Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 3, 2003 P & Z Comm MinutesMeridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meating July 3, 2003 Page 20 of 91 Item 7. Public Hearing: AZ 03-013 Request for annexation and zoning of 79.77 acres from RUT to R-8, C-G and L-O zones for proposed Kelly Creek Subdivision by Kevin Howell Construction -northwest corner of North Linder Road and West McMillan Road: Item 8. Public Hearing: PP 03-014 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 216 building lots and 14 other lots on 79.77 acres in proposed R-8, L-O and C-G zones for proposed Kelly Creek Subdivision by Kevin Howell Construction -northwest corner of North Linder Road and West McMillan Road: Item 9. Public Hearing: CUP 03-028 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development for 216 residential units, 34,200 square feet for office uses and 35,790 square feet for commercial uses for proposed Kelly Creek Subdivision by Kevin Howell Construction -northwest corner of North Linder Road and West McMillan Road: Centers: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing for the next three items on our agenda, Items 7, 8, and 9. Seven being a request for annexation and zoning of 79.77 acres for proposed Kelly Creek Sub. Item 8 is a request for a Preliminary Plat for the same property of Kelly Creek Sub and Item 9 is a Conditional Use Permit for the same property, Kelly Creek Sub. I would open with staff comments. Siddoway: Thank you, Chairman Centers, Members of the Commission. You should have a staff report dated July 3rd and a transmittal date of June 30ih. I do have several things I need to go over on this one and, then, get some response from the applicant. The first thing I would want to point out is in just the title section of this, I have noted that the Preliminary Plat itself is on 75.43 acres, which varies from the way it was noticed at 79.77. I came up with that acreage by looking at the actual parcel acreage in the assessor's data and the additional acreage does stand as the acreage being annexed, the difference is in the right of way being annexed. A minor point, but just to clarify why there is some differences in the numbers. Centers: Seventy-nine is correct? Siddoway: Well, 79 is the correct number for the annexation. Centers: Right. Siddoway: And 75 is the correct number for the actual land in the plat. I also -- we may want to verify the number of lots after any modifications that the applicant may make. It was noticed as 216 residential lots, 14 commercial and office lots, and 14 other lots. Those 14 other lots include the open space, the street buffers, the micropaths, and the storm water areas. With the modifications in the staff report, the total number of lots in some of those areas may change, just as a heads up. The property is currently zoned RUT. It is located at the intersection of McMillan Road and Linder Road on the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 21 of 91 northwest corner. It is comprised of eight existing parcels and would fill in this corner adjacent to Lochsa Falls Subdivision to the north and west. Bridgetower is to the south and the recently approved Paramount Subdivision abuts it oh the east. This is an aerial photo of the property. It's basically currently an agricultural use with four existing homes on the property. As the property develops they intend to keep two of those homes on lots within the subdivision and two of them would be removed as the subdivision develops. This is the proposed layout. You can see the open space areas cross- hatched. The majority of it.is in asingle-family residential layout. They are asking for same use exceptions for a commercial corner at McMillan and Linder and an office complex over on the southwest corner of their property. You should -- in the staff report on Page 2, it details some of the basic items with this subdivision. The gross density of it is just over three acres. The net density is just under five. It does match with the medium density residential designation that it has on the Comprehensive Plan. They have also submitted as a planned development a request to reduce the lot sizes, reduce the frontages on those lots, and exceed the block length requirements of the ordinance, as well as a use exception as mentioned for the office and commercial areas. The Planned Development Ordinance allows for a use exception up to 20 percent. These requested exceptions would comprise about 15 percent of the overall project area. As a planned development, amenities are also required. They are proposing, per this plat, 7.59 acres of open space, which is about nine and a half percent -- just under 10 percent. About three and a half acres of it is in this central open space park. It is to include a gazebo, a tot lot, a half court basketball court, and an open play area. They have also, as you can see, included in this subdivision several -- well, a network of pedestrian micropaths to provide for better pedestrian interconnectivity, in spite of their somewhat larger block lengths in areas. In terms of issues that need to be resolved, I would first turn you to page seven of the staff report. These are the special considerations for the plat itself. The first one has to do with street alignment. You can see on the west side of this property the approved stub location for Lochsa Falls, which does not exactly line up with the proposed connection in Kelly Creek. It's my understanding that the two developers have been talking. Staff has no objections to shifting the Lochsa Falls stub up to align with this. We recommend that the applicant provide a letter that the Lochsa Falls developer is willing to do that. If they are unable to get that letter, they should redesign this to align with the currently approved location. Item B is the arterial right of way. The plat as originally submitted did not make room for the additional right of way that ACHD would need for a future bike lane and we would ask that any future right of way be placed on a separate common lot in this subdivision, which would affect the number of lots in the plat. Item C is the street buffers that would be adjacent to that right of way. The ordinance requires at least 25 feet. Without getting into too much detail, the ordinance specifies that, those 25 feet have to be landscaped area exclusive of the sidewalk. One of the alternatives that ACHD offers is aright of way width that places the property line just behind the future curve and doesn't make allowance for the sidewalk width. If they went for that, I have noted that the street buffer width would need to be at least 30 feet in this location. That would be on both McMillan and Linder Roads. Item D has to do with fencing. They did submit some fencing details with their Landscape Plan. However, they do not show that fencing tapering down to three feet within 20 feet of the right of way, which is required. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 22 of 91 Micropath fencing is not shown as being installed by the developer, but would also be required. Staff is recommending that on the lots -- on the rear of the lots that are east and west of the main park, that the developer be required to install those fences to provide a uniform look to the park itself. Those are the only issues on the plat. To go to the Conditional Use Permit, Iwould -- well, let me stop there and ask if there are any questions or comments on those issues first. Okay. Zaremba: Iwould only comment that you referencing ACHD requirements a couple times, I saw a note someplace that ACHD was actually having a hearing on this last night. We have not had their report yet, of course, so -- Siddoway: A copy of their report was forwarded to me last night and I spoke with Craig Hood at ACHD this morning. He said that it went through on the Consent Agenda, largely as originally drafted in the draft version that you have. There is no significant changes happened at the commission last night. Zaremba: What's interesting to me is they are allowing so many accesses. Got several streets fairly close together but if ACHD saw that and approved it -- Siddoway: Well, they did not approve the accesses to the -- in the commercial and office areas as proposed. Part of their requirements were to modify that layout to provide different access points and we can have the applicant address that. Zaremba: Okay Siddoway: Page 12 of the staff report is findings that have to be made for the use exceptions that are requested for the office and commercial uses. 4-B on Page 12 is the first one I'd like to point out. It talks about utilizing the main vehicular accesses to the primary use, which is residential, as the main accesses -- accesses to the exception site -- the exception sites would be the commercial and the office areas. To the office area, there is a road connection, so it does have a primary access point -- vehicular access point from there. Staff is recommending that an access point to the commercial area also be provided in roughly this location, in the vicinity of Lot 41, Block 10, which I believe is that one. That is also incorporated in site-specific condition Number 2. Item C deals with the pedestrian and bicycle connections, which they do provide in addition to the vehicular access here to the office, providing, one, pedestrian access in this location. Over here they are -- they have pedestrian access. Here we are recommending that if the street connection goes in here, that the pedestrian connection shift around and be provided on the west side. That is in site-specific condition Number 3. Finding D on Page 13 deals with the orientation of the buildings to facilitate that access and with those additions, as talked about, punching in a vehicular access and shifting the pedestrian, we would say that it does meet that finding. With this one caveat we found that the pedestrian access to the office area dumps you right into the back of this office and isn't a very welcoming layout, it just kind of puts you right in the back of the building. We are recommending that they realign the building pads and/or the pedestrian access to be in a more visible location, because it's completely hidden Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 23 of 91 from within that project, that you would never know that an access was back there. Item E talks about architecture and I simply noted at the bottom paragraph that the Commission should determine what, if any, architectural design concepts should be incorporated into this project. Special considerations for the conditional use start there bottom on the Page 13. The Commercial and office layouts we point out are a conceptual approval only. They do require the applicant to come back before this body with a detailed conditional use application, so no detailed review of the specific layout is given, other than the general relationship issues that have been pointed out in the staff report. Then, I mentioned that perhaps the major one, as mentioned, is this connection that may affect that layout. Item B on Page 14 is the reduced standards. Again, staff has no objections to these. We would just like to have the Commission consider and make sure that you also find that the modifications related to lot size, lot frontage, block length, are all acceptable. Item 3 is the amenities. I have already mentioned those, but we want to make sure that they are -- the Commission finds that they are appropriate in size to the size and uses of the development. Staff finds that they are. We'd like the Commission to also be cognizant of that. Item D is private streets. ACHD provides an alternative to the applicant for the connection into the office area to either be constructed as a public street with a turn around or as a private street. Staff has no objection to having this be done has a private street and we have provided our recommendation for that private street standards to be a 29-foot street, with five-foot sidewalks on both sides, in a 42-foot right of way. We would also ask that those same standards be applied to the road connection that we are asking for to the commercial area and, finally, related to private streets, there is in this location a street that's labeled as a private drive and our ordinance deals with private streets and common drives and we recommend that these -- this be deemed a private street and built to the same standards as mentioned for the other two areas. In addition to that, we are requesting for that -- on that private street that the two lots immediately north and south of the entrance to that be required to take access off of that private street to minimize the conflicts at the intersection with the road and we think that that would help -- help that by having the access taken from -- from that private street. Item E on page 15 deals with Summit Way. You can see that there is a T-shaped street in here. The first issue has to do that with the large lot that fronts on McMillan. It has no frontage currently on Summit Way. That is a large lot for the existing home that's currently on the site. ACRD has stated that the access to that is not in compliance with district policy. They do, however, recommend that the access be allowed to remain for now until the house is either tgrn down or changed to another use, at which point they would want it to take access either from the office complex or from Summit. Staff feels that it should not take access from the office complex, but should have frontage on Summit for -- to have actual frontage and accessibility to that street. Secondly, there are just some awkward lots with this layout and our recommendation is that the Commission direct the applicant to revise the street and lot layout in this area to not only provide frontage, but to make a more efficient lot layout in that area. I think that's all I need to go through. I will stand for any questions. Centers: Commission, any questions? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 24 of 91 Zaremba: Yes. In the area in the southeast corner of this project, I'm assuming that's the area that they are asking for to be C-G. Siddoway: Yes. Zaremba: Actually, let me ask a question first. Should we not have it on the plat showing which zones are which? In other words, we know they are asking for R-8, C-G, and L-O, but I did not find it -- other than that it's fairly obvious, I did not find a designation of which zones were which. Siddoway: I'll let Bruce address that. Zaremba: Okay. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Zaremba, there is an exhibit map in the -- that came in with the application for annexation and zoning that shows those zones and the boundaries of them. Zaremba: Okay. Freckleton: It is not a requirement of a Preliminary Plat to show the designations on the Preliminary Plat, but they have supplied an exhibit map -- Zaremba: Okay. Freckleton: -- for that purpose. Zaremba: And those zones are what would be apparent right? Freckleton: Correct. Zaremba: Okay. No surprises. Okay. Then, let me ask my question about the C-G zone. The definition of Chapter 7 of C-G zones is, by my interpretation, mostly automotive service oriented businesses. My question would be whether this might be not more appropriate to be a C-N or C-C zone, as neighborhood businesses and small and larger -- has any thought been put on that? Siddoway: That is a valid question. C-G is the city's most intense commercial zone, allows -- has the most -- I should say the largest number of permitted uses. C-C and C- N do scale back a little more, as you say. I think that would be a fair question for the applicant, how they would feel about that. Zaremba: Okay. Then, I had a philosophical question that I was going to ask Director Powell, but she is not within my view at the moment. I could save the question. Oh, here she comes. Meddian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 25 of 91 Powell: Sorry, sir. Zaremba: I am probably going to put you on the spot and I apologize for that, but I have a philosophical question for you. We have had discussions that have gone both ways on Planned Developments. The 20 percent use exception as to whether the whole thing ought to be zoned in this case R-8 and just the exceptions noted, or whether we should, actually, zone it separate ways and in the past we, essentially, have ended up doing whatever the applicant asked, some have wanted it one way and some have wanted it another. I guess my question is using your crystal ball and your experience, 20 years from now, what would be easier to administer, having this whole project be an R-8 and noting the exemptions or, actually, separating it into the different zones as requested? Powell: I, actually, think it's much easier to administer if we go ahead and Rezone it to their proper designations, because I think it's very confusing to people when they have to -- you know, when they are looking at a piece of commercial property, which is fine for a restaurant. It's designated R-8, they get to their lender, and the lender is like, you know, why has this got a residential zoning. I think it's much easier for the tenants in that building to have an idea of what's expected of them as far as the zoning ordinance and also for us to administer. We are still going to have to go back to these PD's and we are looking at a geographic overlay to our GIS that would allow us to keep track of these conditions of approval much easier, so that we can just have all that information right there on whether or not a CU is approved or required and what uses are approved for that project. I do believe it's better to go with the appropriate zones. Zaremba: Thank you. Center: Commissioner Rohm? I have -- well, just a comment. The C-G zone, it's not irrelevant, but in a way it is, because each -- there is four lots in this phase, you have to come back with a CUP each time. We are going to see each project that comes. Any other questions? Is the applicant here? That's a stupid question. Fluke: Where else would we be the night before athree-day weekend? Centers: Yes. Fluke: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, thank you. Darin Fluke, JUB Engineers, 250 South Beachwood in Boise, representing the applicant in this matter. As usual, Steve did a nice job describing the project, so I don't think I'm going to go through a lot of detail on that. You have heard the facts about what the development looks like, how many lots there are, the zoning designations and so forth, and so I think I'll keep it as brief as I can and just address the issues in the staff report. Let me first just tell you how we arrived at the design that we have here. As Steve said, it's about 80 acres. What we tried to do was maximize the advantage of these two busy roadways and keep our homes back off those roads the best that we could, so that's why these -- the commercial areas located here on the corner and the office area Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 26 of 91 located here along McMillan Road. In general, the project is divided north to south by this road here, Apgar Creek, and the lots that are south of this run about 6,000 square feet, in general. Some are larger than that, but none are smaller than 6,000 square feet. All the lots to the north of this generally run about 8,000 square feet minimum, and a little bit bigger. We designed a central park area, three and a half acres, there as an amenity to the project. It's a nice entryway feature as you come in here with this terminal vista here will be in green space and this gazebo feature there. That was sort of our design concept to use these areas the best we could to buffer the residential land uses from those busier roadways. We also had the design constraint of dealing with four or five existing stub streets that were already approved with Lochsa Falls development and so we had streets in those areas and had to accommodate those. This is what we came up with, we think it's an attractive design and that it's going to fit real well with this area and offer some nice amenities to the residents. As far as the issues in the staff report, I think I'm just going to take these in turn and address them. I did give you an amended plat that we worked on based on the concerns, just --did they get those? Got those there? Let's see. Let me get -- Steve, do you have one? Let me just first point out what we did. The staff wanted roads into this development and maintaining a road to that development. We didn't do that initially, the road here, because what we were trying to do was encourage pedestrian access on these and we don't really want to encourage somebody who lives up here to drive their car to the development, we'd just as soon they walked, and that's why we had the pedestrian paths here. The reason we had a road here initially over here was to -- because of the block length issue, which I guess, in hindsight, was a moot point. Centers: I meant to ask it earlier. The L-O and the C-G, the ACHD has not approved access at either of the arterials? Fluke: Why don't I just go ahead and address those -- Centers: Okay. Fluke: -- ACHD issues right now, since we are on that. You will recall on that previous plan that there were two accesses to the L-O, one here and one here, and we didn't need the offset for this driveway from this road and, in addition, there was a road approved in Bridgetower to the south that came in right here. We didn't meet either the offset or the alignment for that, so what we did was eliminate the two drives and align with their driveway. By doing that, we took care of their concern with the alignment here. We also meet the offset now for the existing driveway here and that's how that was approved by ACHD. This is all in compliance. What we did with the road that we previously had here was just shift it over to align with this and put a small curb in it here, so that we didn't have a continuous shot. What we don't want is cut-through vehicle traffic through that office park into the development we want to train the drivers to come in at the main entrances of the development so, we did that.. The only other issue we had with ACHD is this driveway right here, which we always intended to have as a right- in, right-out, didn't meet an offset from this road. We looked at extending this down and curving it around, enclosing that approach, but it just didn't work layout wise, and so we Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 27 of 91 left it the way it was and this is intended to shift to the south, it just didn't happen on the redraft and it will still be a right-in, right-out approach and that does comply with ACHD standards as well. Both of these drives comply with the offset standards and so we are good on all of those. You see what we did here, so I think the staff had recommend that the private -- or that the road -- vehicle access come in about at that point. What we did instead was move it over to where the ped access used to be and bring it in right there, that way we line up a little better with this pedestrian access and, again, we avoid that continuous shot of coming in either there, either here to there, or straight down like that. It made it a little more difficult for cars to cut through there. As long as we are talking about that commercial area, I'd just say we did not add a pedestrian path here for two reasons. One is we don't think it's necessary, because, you know, if we had it in this location you're about 300 feet or less to just walk around to there. It's not a significant distance to walk around. The second thing is that that would be one of the most expensive pedestrian paths in the history of Meridian, because we would have to lose a lot to do it. These lots here are 60 feet in frontage and there is simply no way to take 20 feet and add it in there without scrunching those lots down to something less than 60, which we were trying to avoid. That's why we didn't add one there. We think the access, ped and vehicular, is just fine the way it's designed. We ask that you just modify that condition to allow just the one access. As far as this realignment of that road, we are working with the developer. The letter is drafted, it's signed by one of the parties that has to sign it and we are just waiting for the second party to sign it, so we are amenable to that condition. That's fine. As far as the right of way widths on both McMillan and Linder, we have shown 23 feet on Linder, which ended up being, I think, ten feet more than what ACHD required anyway, so we have got plenty over there. Then, down here on McMillan they do need an additional five feet of right of way to accommodate a bike lane on the ultimate build-out of that road and, then, we will have to have an additional five feet for the sidewalk to be in the landscape buffer. We have indicated that on the redrafted plan that you have, although I'm sure that you can't read it. It does show that we've got an additional five feet of right of way and an additional five feet of landscaping. Let's see. As far as the fencing issue, D, on Page 7, not a problem. The developer intends to fence all the common areas and we will have fences along the back of these lots and, then, along any of the areas -- common areas where we accommodate drainage and dual use. One sort of a minor comment on Page 7, we'd just like to add some language on site-specific comment number two, which would allow us to extend the sewer down McMillan Road, rather than having all our sewer flow somewhere through Lochsa Falls. The reason for that is we don't have any idea, nor does the developer of Lochsa, when this portion of the project will develop. We don't want to be held up based on what they are doing, we'd like -- of course, it would be at this developer's cost to extend it, but we need the option to bring sewer through McMillan Road and I think Public Works is fine with that. Let me just run to Page 12 real quick and I will be just about done with our comments on your comments. I guess we talked about the vehicular access to the commercial lots. The finding -- or that condition says that it's and/or vehicular -- vehicular and/or pedestrian access. We chose pedestrian. The staff prefers vehicle. We went ahead and accommodated that. As far as the pedestrian access in here, this layout is conceptual. What we tried to do was just get a good idea of what the square footage of building was that we could fit on Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 28 of 91 the lot. It's likely that that layout will change and we don't have a problem with bringing that path in not behind a building, we will either move the building or we will put the lot -- the path in a different spot, although it's fairly well locked in, so it's just likely that the building is going to move. Two other issues and, then, I will be done. One deals with the design of this area. The comment was that it's awkward and it be redesigned. I guess our response to that is that we don't believe that it's awkward, we have platted these types of turnarounds in other developments and they tend to be quite popular and sell quite well. We have complied with the dimensional standards for the code on all of those lots, as well as the fire code standards for the turnaround there and we really prefer to keep it the way it is. We think the pedestrian access works well here, these guys all have a nice little bit of open space. If we reconfigure that with a cul.-de-sac in there, all we basically end up with is a bunch more pavement and fewer lots. Centers: Where is Lot 26 going to get access from? Fluke: Lot 26 has access on McMillan Road and currently complies with ACHD standards, because we moved this one, so it complies with the offset here and the offset here. ACHD has allowed it here and we'd like it to remain. If you want us to provide an easement through here or through here to access to that, we are certainly amenable to do that. We did not provide frontage to that lot, because, then, we'd have a double frontage lot, which is not allowed by your code. We would prefer to just keep this the way it is and we will be happy to have a condition placed on here that we provide, an access easement. In fact, it's likely that we will do it anyway, because if somebody does want to redevelop this, it's likely that it's not going to be residential, it's likely that they will ask for office uses and it would make sense for a shared drive to come in there from this office. Centers: How big is that parcel? Fluke: I think we ended up about an acre on that. Three-quarters of an acre. That's all. Centers: Any questions from the Commission? Zaremba: Well, actually, your last statement answered part of my question. On that one parcel that the house that's there, it appears that it's going to last quite awhile. Fluke: Yes. It was only built last year, I think. Zaremba: And it appears to be in very good shape, pretty solid house. Fluke: Yes. Zaremba: But your thinking is if it ever went away, it would be more likely to be -- that piece of property would be more likely to be added to the L-O area? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 29 of 91 Fluke: That's our thinking. Of course, that's going to be a decision for a future Commission and City Council, but it -- the size of it is -- that it just is not likely that it will go to residential uses. Zaremba: And I have assumed the ACHD statement still stands, that if the uses change, then, the access onto McMillan goes away. Fluke: Yes and we will have to deal with the Highway District at that time, of course. Centers: Any other questions? Zaremba: I guess not. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, my only comments are about this pathway right there. I realize that this development is conceptual at this point in time, but the pathway ultimately should be outside of the background of the proposed development. How are you going to place the pathway before you decide on the configuration of the lot? Fluke: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, that's a fair question. Essentially, the pathway, if this layout does not change, the pathway is pretty well locked in, in its location, it's -- you know, it could be moved to the north a little bit or to the south a little bit. It's locked in and so what we will have to do is just accommodate that condition in the layout of the development here. Like I said, this is a conceptual layout to give us an idea of what we could fit on square footage wise given the parking requirements and so on and so forth, so we have got plenty of latitude to shift that Site Plan around. Rohm: Okay. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, if I could address that, too, to Darin and Commissioner Rohm. While the commercial layout is conceptually being approved, the plat is -- is creating a lot for that parcel in that location. The plat -- we create alot -- is proposing to create a lot for that pad in that location and if it's -- if it's Preliminary Platted in here, we would anticipate having the Final Plat come through in that same location, so I do think there needs to be some resolution for how this is going to be platted. Rohm: That's why I asked the question. Fluke: Mr. Chairman, I will go ahead and address that. Again, with the plat, like we did with the layout of the buildings, is we put the maximum number of lots on there that we thought we were going to need, because we know we can go down in number, but we can't go up after we get the preliminary approval. Again, we have the latitude to have fewer lots in here than what is shown. In essence, this will -- this is -- preliminarily this is, in essence, being platted as one large lot and when it comes back in it will probably be its own phase. It will contain no more than the number of lots that's shown on the preliminary. In fact, it's likely that there will be less on the Preliminary Plat and we Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 30 of 91 understand that once this is platted and the path is locked in, that the conditions of approval will require us to work around that and we are fine with that. Centers: Well, I don't follow that. You plat that and that's Lot 36 and someone comes to you and wants to buy Lot 36 and build an office building there, you have a pathway butting up into Lot 36 in the back of the building. How are you going to change it? Fluke: Oh, that's what I'm saying is -- Centers: You don't want to change it. Fluke: This will be platted first. Centers: Right. Fluke: So, the pathway will be locked in. Centers: Right. Fluke: When the Final Flat comes in for this, we will, then, be required to accommodate the location of that path with our lot lines and we have latitude to go down in number of lots within this. We just can't go up, so we put the maximum number on there now to give us maximum flexibility in the future. Centers: So, if we were to say that that pathway shall not butt into a building on the proposed L-O zone, then, you couldn't build there, but you don't want that condition. Fluke: No. We are fine with that condition. Centers: You are? Okay. Fluke: Yes. You know, this is conceptual. Like I said, it's a maximum yield plan for us just to give us an idea of what's going to fit on there, but the lines -- the line work is all conceptual. Centers: Very good. Yes. Mr. Fluke, after anyone else wants to testify, I want to go through each condition, so that we are real clear, because there are a number of them. Thank you. Fluke: Thank you. Centers: Anyone else wish to testify on this application? We didn't have anyone sign up. Come forward. Moss: Tony Moss, 2400 West McMillan Road. We live in the house that's just right off the -- I guess the cul-de-sac on the very top left-hand corner -- yes. Right there. When Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 31 of 91 the Lochsa Falls thing was put together there were certain conditions that went through Planning and Zoning, went through City Council and we all agreed on what they were going to do as far as the easement that I have from McMillan Road to my property, which borders the property that we are talking about right now. We went around and around and finally decided on what the -- the things that they were going to do, which was the cul-de-sac was going to be my access point on the Lochsa Fall -- or the Dan Gibson portion of the development. They were going to deed me the section of the road that goes from the end of that cul-de-sac to my property. Now, I see that there is another road that comes in there that goes to that cul-de-sac also that I'm sure this part of the development between the -- or part of the agreement between the two developers, in order to make the whole project come together, but in the process doing this Kelly property, the easement that I have on the road I have in and out of my house, I lost about a third of the driveway, because the actual property lines had shifted as they do with farm ground or fences that are put in different areas over the years and so, consequently, if this development comes ahead of the Dan Gibson portion of the Lochsa Falls development, I got a problem, because I've got a driveway that's about 15 feet smaller than it was, if they start construction on this quicker than the other portion. On the other side of my driveway is a cement ditch and an irrigation system for the turf farm that Dan Gibson has in that area and I haven't had much indication that he is going to change as far as being a developer, instead of a turf farmer in the next couple of years, so I don't know where I am with the whole thing. Centers: Mr. Moss, you say you have lost about a third of your present driveway all the way in? Moss: No. Just the last half. Centers: Okay but it wasn't due to this, that was due to the -- what was it due to? Moss: Property lines that were encroached in one direction or the other over the years. The road -- Centers: So, it's all legal, then? Moss: Yes. Centers: Okay. Moss: It is. I'm just -- this is what I'm contending with and if I have a situation like that, I don't know how much leverage I have with Lochsa Falls and Dan Gibson to make sure I got 25 feet, as my deed shows, into ingress and egress from my property. Centers: Well, I think we can -- I don't know, correct me if I'm wrong --and the applicant will respond to this, but we can restrict the developer of this property not to encroach on your easement. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 32 of 91 Moss: Well, I'm really not -- I'm just wondering how much together they are, because I have been asked by Farwest Development Corporation to relinquish my easement by August of this year, so they can start development or whatever on the project and if I do that, there is -- there is supposed to be an access road to the west of my actual easement right now, which was going to be a drive-in with a water feature, similar to what the rest of the Lochsa Falls development is. I don't know how long that's going to be before that happens. I'm wondering how -- if I should relinquish my easement under this situation, because of the connection between a smaller driveway and maybe not getting the cooperation from Lochsa Falls. Centers: Well, we are not the ones -- Moss: Between myself and the -- Zaremba: I'm not understanding on how that relates to this applicant. Does part of your easement cover this property? Moss: His property is my driveway -- a third of my driveway at the end portion of it. When the exact -- when they finally put together the property lines, it comes to find out that my driveway is a third smaller than it was and I don't have -- I just wondered how much working relationship was -- Zaremba: Whose property lines? The edge of this property or Lochsa Falls property? Moss: The edge of this property and my easement, which is supposed to be 25 feet wide. It's now 25 feet wide, but under the circumstances when the actual property lines were drawn and surveyed out there, it encroaches on my driveway by about a third. I'm -- I'm at a little dilemma here. I don't know what -- well, I don't know who to go to and I don't know what my situation -- what my possible remedy is, because I -- because if this development goes ahead before the Lochsa Falls Dan Gibson portion, which I think it probably will, where is my -- what do I do here? Centers: Well, the good news is you have a recorded easement, don't you? Moss: Yes. Centers: Well, then, I think you're in good shape, but I'm not the attorney here, but as far as relinquishing your easement, we are not the body that should help you decide that, that's -- Moss: No. I'm just saying that that -- what I was delivered with here just a month ago -- and Ijust wanted to see where -- how the whole thing was coming to together, because I don't think that the developments are going to be coming on line at the same time, so - Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 33 of 91 Centers: Yes. Who knows? Well -and we will have the applicant maybe respond to that and you can talk to them afterwards, too. Moss: Yes. Like I said, I would also like to know is there any changes in size of the cul- de-sac where the road comes in up at the top left-hand corner there or is that conducive with what Lochsa Falls is doing in their development. Centers: I'm sure it is. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Moss. Anyone else? Would the applicant like to come up and maybe talk about those issues and then -- Fluke: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Thank you. Darin Fluke again. 250 South Beachwood. Our understanding of this issue is that the -- Mr. Moss's easement is on Mr. Gibson's property, which is this property line here. As -- Mr. Moss is correct in stating that, as is often the case, that his driveway ended up encroaching over this property line somewhat and when the line was established by the boundary survey, it showed that the driveway was over the line. There is a concrete ditch that lies here on the west side of the road and, then, his driveway there. Two things is I think you're correct, Mr. Centers, in stating that he has a valid easement and so he's -- you know, he's got good legal protection as far as his easement goes. It's really Mr. Gibson's responsibility to provide him that access, because he does have the 25 feet across his lot. The second thing is that if we do develop first, our intent is to develop from this end of the property as phase one and this end of the property as phase two or three. If we do end up getting there before Lochsa Falls, he will have public road access to this point to his property. My assumption is that this cul-de-sac that's shown here in Lochsa is a temporary cul-de-sac because it's also stubbed and so, you know, if we do get there first, he will have a public road access. Centers: Are you saying that Mr. Moss could possibly go back to Mr. Gibson and say, hey, I ended up with 18 feet here, instead of 25, because of the legal description being inaccurate? Fluke: In my non-legal mind that's -- that's exactly what I'm saying is that he's got 25 feet across Mr. Gibson's property and Mr. Gibson is bound to give him that. So, it's really Gibson's -- Centers: And we are not here to give advice, but, then, that's what he could do is iron that out with Mr. Gibson. Zaremba: Just so I'm clear, none of his easement is actually on your property? Fluke: That's correct. Zaremba: But the result of building his driveway it did move onto your property. Fluke: Well, the driveway is where it always has been, it was always over the line, we just didn't know it until the boundary was established. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 34 of 91 Zaremba: So, he needs to establish with the Lochsa guy where his 25 feet really is. Fluke: That's correct. Zaremba: But none of it's on your property? Fluke: Correct. Right. Centers: Okay. Yes. Mr. Fluke, I'd like to go through, because, first of all, as you know, the staff had recommended a continuation, unless certain things could be ironed out tonight and I'm one for trying to iron them out, because I know the cost of delays and -- or I think I know. In the future, just as a tip, if you can refer to the staff report per number, agree, disagree, we request, we request that, then, I wouldn't have to do this. Fluke: Okay. Centers: Page 7Site-specific comments Number 1 we don't have a problem there, correct? Fluke: Correct. Centers: Item Number 2 we don't have a problem and you would like for it to also state: Or extend via McMillan Road? Fluke: Correct. Centers: Item Number 3. Fluke: We are fine. Centers: We are fine. Item Number 4. Fluke: Well, we can't do anything on Ten Mile Road, but, otherwise, we are fine. Zaremba: Delete Ten Mile. Centers: Yes. Item Number 5. Fluke: We are fine with that. Actually, we are fine with all the rest of the conditions on that. Centers: Six, seven, eight, and nine? Fluke: Yes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 35 of 91 Centers: Okay. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman? Centers: Yes. Freckleton: Just for the record, I just wanted to put in that Iwas -- that I concur with the revision of litem Number 2 regarding the sewer down McMillan Road. Centers: Okay. Thank you. Page 15. Site-specific for the CUP. Just go right down. Number one. Fluke: One is fine. Centers: That's fine. Number 2? Fluke: As long as we are -- as long as we have some latitude on where that's located we are fine. We have shown the revised preliminary, which is now part of the record. If you're okay with those locations, I think we can -- Centers: They say in the vicinity of Lot 41 so, you're okay with that? Fluke: Yes. If you're okay with what we redrew there and what's in front of you, then, everything is fine. Centers: And, then, the private streets and the footage thereof and that type of thing? Fluke: Correct. Centers: And you would --well, we will probably get to that in the private street that you added. Number 3 we are fine, right? Fluke: Actually, that's the one where -- that we don't want to do. That's the one that's requesting a pedestrian path right in here. We would ask that that be eliminated in its entirety. Centers: Item Number 4. Fluke: That's fine. Centers: That's fine. Five? We are fine there. Fluke: That's all fine. Centers: Lot 26. Number 6. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 36 of 91 Fluke: That we ask to be eliminated Centers: But you do agree to a -- Fluke: If you'd like to replace it with language requiring us to provide an easement there, we will be happy to do that in both locations, an easement across the common area here and also an easement somewhere from where ever -- where ever there ends up being an opportunity to have an easement where there is a drive aisle there, we would be happy to do that, too. Centers: Seven is no problem. Eight. Fluke: We are okay with the rest of those conditions. Centers: Okay. Thank you very much. Fluke: Mr. Chairman, for the record, I just thought of something that we need to discuss. I didn't see it in the conditions, but it was discussed by staff, and that has to do with status of this private drive right here. Initially, I didn't make an issue of this, because I thought we just had an issue of semantics versus a private drive versus a private street or a common drive versus a private street. We designed this to be a driveway. It's 30 feet in length. We do object to -- in fact, all of these three lots, of course, have to take access from it. These are just platted here for a future use. They may or may not develop in that configuration, because there is a nice big house here right now that's going to stay. We are okay with these two lots having to take access here. The only thing we don't want to do is turn it into a private road that requires 42 feet with curb, gutter and sidewalk. It just doesn't make any sense where it's going. I mean it goes into basically three dwellings and given the number of trips that would use that and the people accessing it, it just doesn't need to be that wide. We are showing it 30 feet now and so if it needs -- if it's a matter of calling it a private -- or a common drive versus a private road, then, we would ask for that and I didn't see a condition in there requiring that. Centers: Page 15, item two, you already said is okay. Fluke: Did I miss it? Siddoway: Yes. That lot is Lot 18, Block 10. Fluke: Okay. Siddoway: And we are asking that it be a 29-foot street with sidewalks and we feel that there should be sidewalks accessing those lots as well. It does allow for a narrower street section, the 29 feet, and, then, the 42 feet of right of way allows for five feet of sidewalks on each side and, then, two feet beyond. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 37 of 91 Centers: And your alternative to Lot 18, which is that private drive? Fluke: What we are showing there is a 30-foot Centers: Right. Your alternative would be -- Fluke: The alternative road section that we proposed? Centers: Rather than improve it to the private drive standards Fluke: Oh. What we intended to do was have 20 feet of asphalt providing access to those three lots. You know, if we use the standard trip generation that ACHD uses, you would be looking at 30 trips in there, if there were three lots. As I stated, this house is likely to be the only one back there for quite some time and we simply did that, you know, for future use. We platted it now, rather than having to back in later, although it's not intended that those are going to develop. It just doesn't seem to make any sense to us to widen this to 42 feet with curb, gutter, and sidewalk for a maximum of three dwellings there. Centers: Why don't you -- is Lot 19 the one that has the house on it? Fluke: The large one here? Centers: Yes. Fluke: Yes. Centers: Kind of a reverse flag lot and have access agreements for the other two below. Fluke: If it's the three lots, we will eliminate the two lots on the south. Like I said, it's really -- we did that for future, not -- in case they wanted to do it. There is no intention to develop those lots, because this house is going to remain, and so if the issue that's really driving this needing to be 42 feet is those additional two lots, then, we'd just say -- of course, our preference is leave it the way it is, but if that's the issue for you, we will just eliminate the lots, if we can leave the drive the way that it is. Centers: Well, what I was suggesting, include it as Lot 19 and it's a private driveway with access to Lots 21 and 21 -- 20 and 21. Fluke: You mean make this part of the plat? Centers: Yes. Fluke: Part of the lot. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 38 of 91 Centers: Part of 19. Fluke: As a flag? Centers: As a flag. Fluke: To us it's a semantical distinction. What we are really concerned about is how it develops on the ground and 42 feet doesn't make any sense. A 20-foot drive is more than adequate. For the number of pedestrian trips who are going to use that, you don't need curb, gutter, and sidewalk on both sides of that. You know, they can -- they can walk that 110 feet there on a 20-foot asphalt surface, rather than a sidewalk. Centers: I agree. Well, let's let staff address it. Thanks, Mr. Fluke. Fluke: Thank you. Centers: We went through them, staff. Comments? Siddoway: The private street standards are found in Ordinance 12-6-2A, 6D, for private streets that serve between four and ten dwelling units and that are greater than 200 feet in length, which this one is. It says that they shall be at least in a 42-foot right of way with a 29-foot street section. We are counting that, because we are considering the two front lots taking access from that, so we are saying that there are five lots taking access from that private and it needs to conform with that standard. The common drive standards are found in 12-4-14 and they allow only up to a maximum of four dwelling units to be served off of a common drive that would have to be at least 24 feet wide. Centers: And that's four. Siddoway: Foui? Centers: For maximum. Siddoway: Yes. Centers: So, if he did include that as, you know, my idea and make that part of Lot 19, with shared access to the other three lots. Siddoway: So, show me which one that -- Centers: Yes. Make this all part of 19 and people using this driveway, in addition to the owner of Lot 19, will have an access agreement or a -- however they record it, to use this, this, and this. Fluke: It's still the same number of lots accessing -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 39 of 01 Centers: Four. Siddoway: -- to it. Centers: Sure. Mr. Howell. Howell: Kevin Howell, 3451 Plantation River Drive. That one kind of slipped by me, but we can just make that one big lot with a flag and avoid all that. I don't need four lots in there. It's going to sit that way for a long, long time, but we don't need to -- we don't need to have those two lots. We can make it one big lot with a flag lot driveway. Centers: So, identify which lots you'd remove, Mr. Howell. Howell: Lots 20, Lot 21, Block 10. Looks like we turn Lot 18, Block 10, into just part of the driveway of Lot 19, Block 10. Centers: Okay. That's fine. Very good. Howell: Anything else? Centers: Anything else for Mr. Howell? Staff, how do you feel about that? Siddoway: I'm still trying to figure it out. You're saying turn Lot 18 into part of Lot 19 and combining another one into it also or that's it? Centers: Lot 20 and 21 would also become Lot 19, too. Wouldn't that be true, Mr. Howell? Howell: Yes. Centers: Yes. Okay. Lot 19 would be huge. Siddoway: Okay. Zaremba: Are we still asking that Lot 17 and 22 take their access of that driveway? Centers: They have frontage. Siddoway: Yes. It would no longer be a private -- a private drive, because it would just be to the one lot. It's a flag lot so, that would take care of it. Centers: Thank you. Siddoway: The width on the original plat was 31. In the revised plat is it still the same or has it been reduced at all? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 40 of 91 Fluke: No. We haven't changed it yet. Siddoway: Okay. I think it would work. Centers: And, then, staff, on Page 15 they are wanting to eliminate Item 3. Are you pretty hung up on that? Siddoway: StafFs okay with the shift of the road location, providing both accesses for pedestrians and vehicles. Centers: And, then, Page 16, Item 6, in lieu of that they wanted to provide two access easements. Powell: Chair Centers, we are a little perplexed as to what to do with that larger, lot Number 26, because the applicant stated that it's likely to be developed as commercial. I wonder if we want to perhaps make it a condition that the conceptual plan for the adjoining property show how cross-access could be provided to that property. Although the house -- they also stated that the house is likely to remain there for a while, so it's -- Centers: They were proposing to provide two accesses, one to L-O and one to residential. Zaremba: I made a note on Page 16 Paragraph 6. Centers: That's what we are talking about. Zaremba: I think that's the lot we are talking about. Centers: Right. Zaremba: That they would provide easements both directions. Centers: Right. And we are -staff is pondering. That's what we are talking about. Not that they have to agree with us. Orvice-versa. Personally, I -- you know, I think that's a fairly substantial house I understand that. I think that's right, later on it will be part of the L-O in years to come, but -- Siddoway: After much discussion, we are in favor of keeping the -- Centers: They are on the fence and they are okay. Siddoway: -- proposed accesses with easements. Centers: So, what we have on page 15 for the Commission to consider is -- well, it's very simple. In Paragraph 2 we eliminate Lot 18 and -- Lot 18, 20, and 21 would become Lot 19, making one large lot, and we have made what looked like a long issue Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 41 of 91 into a shorter one. Very good any more discussion? I can tell you in advance I'm going to take a break after this, so if you want to leave early -- it's a custom. We always break at 9:00, 9:15, for about eight and a half minutes. Howell: I've got one question. Centers: Sure. Howell: Am I still on? Centers: The Public Hearing is still open. Howell: Okay. Centers: Mr. Howell has the microphone. Fluke: That little section down there where the two streets kind of dead-end in that little T. Yes. Centers: There is a pointer right there, Mr. Howell, right in front of you. Zaremba: Summit Way and Sage Springs. Howell: Yes right in there. Are we going to be able to leave that like that or are we -- Centers: Yes. We are not -- that wasn't discussed and we were just talking about access agreements for this lot to the L-O to the residential. Howell: Okay. I just thought staff had an issue with that, but it was probably -- Centers: No. No. Howell: Okay. Thanks. Centers: We want that green space. Anything else? I'd be open for a motion. Zaremba: Before we move, I guess my only question is do we want to see the ACHD report? Centers: I'm fine if staff is fine. I think the ACHD report refers mostly to the L-O and the C-G, is that correct? Siddoway: It has to do with the entire project, but those were some of the main issues, though. Centers: But they were fine with the project. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 42 of 97 Siddoway: Internally they required some different radii on some of the internal streets, but the applicant's well aware of those conditions. Zaremba: So, you're satisfied that -- Siddoway: I'm satisfied -- Zaremba: -- these conditions are incorporated or will be incorporated? Siddoway: Yes. I would just include ACHD's final comments in your motion and we can make sure they are included. Zaremba: Okay. In that case, Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on all three Items 7, 8, and 9. Rohm: I'll second that. Centers: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing, all in favor. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, TWO ABSENT Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Centers: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 7 on our agenda, AZ 03-013, request for annexation and zoning of 79.77 acres from RUT to a combination of R-8, C-G, and L-O zones for proposed Kelly Creek Subdivision by Kevin Howell Construction, the northwest corner of North Linder Road and West McMillan Road, to include all staff comments of their transmittal date June 30, 2003, with no changes. End of motion. Rohm: I will second that. Centers: Motion and second to approve Item 7 on our agenda. All in favor? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, TWO ABSENT Centers: Before we get to Item 8, if you make the motion to approve it as the applicant discussed, I get 213 lots. Siddoway: I have not counted the revised plat. I would defer to the applicant. Zaremba: Because we took three out. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 43 of 91 Centers: Yes. One, two, three. Siddoway: I believe we are also adding a right of way lot along McMillan, so that's an additional lot there. Zaremba: So, that would be 15 other lots, instead of 14. Centers: Fifteen other lots and, then, 213 residential lots, would that be correct? Howell: I'd have to sit down and count them, because we have got paths and I know that was a lot, so -- Centers: Is that a technicality that is major, Mr. Siddoway? Wollen: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I don't believe it would be something that would be major. I think that if the Commission or the maker of the motion wanted to feel comfortable about it, to make each specific lot change in their motion, that would be sufficient, I believe. Zaremba: If we identified it as 213 lots and it turned out to be 212, that's not a significant change. Wollen: I don't believe so. First of all, it's something that could be clarified before City Council. Secondly, I do believe there is enough of a public record as to the changes that were contemplated by the Commission. Centers: Very good. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, you could make reference to the revised Preliminary Plat as submitted and ask the applicant to verify the number of lots prior to the Council meeting. Centers: Prior to Council. Yes. Zaremba: In that case, ready for a motion? Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 8 on our Agenda PP 03-014, a request for a Preliminary Plat approval of what we expect to be 213 lots, possibly 212, building lots, and 15, not 14, other lots on 75.43 acres, not 79.77, in a proposed R-8, L-O, and C-G zones for proposed Kelly Creek Subdivision by Kevin Howell Construction, northwest corner of North Linder Road and West McMillan Road. This approval to be referred to the Preliminary Plat provided by the applicant and stamped by the City of Meridian July 3, 2003. To include all staff comments of their memo transmittal date June 30, with the following changes. On Page 7, Paragraph 2, we have added an additional sentence that says applicant, at applicant's cost, may extend the sewer through McMillan Road if Lochsa Falls sewer line is not ready. On Page 8, Paragraph 4, in the first sentence, delete the words Ten Mile Road. I would add a Paragraph 10, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 44 of 91 indicating that the L-O zones and C-G zones are conceptual and are not being platted at this time within those zones. I believe that's the end of my motion. Fluke: I will second that. Centers: Motion and second. All in favor? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, TWO ABSENT Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of CUP 03-028, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development for 213, not 216, and possibly 212, residential units, 34,200 square feet for office uses and 35,790 square feet for commercial uses for proposed Kelly Creek Subdivision by Kevin Howell Construction. Northwest corner of North Linder Road and West McMillan Road, and this, again, refers to the plat that they have provided to the City of Meridian, date stamped July 3, 2003. To include all staff comments of the staff memo of June 30, 2003, with the following exceptions under site-specific conditions -- this is Page 15 of the memo, Paragraph 2, the second sentence shall be modified to read: North Dove Ridge Drive shall be a private street. The third sentence begins: Both streets shall be designed -- and it continuous the way it was. The current paragraph three is deleted and we will add another paragraph -- substitute paragraph three that says Lots 18, 19, 20, and 21 of Block 10 shall be combined to become only Lot 19 of Block 10. Paragraph 6 on Page 16 shall read: Lot 26, Block 12, shall be provided an easement to Summit Way and an easement into the L-O zone. Centers: Very good. Zaremba: I believe that's the motion. Rohm: I will second that. Centers: Motion and second to approve Item 9 on our agenda. All in favor? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, TWO ABSENT Centers: Break time. (Recess.) Item 10. Public Hearing: CUP 03-024 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a new dental clinic in an L-0 zone for Seegmiller Dental by Dr. Dave Seegmiller -south of East Gala Street and east of South Millennium Way: