup: Well, would you even need a pump? I mean the others are designed to gravity flow into the other, as long as you get the grade right. Cook: Exactly. That's something that we will have to look into to see if the grade would allow a natural draining and I'm not, you know, at all certain if you can entirely eliminate all of your standing water all the time. You're going to have some standing water there occasionally. Centers: Well, I think it would just help your marketing effort. Borup: But you're also saying you're doing some wetland grasses. Cook: Correct. Borup: And they will grow, rather than -- Cook: Rather than die out and become an ugly mess. Borup: Not sure why some of the others haven't tried that. Cook: I don't know. We have adopted -- in fact, the City of Meridian has adopted the ordinance from Boise for landscaping and for -- what is it, Steve, wetlands or -- Siddoway: Our list of approved plant material? Is that what you're referring to? Cook: You made a reference to it. Siddoway: The landscape ordinance itself prohibits the -- Cook: Correct. Siddoway: --the wet ponds from being included in required open space. Cook: Correct. Correct. I'm referring to the types of vegetation and what have you. Siddoway: Yes. We have an i proved tree list that comes from the City of Boise that we have adopted as our own, T at regulates the trees that are allowed. It does not get as specific as the grasses and things, but, you know, certainly the addition of true wetland grasses, which they are designing in, is much preferred over what others have tried to do, which is just put hydr seed, blue grass there, and it doesn't work. Zaremba: I'm not sure if Mr. Co~k meant his question to be this way, but it occurs to me what if we planted water soakin trees in there? If you put in -- I don't know if orange Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission M®eting June 19, 2003 Page 21 of 34 trees grow here or not, but -- well, cottonwoods and poplar kind of trees soak up a lot of water and would evaporate them into the air. I mean there are other ways to move water out of a -- I mean when you want poplars, you got to put a lot of water on them, so maybe we could use them in reverse. Siddoway: That would work if the water was able to get to the roots, but if it's Bentonited, it will never get to them and -- to be evapotransporated. Zaremba: Good point. Siddoway: Yes Cook: I'd like to import some Cypress trees or something from Florida that would work great. Borup: Well, it sounds like you're going to look into trying to -- discharging into the South Slough, which will solve a lot of problems that -- Cook: Yes. Yes. That's one area that -- where I -- you know, t was under the impression that the South Slough was for irrigation, rather than drainage, but I'll look into that for certain. Centers: Would you object to -- are you going to allow children to play there if they want? Cook: There is going to be a micropath adjacent to that. Anyplace that is not protected by a ten-foot fence with barbed wire and guards is susceptible to kids. Centers: So, would you object to a sign at that location: Storm drain pond. Play at your own risk? Cook. Not at all Centers: Okay. That's the way I would like to address it, because I have the same situation in my subdivision and -- standing water and they tried to remedy it with a volleyball court and hauled in a lot of sand and we haven't had a problem lately, but I'd like to see the buyers, before you sell any lots, know that it's a storm drain pond, play at your own risk, and, then, I don't have a problem. Buyer beware, if you can't read the sign, then --what do you think, Chairman? Borup: Well, if it's going to be a true detention pond, then, yes. Centers: Well, that's the way it reads on the map, too Borup: Well, they are talking retention. Centers: Storm drain pond. Meridian Planning antl Zoning Commission Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 22 of 34 Borup: Yes. The difference between detention and retention is -- Centers: Well, we have -- yes. We have to require that lining, so it's going to be retention. Borup: Not if they can drain it into the South Slough. Centers: Okay. I guess if he can't satisfy us than he can drain it into the South Slough prior to the City Council Meeting -- Borup: Then that would -- Centers: Right. Either/or. Either/or. Borup: Most of subdivisions have the retention pond and they are nice -- can be nice play areas if -- if they drain. Centers: Yes. Borup: But I don't know -- are any of the Bentonite ones draining properly? Maybe? Not that you can think of? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, they are evaporating nicely. Borup: But do any of the Bentonite ones have a drain connected to them? Well, the one did, they just -- it was higher than what the pond was, so it didn't work. Freckleton: They've all had issues that I'm -- as far as I know. They have gone in, like I said, and rehabbed the one there at Coral Creek and Blackstone, so I need to go out and take some pictures of that and see. I think the -- I think the key secret is to make sure that your grading is done properly at the bottom of those and, you know, it's probably going to have to be done by hand and checked with a level and made sure. One of the other sticking points there is that in some of these designs they actually are designed -- even the ones that do have an ouffall to a ditch, they are designed so that the outtall orifice sits higher than the bottom of the pond. Centers: Right Freckleton: They are designed to -- Borup: To have a little bit of water, then. Freckleton: -- hold backwater. Yes. That's like the difference between the hundred- yearstorm and the 25-year event, it's -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 23 of 34 Borup: Well, that's what I was just thinking of. I think your sign is going to be a good idea, especially if -- when you have a major storm there is going to be water in there and, then, that would apply at those times, too. A couple times a year, however many times we have it. Centers: Thank you. Borup: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Cook. Centers: Yes. I think it's agood -- basically, an in-fill project, sandwiched in there. I think if done properly it needs to be -- it's nice that it can be developed. Borup: That site could use some cleaning up. Centers: Yes. I'm not familiar -- it sounds like you are. Borup: I drive by it every day. Centers: I'm in favor of the project. I would move that we close the Public Hearing. Zaremba: I'll second that. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing, all in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Zaremba: M r.Chairman, I m ove t hat w e forward to t he C ity C ouncil r ecommending approval of Item 4 on our agenda, PP 03-007, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 36 building lots and seven other lots -- I'm sorry. Are those numbers still correct, according to the new plat? Siddoway: I believe it has changed. Borup: The building lots stay the same, haven't they? Zaremba: I think the other lots may -- Cook: The building lots should stay the same. Siddoway: Still 36 building lots. Borup: So, it would be eight other lots, then? Zaremba: Well, you added an island and you took out one behind -- Lot 9 in Block 2 disappeared. Siddoway: I count six. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 24 of 34 Zaremba: So, does the count stay the same? Cook: Six common lots and the green belt. Zaremba: Okay. Let's continue as if I had not stopped, then. Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 36 building lots and seven other Tots 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, to include all staff comments of their letter for hearing date of January 5~', received by the City Clerk June 2, 2003, with the following changes. On Page 4, under conditions of approval Preliminary Plat, Paragraph 2, the first sentence remains. The second sentence is -- this applies to Lot 1, Block 1. On Page 5, Paragraph 9, beginning after the comma it reads includes Lots 1, 6, 13, and 21. Delete the following word and the Number 22, comma, Block 1. Then, delete Block 9 -- I'm sorry. Delete Block -- Lot 9, Block 2. Leave in Lot 1, Block 3, and add Lot 1, Block 4. Paragraph 10 o n P age 5 can be d eleted as having been satisfied. On Page 6, Paragraph 21, is renumbered to Paragraph 22, and we add a new Paragraph 21 that says retention ponds s hall either drain to the South Slough or h ave signage stating: Danger, no play area, or words to that effect. Centers: Well, we didn't want to say no play area. Zaremba: Play at your own risk? Centers: Right. Right. Drainage pond. Play at your own risk. Zaremba: Stating danger. Play at your own risk, or words to that effect. End of motion. Centers: Well, you have this Paragraph Number 22 there. Right here. Zaremba: I never saw that. Centers: It's -- it was a separate street. Borup: That was that second -- Centers: And this was eliminated. Then, you add the entrance from page -- Zaremba: All right. There is an issue of numbering. We are on Page 6. Paragraph 20 stays as it is. The new Paragraph 21 is about the retention pond signage or drainage. We now have a new Paragraph 22 from -- let me just read it. This development shall be subject to sanitary sewer latecomer fees to reimburse those responsible for bringing sanitary sewer service to this area. Latecomer fees shall be due and payable prior to City of Meridian endorsement on the Final Plat map. The current fee is $283.15 per dwelling unit. This fee is adjusted annually on October 1st at the rate of 4.0 percent per annum. Then, thatmeans that the final paragraph becomes Number 23. Applicant shall submit ten copies. Thank you. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission MeeOng June 19, 2003 Page 25 of 34 Centers: Did we want to add reference to the entrance, Mr. Siddoway, to meet ACHD requirements in the curvatures, et cetera? Siddoway: They'll have to do it anyway, but I think it would be fine to mention. Centers: All right. Zaremba: So included. Centers: There we go. Siddoway: On the lot numbering -- and I hope this doesn't screw things up -- if the pathway lot says as part of Lot 1, then, there are only six open space lots, but in talking to the applicant, it seems to make sense to him to split it off from the street buffer as a separate common lot and give it a number. It currently has no separate number on the plat. Zaremba: It would become 22, then. Siddoway: It would likely become Number 22 Zaremba: Instead of 1-A and 1-B. I'd just incorporate the change without re-reading everything that I already changed. Siddoway: Yes. I think we can handle it. Zaremba: Okay. I would incorporate the -- the count on the lots actually remains seven by splitting Lot 1, Block 1, into the front piece that will remain Lot 1, and a wide south piece that will become Lot 22, Block 1. Whatever resulting changes that makes in the other notes. Now, I think that's the end of the motion. Centers: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 5. Public Hearing: CUP 03-027 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for approval for dance studio use in an I-L zone at 269 East 5"' Avenue for Sandy's Dancework's by Sandy's Dancework's, LLC - 269 East 5"' Avenue: Borup: Our next item, Public Hearing CUP 03-027, request for a Conditional Use Permit for approval for a dance studio in an I-L zone at 269 East 5th Avenue for Sandy's Dancework's by Sandy's Dancework's, LLC. Excuse me. We will continue on. I'd like to open this Public Hearing and start with the staff report.