Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 15, 2004 P&Z MinutesMeridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 13 of 124 Powell: Chairman, Members of the Commission, we are up and running again. Item 8. Public Hearing: AZ 03-035 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 70.64 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for proposed Settlement Bridge Subdivision by Capital Development - 2205 East McMillan Road: Item 9. Public Hearing: PP 03-041 Request for Preliminary Plat Approval of 266 single-family residential building lots and 34 common lots on 70.64 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Settlement Bridge Subdivision by Capital Development - 2205 East McMillan Road: Item 10. Public Hearing: CUP 03-065 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development to allow single family residential and attached single family in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Settlement B ridge Subdivision by Capital Development - 2205 East McMillan Road: Borup: Oh, good. Okay. Thank you for your patience, ladies and gentlemen. We'd like to continue with Settlement Bridge Project, Items 8, 9, and 10. I'd like to open Public Hearing AZ 03-035, request for Annexation and Zoning of 70.67 from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Settlement Bridge Subdivision by Capital Development. Also Public Hearing PP 03-041, request for Preliminary Plat approval 266 single-family residential lots. Public Hearing CUP 03-065, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development on the same project. Again, open all three Public Hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Items 8, 9, and 10, as you stated, include a request for development on a 70 acre site located on the east side of Locust Grove Road and on the south side of McMillan Road, south and east of an Idaho Power substation, which is located right on the corner here. The site is currently zoned RUT in the county. Just to give you some more bearings, this is the site here. Edinburgh Place is the subdivision here. Vienna Woods is to the north of that. The recently approved Havasu Creek development is here. There are some county parcels here. The city limits -- actually, this is the annexation path for this site here. Then, to the south is the RUT zoned property and the county Heritage subdivision. The area of impact actually goes right along side this property and kind of does this number here and this will be right near the edge of the future city limits. The applicant has applied for Annexation and Zoning, Preliminary Plat, and Conditional Use Permit approval for a planned development for 266 single family residential building lots and 34 common lots within the R-8 zone. The gross density of the proposed development is 3.7 dwelling units per acre. The applicant is proposing to develop the site in six phases, starting from Locust Grove over in this direction. Of the 266 buildable lots, 168 will be single- family detached units and 98 will be for single-family attached units. I have included in this presentation a -- excuse me --atypical or a common elevation for one of the possible units that may -- or what these attached units may look like on those lots. In addition, there is a reference in the staff report to shared driveways, so I thought that would be important to include that, too. This is what a shared driveway would look like. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 14 of 124 As you can see, they're offset a little bit, but the front porches, there is a little bit of -- excuse me -- variation in the front elevations there and setback for the different units. This is the site, as it exists today. Actually, I was out there taking some pictures. This is the n orth s lough a nd l a pologize for t he q uality o f t he p ictures. T his i s -- t he I daho Power Substation is here. They do have landscaping adjacent to the Idaho Power Substation on all four sides. There is a -- the North Slough runs, along that north side of that facility and, then, there is another feeder ditch that's on the Locust Grove side of that facility here. A couple of things I guess that I would like point out. There are two existing homes and some other out buildings that are currently on this site near McMillan Road. One of the homes is kind of hidden back here in this neat little area that in the staff report is called The Grove. The applicant is proposing to utilize the majority of that grove area as park, future park area, and the city is working with the developer as well to try to acquire a well site near that park area. That is one of the amenities in the CUP that the applicant has proposed, along with about seven acres of open space, and there are tot lots as well on some of them back here. There is a tot lot on this common lot here. All of the -- and a tot lot on this lot here. This is a common area, some lineal common area throughout the development that way. That grove area is in this location here that was just on a previous picture. There is a micropath that runs here connecting thiscul-de-sacoverthere. I wouldlike to touchona coupleofthe other highlights of this subdivision, I guess, and what I think are good design features. On the City's Comprehensive Plan, the multi-use pathway is called for in approximately this location. The applicant is going to be constructing that portion that abuts their site along the North Slough, which is being relocated slightly. In some of these areas, it's being relocated and the 10-foot wide multi-use pathway will be constructed in there. With that, when you get up to McMillan Road in this area here, our ordinance requires a 35 wide foot landscape buffer, because as I mentioned earlier in my presentation, the city limits just start just to the east of this, so this is our Comprehensive Plan. An entryway corridor, gateway street, and in which -- and, therefore, a 35 foot wide landscape buffer is required adjacent to the and outside of the future right-of-way for McMillan Road. With relocation of the slough, that makes -- the slough is gong to be, again, in this location here and the Settlers Irrigation District will require an easement for that and they normally do not like trees in their easements. That makes the applicant -- puts them in a tough spot of putting in trees one per 35 per our ordinance, one for every 35 feet. Staff has recommended alternative compliance for the landscaping requirement on that --just this section of the roadway and do some low lying shrubs or whatever else Settlers will allow within their irrigation easement for that slough. I'm going to jump on the other side of the road now and on the submitted Preliminary Plat, the applicant is showing 48 feet of right-of-way from the center line of McMillan Road, which will be in the future afive-lane roadway. I believe that project's 12 or 13 years out on ACHD's CIP. The applicant has, since this was submitted, worked with the Highway District and is going to be dedicating 38 feet of right-of-way and constructing the detached sidewalk within an easement provided to the Highway District for the general public to use that. Then, within -- that sidewalk will also be within the 35-foot wide landscape buffer that the city requires. It is a slight modification, because usually our -- the landscape buffers do not include the sidewalk. In this case, staff is recommending approval of that, including a 35-foot wide buffer, including the five-foot wide sidewalk. I Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 15 of 124 will jump to the landscape buffer now on Locust Grove Road. This is -- the applicant is showing a 35-foot wide -- and, actually, this is only a 25 foot wide required landscape buffer. I do want to point out -- and I apologize for the quality of this plat, but Idaho Power -- this is that site again here, but they have a little flag that comes down right adjacent to Locust Grove Road right in this area. The applicant does not have frontage for his last couple hundred feet there on Locust Grove Road in that area and that's one of the applicant's concerns. Actually, in the letter -- I hope you all received that. I think it just got faxed over today. One of the applicant's concerns was the Preliminary Plat condition number four and in the findings it does -- in special consideration it does call that out. The condition got to be a little wordy, so I removed some of that, explaining what was going on there with the Idaho Power property. I do have some language I would propose to the Commission to just kind of clean that up. For any portion that they do not have frontage on, they should not have to be required to construct a sidewalk, that will be done by either Idaho Power or Sheridan Place Subdivision is utilizing this Idaho Power site as a part of their annexation request as well. That was before this board last month, I believe, and will be up again for hearing either the first of February or the second hearing in February, I believe. With that application, anyways, the sidewalks should be required to be constructed to make that whole pedestrian connectivity there. I do have -- Zaremba: M r. C hairman, C raig, i f l c ould i nterrupt fora s econd. T hat p onion o f t he sidewalk would be whose responsibility? Idaho Power's? Hood: That is being worked out. Steve Siddoway is actually working on that report. I did glance through his draft of that report and it would be a requirement of the Sheridan development -- now, if they work with Idaho Power on where the funds come from, I don't know how that's going to be worked out. It will be a proposed condition, anyways, of the Sheridan Place Subdivision, because that is part of their annexation site application, so -- Zaremba: Thank you. Hood: I guess I'm just going to just go through some of the points in the applicant's letter. Number 5 deals with common drives. Staff is okay with a modification to that. It's kind of just preference that I have had that those be in easements, rather than their own lots, but if you delete the second sentence in condition number five -- and, I apologize, I don't remember what page that's on. Preliminary Plat Condition Number 5, delete that second sentence. I believe that will clear that up and just not require those two lots to have any frontage. They will use a common driveway lot for access to those lots. Then, Condition Number 12, again, on the Preliminary Plat requires the license agreement with Settlers Irrigation for those shrubs and I guess I want to apologize for not including that in the original staff report. If there does become a snag with the applicant acquiring -- I have talked with Nathan Draper at Settlers. He told me that he doesn't have a problem with low-lying shrubs within that easement, along McMillan Road. However, if the applicant runs into a snag, we would just ask, I guess, that staff be allowed to work with the applicant on coming up with some way to kind of make it Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Mee[ing January 15, 2004 Pg. 16 of 124 look nice out there or whatever Settlers will allow to happen out there. The condition as stated requires them to get that license agreement, but just. to clean up, I guess, the worst-case work with staff if you feel comfortable with that. Condition Number 14 is the encroachment agreement on that kind of the same side and I want to point to it here. There are -- 10 feet of these buildable lots are actually within a proposed irrigation district easement and -- which is fairly typical. What we would like to see is an encroachment agreement for any buildable lots that do have an easement and, therefore, take away usable area for those future homeowners that are basically paying taxes on things they couldn't use. If there is an easement there, we want to have an encroachment agreement with Settlers for any area that has that easement over those buildable lots. I'm all right with the applicant's proposed language for number 14 and Bruce is -- yes. Then, Number 15, 16, 17, I'm going to let Bruce and the applicant kind of discuss those before you. I'm not going to waist your time with -- I don't know a lot about what's going on there, so for this one. Number 21 is the pathway easement that's required for the North Slough. There was some confusion in the working of that language. If we just delete the parentheses at the end of that condition, as the applicant has stated in the letter, I think it will clarify it. I think there was some confusion as -- each phase will require that easement to be done not when the first phase goes in you don't have to give us an easement for the whole pathway, it can be done with each Final Plat phase. That was -- that will clear that up if we just delete that parenthesis. Number 23, I'll let the applicant state his case on that one. I just want to give you my understanding of -- the revised plats the City Council usually likes to look at any changes that may be made at this hearing by staff. It's pretty common that they want to see what changes have happened. The applicant's asking that they not be required to submit revised plans to the City Council, that they submit the plans after the City Council will select the final action and not just this body. I'll leave that at that. I would like to add a Condition Number 24 and this is due to the Highway District's action on this plat. I'm going to point again to some -- for lack of a better term, some fingers on the end of streets that don't have turnarounds and in the staff report there is a finger there and a finger h ere t hat d on't h ave t urnarounds o n t hem and A CHD w ould I ike t o s ee turnarounds. Instead of the turnarounds, the applicant has decided to put -- make those private streets. I would just like to add a Condition Number 24. Staff's okay with that. There is I think, six lots that would use this -- six or seven. I can't remember. Four lots. Okay. Four lots on this one and, then, this one has maybe seven or eight attached units that use -- six -- six units up there. That Condition Number 24, if you like that language, those two streets a re Sharp Shooter Court and Swift Water Drive. I have d rafted a condition. It's really very basic, but construct Sharp Shooter Court and Swift Water Street as private streets in accordance with Meridian City Code. We can -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, Craig, excuse me, again. Even if ACHD would be comfortable with those, simply because they were private streets, how about our Fire Department? They are usually the ones that want someplace to turn around or back up or whatever. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 17 of 124 Hood: Mr. Chair, Mr. Zaremba, the Fire Department was okay with these as public roadways, because they can still use -- they don't turn around in them, they pull in and do a three point turn and get out and they can still do that with a private street. Zaremba: Because they are short enough? Hood: They are less than 150 feet. That's correct. These are all less than 150 feet and, technically, I don't know all the -- why ACRD required turnarounds anyway, because I thought that sub streets don't require turnarounds if they are less than 150 feet. I don't know the whole history behind that, but the Fire Department is okay with those going to private streets, as long as they can -- they will have their 25 feet of clear still and get in there and back up, rather than turning around within that private road easement, so -- Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Hood: That is, I believe, the applicant's concerns on the Preliminary Plat. Just really quickly on the CUP, there were a couple of issues there. Number 2 was to -- again, it refers to these common driveways that were 25 foot wide common driveway lots, rather than having each lot be flags in frontage down. If you decide to change Preliminary Plat Condition Number 4, CUP Condition Number 2 should also be changed. If the Commission desires that, I have got some language for that and, basically, it reads lots 53 and 54 of Block 1 and Lots 34 and 35 of Block 2 shall not be required to have any front -- any street frontage, because common driveways are being utilized. Then, Conditional Use Permit Site-Specific number three, I'm all right with the applicant's verbiage there to add that sentence. We would, actually -- or I would, actually, prefer that be the multi-use pathway. I guess I'd better back up here. The pathway is on the south side of the slough until you enter their main entrance, which is Schumann, which aligns with Schumann across McMillan. The pathway is on the south side and, then, at this location it jumps over to the north side and serves as a sidewalk and multi-use pathway in this area here. The applicant just would like it to be available that they construct that all on one side and I think that's a good idea myself. It makes the crossing of S chumann a l of easier, rather t han h aving p eople c ross a t a d iagonal or cross straight across and, then, using the sidewalk to get back on the multi-use path, it kind of lines it up in a little bit better direction. The submitted traffic study showed about 15,00 trips a day on this section of the roadway, so having pedestrians and multiple vehicles crossing there, I think the design could be better if it's all on one side, but I think it could be worked out either way, but I do like the idea of it being all one side. Then, the last one I think was CUP Condition Number 5 and I'm all right with adding that language as the applicant has requested. It's, actually, covered in the Preliminary Plat section with the sidewalks that allows applicant to construct, again, that multi-use pathway in this location, rather than having a 10-foot pathway and, then, alive-foot sidewalk using just that asphalt pathway as a pedestrian pathway. With that I will stand for any questions and, then, I'm going to pass the mike over to Bruce to have him address those earlier concerns. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 18 of 124 Borup: Questions at this time? Zaremba: I have questions through you about ACHD. Am I understanding correctly, if it's on ACHD's Consent Agenda for January 28'h, they are going to approve it without discussion, which means they have no changes that they are suggesting? We don't have a copy of the ACHD report. Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba -- and I have had the privilege of reading the staff report and I did see it was on the Consent Agenda. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that it won't be discussed. Someone from the public could come and ask to testify on it, it gets pulled off the agenda and discussed. However, this application, I don't know there are a lot of issues with the highway district that affect what the City of Meridian does. They -- I don't see any real highway district issues with this plat is what I'm trying to say, I guess. It could be discussed, but on the Consent Agenda, nine times out of ten they do just get approved on the Consent Agenda, so I'll let the applicant -- Zaremba: One of t he i terns you a ctually b rought u p and t hat would b e s ome o f t he street widths. The other one that I would be curious about is the alignment of the entry road on Locust Grove, why it doesn't align with Red Rock or whatever it is that's right across street from it. Hood: I can help you out maybe a little bit with that. Although, I did not measure, I do have some history there at the Highway District. I'm going to guess that the offset from their main entrance to Red Rock -- and I don't remember if it's north Havasu or south. It's probably 300 feet plus and that's the minimum offset that that street has to be either aligned or you're offset 300 feet. The applicant can verify that and his engineers is here as well, so -- Zaremba: Okay. Hood: -- that's -- if you want to talk about streets maybe a little bit more, Icould -- the street sections that you're referring to are these to -- another finger and this T here. Staff has recommend that these be connected. These are 29 foot streets sections with parking on one side and these are the attached units, so you start cutting driveways in there and having cars parked in there, you really can't get around. Then, you're asking these people to -- and I don't remember the exact number of units that are on these dead-end streets, but, you know, you have a couple people over to visit and the streets get blocked and there is no room for people to park. Just for the traffic flow and to add a couple of parking areas, staff has asked that these two be -- streets connected together and the applicant has consented that, too. All the other street sections -- there are -- there are three different street sections that the applicant's proposing, 29 foot street sections back of curb to back of curb, 33 back to back, and the standard 36 back to back. Those -- in the staff report from ACHD -- and I apologize, but they just did get it done and I got an e-mailed copy just this week, Monday, I believe, or maybe it was Friday, but just had a chance to look at it and there weren't anything that jump out at me anyways as being issues for this board, so -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 19 of 124 Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Borup: Mr. Freckleton, you had same comments on 15, 16, and 17? Freckleton: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. Yes, specifically items 15, 16, and 17. Zaremba: Tell me the page again, please. Freckleton: Pages 16 and 17. Zaremba: Thank you. Freckleton: No. That's not right 17. Excuse me. It is Page 17. I guess, first of all, I need to talk a little bit about water supply in the northeast corner of our area of impact. It's an area that we've identified as kind of -- kind of being one of our weaker areas around. We have -- we have been discussing for quite some time how we can improve the system in the area. We filed for a water right at our Well 20 site, which is -- which is by our elevated tank -- or, excuse me, our ground level tank on Ustick Road. We filed for a water right to drill another well there in March of this year. Very shortly, after we filed for that water right, a protest was filed by United Water Corporation, which basically put the brakes to well development for the City of Meridian until this issue was taken care of. The protest was withdrawn in the end of December, after a lot of negotiations, but the City of Meridian had been talking with a developer on Locust Grove south of Chinden regarding a well site. Things are going pretty well on that site still. We think that it's going to happen. Our staff engineer has determined through modeling that the site on Locust Grove south of Chinden is a good site. However, the overall supply needed in the area is going to require two wells and so when this project came in shortly after -- shortly after we had our pre-app meetings and everything on it, our City Ehgineer approached the developer regarding the acquisition of a well site within this development. Negotiations have been going on even as late as this afternoon. We still -- we think we are getting close. There are still a lot of unanswered questions. Can you put up the plat? A site that we have been kind of zeroing in on is right up in the corner of this common lot. What we have talking about is basically carving out a little corner here for a well site. We are kind of to the point with our water system that -- and I think you can tell from my staff report, that we need to get supply on line. It's to the critical point and we need to get either the site south of Chinden or this site into the system before we are real comfortable with bringing a whole lot of houses on line. We have talked about a lot of options for this property. There have been discussions with the developer regarding donation of the land. There has been discussion of offsets in assessment fees, hookup fees, that of sort of thing. Those are issues that we are kind of talking about here in Item 15 and it's something that I don't think that you folks can really address, this is a question that the City Council is going to have to take up, they are the only ones that really have the authority and power to approve of such an offset. Tonight I can't tell you we have a well site. I think we are getting pretty close. Things Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 20 of 124 are looking pretty good. From our perspective, what we would like to have is the ability to get on the piece property and also the piece of property up by Chinden to drill test wells and the purpose of those is going to tell us if we even have a viable aquifer, if we have a decent well in this location. Hopefully, between the two we will have one. It would be great if we had two, but if we could get one good hole, we think we would be in pretty good shape and we could see the first phase of this development going forward. Until such time, the Public Works Department isn't prepared to basically sign on to the first phase moving forward, at least through signature on Final-Plat, until we got some supply lined up. I know that kind of leaves you guys hanging a little bit here. Item Number 16 and 17 -- Borup: Well, 15 doesn't really address that problem Zaremba: That's irrigation. Borup: That's -- I mean --and the written response from the applicant seems to indicate that they are open to donating the land even. Their question was do they donate the land and still have to pay an assessment fee on the open area that they are donating part of it for a well, so -- and that's what I think they are asking if that can be worked out with the staff. You're saying that's going to have to be really decided by City Council. Freckleton: Correct. Borup: I understand that, but at least it appears from the written response that they're planning on a well on their site and just want some clarification on that, but I didn't see anything -- did you have anything in your staff report on the concern on the water supply? Zaremba: It was in the discussion. I don't think it ended up in the conditions Freckleton: I got Annexation and Zoning comments. Borup: Okay. Freckleton: Page 14. Borup: Was it on 14? Okay Freckleton: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I believe where we are -- and the applicant maybe could address this far better than I, but I believe where we are at is it's a donation, but they want the offsets or it's a purchase. We haven't really talked about a purchase price and we really haven't talked about a value of what kind offsets they are looking for. There is a cost either way. Zaremba: And you'd like to test before you even discover if it's worth doing Meridian Planning antl Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 20D4 Pg. 21 of 124 Freckleton: Yes Zaremba: Let me ask a question that shows my ignorance about water systems, I guess. What would be the end result to this open space once -- if a well does go in there, I assume that there is a big rig that comes in and actually digs the well, but once that goes away, what's the visual impact? Is there any kind of a tank that has to remain or a pump house that has to be above ground? Borup: Yes. Gaod question. Zaremba: What does it do to their open area? Freckleton: Basically their open area -- and this is one of the -- I mean it's a beautiful area. Large mature trees. What's -- what our intent would be, would to go in and try and b uild a well house that is going to blend in with the neighborhood and with the subdivision. Zaremba: So, there would be a building above ground? Freckleton: There would be a building above ground. There would not be any tanks. The building would be approximately 15 foot square, 15 to 20 foot square. We would work within the development's architectural control committee as far as material types and that sort of thing to try and blend in with the neighborhood. Excuse me. The landscaping berm and treatments that would go across the frontage of McMillan Road would be continued right across the front. The only thing you would have would be -- we would have an access in off of McMillan Road and the applicant and I have talked about what kind treatment that would be. They are asking that it be maybe grass Crete type material, so that it blends in better, you know, so that we still have our access, but that it blends in and it's more attractive. We will investigate that as a possibility and see if that will work. From McMillan Road I doubt you would even know that there was a well there or a well house there. Their berm and their fence and the landscaping would pretty much hide it. It would be hidden back behind the berm. From the interior of the subdivision, this is a common lot that's going to be -- you know, it's going to be grass and it's a real nice park-like setting with trees and that sort of thing. Our well house at least at this point we do plan on having fences around it. The buildings are secure, so as far as usable space around the well house itself, you know, it could be grass right up to where we're going to have to have a little bit of a parking area there by it for when we come in. It certainly is our intent to blend right in and kind of be camouflaged back in there, so -- unless you have any other questions, I will move on to Items 16 and 17. Borup: Please. Freckleton: Sixteen and 17 I think there that was -- maybe the way I worded my comments or maybe it was just a misinterpretation of where Iwas -- of what I was getting at. The applicant was under the impression that I was asking for -- for them to dedicate easements beyond their first phase. Their first phase is out here on the Locust Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 22 ~f 124 Grove frontage and I believe they thought I was asking them to dedicate easements all the way through, similar to what happened at the Paramount development with their first phase and that wasn't the intent. The intent of this note -- and this is kind of a boilerplate language, was that -- let's say their first phase was up in this corner up here. They're going to have to bring the sewer and water down through the development to connect up at Locust Grove and all this comment is saying is that they need to provide the easements to the City of Meridian across their off-site area to get the utilities to their first phase. I have talked with them about that and we're in agreement on that, so -- that was the intent -- the intent on that issue, so if you have got any further questions, Iwill -- Rohm: Does that need to be reworded any, then, or are we clarified on that? Freckleton: I guess I'll let you be the judge. I think it's pretty clear, but I was the one that wrote it, so -- Rohm: Well, if you want we could -- I mean it makes sense to me the way you just stated it, so -- Freckleton: Okay. Borup: Maybe the applicant may have a comment on that. Okay. That's concluded. Anything else, Mr. Hood? Any other questions from any of the Commissioners? Rohm: I want to go back to the water supply issue just for a moment if we could. As I understand it, there are two options to supply this subdivision. One would be a new well on the property or two would be a new well off site. Without having either one in hand, how do we move forward with no water supply? Because neither one of those are a given and I have a little bit of discomfort moving forward not knowing how we would serve specifically, so I throw that back to you, Bruce. Borup: I think your written comment says you wouldn't really want to proceed. Did you say earlier passed the first phase or was that just something else? Freckleton: C hairman B orup, I -- what I have got written i nto m y report i s t hat, you know, if we do not get a site, whether it be by purchase or by donation, that I would recommend not approving this development. We do not own the land south of Chinden on Locust Grove. We are in basically the same boat. We are negotiating on it as well. Our comfort level isn't solid. I'd feel much better about it if we had land. As we stand right n ow, we a re n egotiating o n b oth s ides. I t hink we a re p retty c lose o n t he o ne north. As I stated, I think we are pretty close on this one as well, so -- Zaremba: Let me ask an off-the-wall follow up if I can. If you did do a test well in this location, part of what they are saying is The Grove, and discovered either that there wasn't water there or it was so far down it was prohibitive to do, are there other options? I mean there is -- I realize it's a different utility that the City of Meridian doesn't own, but Idaho Power Substation is a utility and I wonder if outside of their fence area that there Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 23 Of 124 -- there is a lot of open space inside their fence, but I assume they're saving that for expansion for future subdivisions. Outside of their subdivision -- I'm sorry. Outside of their fence is some sizeable area that I wonder if there might not be something worked out. Maybe it's never happened before, but something worked out with them to put a city well in their landscape buffer. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, the proximity of the two would be -- Zaremba: Water and electricity too close? Freckleton: No. No. It's -- it's the aquifer that we are dealing with. I think if you move, you know, from this location to this location, you're probably -- Zaremba: If it's dry one place -- Freckleton: You're probably dealing with the same conditions below ground, being that close together. That is -- you know, getting back to Commissioner Rohm, we have the two sides that we have been working on. Talking with our staff engineer this afternoon it's our hope that we can put together an RFP to go out and do both test wells very shortly within the month. Zaremba: Are you saying that the staff engineer doesn't have a dowsing stick that he can go out-- Freckleton: No. No. What we would need, basically, would be the -- you know, written permission to get on the site to do the test well. Same thing we are doing on other site. The first phase of this development, as I mentioned, is on the Locust Grove frontage. You know, if we do have a good hole here and going to move forward with the production well ahead of the land being platted around it, so that we could actually get a fee simple ownership of the lot. We can move forward with a lease, a long term lease of the lot in the configuration that will be when it's plated, with a lease that would let us move forward with drilling a production well and constructing a well. The time frame, you know, once we -- once we start into this, it could be a year's time before we are pumping water into the system. It takes a long time to put a well on line, so -- Rohm: Are there short-term solutions for say phase one of six that could serve the first lots being brought on line without an additional well? Freckleton: No. Rohm: Thank you. Borup: You're saying we are at capacity now? Freckleton: We're there. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 24 of 124 Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I have a little bit of concern about either holding developers, whether it's this development or some other development or, conversely, the City of Meridian, hostage to development based upon a well that's yet to be constructed. If we move forward with this proposal, not knowing how it's to be served, I think that we would be putting either the city in jeopardy or the developer in jeopardy, one or the other, or maybe both, I'm not sure. It seems like that issue has to be resolved before we could move forward with the development period, if, in fact, there is not servable water currently for Phase 1 of six or any portion of it and I wouldn't want to move forward without knowing the answer to those questions. Borup: Well, I think that's a good question. Let's see if the applicant may have -- give us some comments or solutions for that. They may have something that we haven't thought of. Rohm: And, again, I wouldn't want to put the city in a position that they say, well, we'll go ahead and donate. I'm not sure that that's the right solution to -- if, in fact, they donate and, then, we find that the well potential is dry and, then, we still don't have a solution, so I just -- Borup: Well, I think that Bruce was saying they'd like to get it within the month, if possible, to get permission to go o n and d ig test this hole, which would be before it would be approved by City Council anyway. Rohm: And I suppose probably the best thing is to listen to the developer's proposed solution. Borup: Okay. Having said that, would the applicant like to make their presentation? Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Mike Wardle, 4910 Knollwood Avenue in Boise. Before I begin I just want to note that this is the first occasion that I have had to be in front you for awhile and I express my deep sadness, both from your perspective, as well as mine and the community, for the vacancy that exists on the Commission today. It was a stunning and very sad loss to this Commission and the community. I enjoyed some of the repartee and challenges that we have had over the time as we have discussed these projects. Let me just note that we began the effort to plan this project using your Comprehensive Plan, noting that the land use designation of the medium density residential was the starting point. We had some physical constraints, the North Slough going through the property. We had Comprehensive Plan designations for a regional trail that we factored into it. We, obviously, had the aspect of a substation that we had to deal with. We acknowledge the fact that there is to the south probably the last of the one-acre lot communities in the area that was platted at a time when there were not public utilities that would allow the urban densities that the Comprehensive Plan suggested for the area today. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 25 of 124 Powell: Mr. Wardle, can I interrupt you for a moment? Would you mind putting your boards on the -- over there and, then, there should be a laser pointer, just so everyone can see. Hey, he's prepared. Wardle: Again, just wanted to note that the issues that we were dealing with were the substations, which is fully fenced for that entire 10 acres now. The one-acre subdivision to the south. The noted newer subdivisions to the north along McMillan Road. Havasu Creek to the west. I believe Commission recently passed a recommendation on for a project just south of Havasu called Razzberry, if I'm not mistaken. In previous approvals Champion Park Subdivision to the south, actually, started the process of providing future linkage for the regional trail, which I show along the North Slough in this project in this particular location. We took all of these items into account and particularly the one area that has been referred to as The Grove, which is a very unique area and it led to a number of challenges. How do you deal with a major canal going through an area such as this? How do you buffer against the larger lots to the south? How do you screen and provide a lifestyle opportunity around the substation? How do you preserve and maintain the limited access facilities to both arterials, Locust Grove to the west and McMillan to the north. All of those elements went into our process and, Dave, if you will just pull up the second board, which is actually a colored rendering of the plat itself. There we go. We did -- and one comment raised earlier about the access points, the one to the west does, actually, exceed the separation requirements of ACHD. The one to the north on McMillan actually aligns with an existing subdivision access. We also, then, wanted to -- instead of having a lot of crossings of the amenity, which we believe that the canal provides for that regional pathway, we only have one crossing in this project. It led to somewhat of an isolated, but an interesting area to the north with that grove area, the existing home site, and so we put into a factor a number of thoughts. First of all, we wanted to protect that area, so we created a very unique situation in the way the roadway configures and the one requirement of the Fire Department, which we fully agree with, is an emergency access connection to McMillan Road from this particular location. The stub that was noted here, the stub that was actually noted down here are very similar to roadways, both public and private, in projects such as Hickories, River Run, Harris Ranch, all of which are extremely desirable projects. You wouldn't note the difference between whether it was public or private, but in our discussion with the highway district on the issue in lieu of a turnaround, which the Fire Department did not require because of their length, they agreed that construction of a common facility or a private street was totally acceptable. They have actually put their language such that it's an either provide a turnaround, which interestingly enough, really, only requires expansion of that roadway to a 36 foot diameter, because their concern was maintenance and they can do that. We have already tested it out on projects previously. It's -- the highway district has left the issue up to the developer and that option i s t here. That solution i s o n t he books, s o i t c an b e a ccommodated i n either form. What we did also along the south boundary, obviously, one acre lots to the south, most of which have actually extensive open areas at the back, the homes are located up front, we have the largest and the deepest lots along that frontage, ranging from a minimum of 125 to 150 to 175 feet, as I recall those dimensions, to provide a reasonable buffer. Then, you have within the heart of the project more of a typical lot Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2004 Pg. 26 of 124 that you would find in the surrounding subdivisions and, then, the utilization of the attached single family concept, which was shown by staff on the graphic earlier, did a couple of things. It, actually, helps buffer -- and we started looking at this around the substation, the grouping of those houses helps buffer the substation from the project as a whole. The character of those homes does not put any living space that looks directly into that substation in any of those homes. Their living areas are all at the ground level and there will be-- and we have had discussions with the power company and so forth about how to utilize the space that they have outside of their fence with their landscape elements with a berm and fencing and so forth. That really helps provide a much more effective buffer, so we really tried to accomplish two things. Provide a lifestyle choice in the project, give a good buffer at the back of those homes, so that those people that are living right adjacent to it are not looking directly into it, but also it helps screen somewhat from the rest of the project as well. We think the solution is actually quite good, because all of the housing now is single family, but some of it attached in a two- unit configuration. The concepts that we have looked at are quite promising. The other concept that the property -- well, the developer, Capital Development, really wanted to do was to embody body some of the characteristics that they have built previously in projects such Bristol Heights, where we have a very extensive and fully connected internal system that goes -- well, it actually links across the North Slough in this location to The Grove. It, obviously, links to the regional trail. It links into the heart of the project and y ou h ave v isibility a s y ou c ome i n from M cMillan r fight i nto a c oncentrated o pen space area and the same thing occurs as you come in from Locust Grove and all of those extend and provide a pedestrian access literally from east to west throughout the project. We did embody a lot of p revious t hought and good development technique from Capital Development and, quite frankly, have provided far more open space than you would absolutely have to have in a project of this nature and it's well positioned. It's accessible to many of the property owners, and provides an off-road system for access and connection within that neighborhood. I think most of the planning concepts have been explained. I just want to make a comment, I will turn the time over to Dave Yorgason to talk about the conditions, he has worked directly, and I believe very successfully with staff to resolve any of the issues that were there. Obviously, I would be concerned that the city would take a position at this point, having recently approved projects and so forth, concerning an actual ceasing of project approvals based on the water question. There are certainly options and, quite frankly, there is an option of -- if the city is unable or incapable of providing the resource that is an absolute necessity in urban development, which is the process ofyourcomprehensive planning activity. I believe there are other water sources within the area, namely United Water that could be brought into that area if the city cannot. They are currently serving projects within that immediate vicinity and that's certainly not the city's primary objective. I think the city has opportunities with this development or with the other that was noted to solve that problem. I think if any issue is put on the table, is should be simply not to stop or withhold, but to -- you have the options when it gets down to the Final Plating process, if the resources aren't there and there is no solution to it, the city doesn't zone plats. I think it would not be appropriate for the city at this point to say we don't have the answer today, therefore, we will make no decisions. I think from a legal perspective that would be a very serious decision on the part of the city. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 27 of 124 Borup: It sounds like you're saying you realize if the water capacity is not there, it's not there the city would not be able to sign on the Final Plat; is that-- Wardle: What I'm saying that rather than sit and hold and table -- Borup: Right. Wardle: -- allow the city to work through the process with this property owner and with others and see if they can find the solution to it and, obviously, decisions would be made by Capital Development and the city as more facts are known, but to say right now we can't make this decisions I don't think is the appropriate action. Borup: The city is prepared, as Bruce stated, to move ahead within the month. Wardle: Correct. Borup: To do the test hole and at that point it would be determined and it would be known and a knowledgeable decision could be made. Wardle: Yes. Well, Mr. Chairman, just to conclude before I turn it over to Mr. Yorgason, I just want to stress that this plan is fully compliant with your Comprehensive Plan, it takes into account all of the opportunities that exist to provide linkage within the broader community and within the subdivision itself. It does take into account the relationships with neighboring properties, appropriate buffering to some of those challenges embodied by the substation, but it also takes great advantage of the North Slough pathway concept that the city adopted in the Comprehensive Plan. I think from the perspective of planning it is a project worthy of approval and I would ask now Mr. Yorgason to get up and address the conditions that he's worked with staff on. Yorgason: Good evening. My name is Dave Yorgason with Capital Development. I'm the vice-president of Capital Development and my father is here as well, Ramon Yorgason, the president of Capital Development, and good to be here with you this evening. I stand before you, appreciate the presentation that has been given so far by staff, both C raig a nd Bruce a nd t hey h ave d one a fine j ob, as w ell a s M r. Wardle. I appreciate the team we have put together and all the efforts that have been done so far in the planning of this subdivision. We hope the city is pleased with the work we have done. There was a recent subdivision we have had in the process in the City of Meridian called Baldwin Park, a subdivision we are quite proud of. W e think it's a successful subdivision that the community is proud of, but we -- in that same effort we continue with, hopefully, building subdivisions the city is proud of in this location as well. We have worked with staff on every item of the staff report and as Mr. Hood has gone forth on each item, I could go item by line, but I don't feel like that's appropriate at this time, given especially how much time we spent so far this evening. Specifically, we agree with everything that Mr. Hood. As you go through each item of the annexation and rezoning, as we have talked back and forth, he recognizes most of comments we have Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 28 of 124 offered so far in our letter that was dated today, January 15th, that they agree with and, of course, you can re-verify that with him. Same with the plat. They agree with all the comments we have made, with the exception, I believe, there is some discussion on condition number 15, as Mr. Freckleton has expressed to you so far. Condition number 15 addresses the assessments and the underlying issue regarding the well. A couple of comments I'd like to share with that, just to give a little bit of history. The location that the Public Works Department has identified is just about right in the same location of the existing house and so one month from now to actually drill where the house is may not be appropriate, but we will continue to work with staff. It's our understanding that the test hole doesn't have to be drilled right where the actual well is, but in the proximity, and so, contractually, we still actually don't own that portion of the property, it's under option. We have purchased amajority -- well, aportion -- we have purchased a portion of the property it's in phasing. We will work with that landowner. We can stay with him tonight, but we will request and work with that owner, his name is John Tulk. In his -- the site of his home -- not next to his home, but we can work with staff to make sure that it's an appropriate location for the Public Works Department to be comfortable, but also work for the current homeowner. Zaremba: Mr. Yorgason? Yorgason: Yes, sir. Zaremba: Sorry to interrupt. Yorgason: That's all right. Zaremba: But you're on the subject. The current home that is there, is it served by a well? Yorgason: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, there are actually two homes. The one that we are referring to is owned by John and I think Lynn -- no, not Lynn -- Jean Tulk. The daughter is Lynn and she lives in a newer home slightly to the east, just for clarification. I'm sorry, could you restate your question. Zaremba: Yes. Is the -- are the current residents, either one -- Yorgason: John -- yes. Zaremba: -- in the area that we are talking about, are they currently served by wells? Yorgason: They currently live in the home. It's my understanding they are currently served by wells. I don't know anything about the wells, but -- Zaremba: I have no idea whether a well for one house could tell you whether or not it could serve a whole subdivision or not, but at least there must be water somewhere. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Mee[ing January 15, 2004 Pg. 29 of 124 Yorgason: My understanding there are actually four wells on the site and some have been used by irrigation, two for the two homes and two for irrigation. One was not too long ago used by the farmer and that's out there for water. I understand there are four wells on the site currently. Zaremba: That gives me some optimism that a solution can be found. Yorgason: We feel the same way, but recognize that no test hole has been done. We will commit again tonight that we will continue to work with staff in working to resolve this concern of theirs. It's my understanding staff brought this up -- and, Bruce, you could help, but it was maybe in the fall around Thanksgiving. It was maybe a couple months ago that this was vaguely brought up, but it has become a -- more and more an issue, if you think about it, the more and more you get into it, the more you realize that you're at or near capacity. I'm not aware of your numbers, but I know you're -- the more you're getting into it, that to 266 homes, plus all the other surrounding developments, you need mare well sites, I think, is what you have expressed to us. Freckleton: That's correct. From what Ihave -- digging through here, we had apre- application meeting -- I think it was October 16in Yorgason: That sounds about right. Freckleton: And according to our City Engineer and Staff Engineer, they have told me that it was -- it was a meeting out on the site with the developer's engineer just a few days after that pre-application meeting that the subject was first raised. It was, you know, probably towards the end of October when we first started talking about this. Yorgason: Probably not this same intensity or level of discussion we have had within the last couple days. Freckleton: No. Probably not. Yorgason: I'm sure that's not the case. The city became aware of some needs or some additional needs about that time. That's my understanding, anyway. Freckleton: That's correct. Yes. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, Bruce? Borup: Go ahead. Zaremba: Would t he k nowledge t hat t here i s a well s erving a s Ingle f amity d welling there give you any optimistic feeling about the future of finding sufficient well for -- sufficient water for the city? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 30 of 124 Freckleton: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, existing wells are a good tool, I guess. When we go and start looking at the area, we pull up well logs, driller's reports from the area, and look at those for the profile of the well. We also try and -- you know, if we can determine water quality and that sort of thing. I don't think you were headed towards suggesting that maybe one of these existing wells could help supply domestic water to this development. Zaremba: I can't imagine that it would be big enough, but -- Freckleton: No, it wouldn't be. Zaremba: -- I was just wondering whether it gives you any optimism that you might find what you need. Freckleton: Well, certainly we are optimistic. I think that -- I mean we have not really had problems finding water. Quality is a little bit of a concern. Water quality. From what we do know of the northeast area, there are better areas in town as far as water quality goes. We certainly will be looking at all of the wells in the vicinity when we start into this process. Yes, I mean it definitely helps knowing that they are there and -- Borup: Then, along that same line, Mr. Freckleton, realizing that the well site the city is looking at is where the house is located, a ny problem to do t he test -- the test well somewhere else on the property that still accomplishes the same purpose? Freckleton: No. Mr. Chair, basically, if we can do -- if we can do our test well somewhere within the parcel that eventually will be ours, we are fine with that. We do need to -- for it to be within our site, but we are talking -- from the well head we are talking, a 50-foot radius around the well head would be the bare bones minimum we would need. We'd like to have more room for that in case we have to re-drill the well or whatever. That gives us the ability to move over and re-drill. I don't want to get really nailed down to just a 50 foot radius, but as long as we are within the area for the test well, we can certainly work around the existing trees and the existing home that's there and we feel that we can accomplish the test well without -- without too much difficulty. Borup: Okay. Thank you Yorgason: Mr. Chairman, maybe another question of staff. As you can tell, we have had lots of discussions since I think about Monday afternoon and continue to have discussions, because we want to keep working with city staff on this specific issue. One question comes to my mind and I don't think we are nailing down exact location for the test hole today, but knowing that the home has ayard -- has, you know, a landscaped yard, the further west this is, as you can see, further out west there is barns and further west there is farm ground. You know, is there a possibility that we can get a further away than the actual site where we know it's going to be, but it's still pretty close and probably the same water aquifer that you would be drilling to gather water for your test site. That's one of the things we will ask staff. I don't know if you want to answer that Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Mee[ing January 15, 2004 Pg. 31 of 124 tonight or not, but that's one of the things we will -- we are going to keep working with city staff to try to find a way to make sure we can work with them and the current people that still live in the home, because we have a -- certainly an obligation to them as well. One thing I'd also like to add is I live in a subdivision that's less than a mile north of this, a subdivision called Bristol Heights, so my home is probably maybe three-fourths of a mile directly north of this location and, no, it's not served by Meridian water, it's served by United Water, but I do know our water is quite fine. In fact, it's pretty high quality water we have over there. Soft water, in fact. It's pretty good water. Just for that reference point. I can talk more about wells. I don't know if you have more questions about wells, but I do h ave a little question o r some more to a dd about -- there is a question from staff about the value of the land or a valuation, I could probably give a little bit of input to that if you'd like to hear that tonight as well. Would you like to hear that? Zaremba: Sure. W e won't be the ones that make the decision on that, City Council does, of course. Yorgason: Okay. Zaremba: But to have it in the record for -- Borup: Well, it looked like the main question was whether -- you know, if the land is donated, then, will there be an adjustment on the assessment and -- Yorgason: That is correct. Borup: And, again, we are not the ones that can make that determination. Yorgason: We just feel it's appropriate -- we recognize -- it's our opinion that some of the -- some of the -- those assessments that are paid, it's our understanding are used for -- or applied towards the amount of common area and open space you have in your development, times a certain dollar amount to get to that assessment. The reason for the assessment is for capacity, among other things, probably, but certainly, capacity is a part of that equation. Well, donating land seems to help eliminate that portion and so if the city is not willing to buy the ground, then, maybe offset the credits is a little easier way to get there. The difference is the same. There is no difference to us, but maybe it's a little easier from the city's perspective and so we offer flexibility to that, if it's a little easier to the city. If they don't want to give us offsets, then, certainly we request payment for the ground. Zaremba: My comment would be that I understand the logic of that and appreciate your willingness to work it out. We aren't the ones that make the final decision. Yorgason: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, we understand that. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, we understand. As far as a value of the ground, we don't know exact value today, but we can probably give at least on the record some kind of Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 32 of 124 an idea of what the ground is probably worth. There is probably a couple ways to look at it, really. One is what the ground is worth today. Recognize it's farm ground and we understand that and there is a certain purchase price to the ground. As was stated earlier by -- it might have been you, Commissioner Rohm, that there is a certain impact of having a building in a nice open space we call the grove. It certainly doesn't enhance the open space and certainly takes away from some of the usability, so we do feel like it has a s light i mpact. That's p robably t he m ore d ifficult t o p ut a d ollar a mount t o t hat. That's our opinion that there are two factors. One is the value of the land and, two, is the impact. Probably can make an initial estimate to you today. The initial ground as they have given us approximate size, is they have kind of stated today the size of the area, and not the building, but the size of the area necessary. We are probably close to the neighborhood of 20,000 dollars for the ground and, then, the' devaluation is probably in the neighborhood of the same amount. I'm sure it's a lot more than that, but the same thing, about 20,000, for a total of 40,000 dollars. Certainly, if we have to take a couple of lots out of production or unable to sell lots if this location doesn't work. Well, buildable lots of that size would be much closer to 100,000 dollars for the total for that size, plus any devaluation, which may not be as much devaluation, since it may look kind of like a house. That would be our opinion. Certainly, that's just off the cuff thinking about it for 20 minutes before I got up here today. That's our first opinion to that. We are willing to give that to your record for tonight. Part of the -- also, the feeling we have to this -- and just also to put on record, is we work with -- in the community as far as competing subdivisions, we may or may not be the first one in in reference fo Sheridan Place that's in this similar area, it's probably in the same market, but certainly they have the same use of the water lines that will be out in this area. Directly to the east will be another development that is not too far away, will be -- could be a year, it could be five years, but it's not very far away. The property is already owned by a developer and they will be bringing application to the city at some point. If we give a land site away and they don't have to give land away, then, that doesn't make an equal playing field and so we are just trying to make sure the playing field is even in our -- in the market. That's part of our analysis as well. I'll move on to Number 16 and 1 7, u nless you h ave any questions about Condition Number 15. Borup: Yes. I don't know if we have any big questions on 16 and 17, if Bruce's assessment made sense to you. Yorgason: Mr. Chairman, it does and we appreciate his clarifying for us. We had some discussion earlier today and, of course, it's on record again tonight, but the conditions are okay as they are written. There is no need for change there. We have got clarification and we appreciate that. Borup: The only other one I had notation on or a question would be number 23 and that was on the plat revision. Was that the next thing you were going to mention? Or did you have any comments on that? Yorgason: I do have comments, Mr. Chairman. But 21 -- I think Craig Hood identified as a slight modification of number 21 as well. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 33 of 124 Borup: Right Yorgason: Twenty-three is correct. We have just a little comment. We are willing to comply with the condition as written. However, it's our opinion -- and we have gone in front of many city councils -- that sometimes if there is lots of changes to a plat or even just a couple changes to a plat, if you could note the versions of plats, certainly by the time it's -- whether it's another meeting here or later at City Council or a third or fourth meeting at City Council, then, when it comes to final approval, which version of the plat are you looking at when it comes to making recommendations for approval and sometimes if -- because the staff report is written based on the initial submittal, maybe it's easier just to list all the conditions as finalized and, then, shortly after, maybe it's ten days or whatever is acceptable to the city, we will turn right around and get a final version of the printed plat that can be used for reference. If that's not the city's preference, then, we will just stay with the condition as written. Borup: The only question Ihad -- and maybe other Commissioners have some. How many changes are we talking about? We are connecting the two roads next to the substation and are there any other major plat changes? Zaremba: Identifying just a couple of them -- Borup: I was going to ask you that, but I decided to wait until later at this point, but -- Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission that would be the main change. There are some other modifications that I mentioned. The right of way as shown on the McMillan was 48 feet from centerline. I f you really study this, there are going to be some changes that you would find that -- the well possibly being shown there. I don't know if that's a condition that Bruce has written up or how that would even be shown on the plat, but the private streets, those fingers will need to be changed a little bit. Again, just looking at it, first glance, you aren't going to notice any major modifications. There are some -- you know, three or four changes to the plat I submitted. Zaremba: I would only say that all the time that I have been on this Commission the requirement to have a plat that incorporates all of the Commission discussion ten days before the City Council hearing has been a standard request. I wasn't aware that it was even debatable. Powell: Chairman Borup, Commissioner Zaremba, they have mentioned if something comes through -- a minor one, even, they do sometimes question it, they being the Council, I'm sorry, that why wasn't this changed beforehand. I think it's probably in the applicant's best interest when going to City Council to just go ahead and have that new plat. They do really like to see the revised plat. Borup: I s the M cMillan right of way adjustment g oing to affect street I ocation? I s it going to affect any of the street locations that you're aware of? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 34 of 124 Yorgason: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to look to my engineer real quick. I think the answer is no. He's shaking his head no. Borup: Okay. Then, with the current CAD programs it's probably not a big change that needs to be done anyway. Hopefully, all the revisions will be dated accordingly. Yorgason: My engineer is shaking his head saying, yes, he will give a date stamp to that. I think the other change, if I'm not mistaken, Craig, is that street names -- there might be a couple of street names that if -- Borup: Well, that's always the case. Yorgason: Yeah. That's correct. Borup: Yeah. You're not going to know that until it gets back from the committee, the street naming committee. Yorgason: Mr. Chairman, I think it has come back from the street naming committee and so we know the answers to those questions. Borup: Okay. Does that conclude the things that you thought there may be questions or clarification on or was there some on the Conditional Use? Yorgason: Mr. Chairman, I think there is one other item of clarification on the Conditional Use Permit, that's condition number two, if I wrote this down correctly. Staff -- Mr. Hood had identified that if you do modify Condition 5 of the Preliminary Plat to allow for our preference, which is common drives to be located on common lots. That he also identified some lots -- and if I wrote them down correctly, they are Lots 53 and 54 of Block 1, and Lots 34 and 35 of Black 2. Did I get that right, Craig? There is one other item of clarification. As there has been discussion about looping -- connecting the two streets over in the northwest corner, as Mr. Wardle has pointed to you. Thank you, Mike. That will affect the little T to the left -- we will call it a little T there. We have come up with a new design and, staff I think you have seen. If not, we can provide a copy tonight for you, where the best way to design that would be for Lots 5 and 6 to also -- excuse me -- five and six. Block 2 would also take access off of a common bond and that would eliminate that little T. Going off to the left there just makes fora 90 degree turn on the street there, a more traditional way of designing the street. We have that design. If staff would like to have a copy, we can present that tonight. If staff's comfortable with that, then, we request just adding to that language that also Lots 5 and 6, Block 2, be allowed, just as those other four lots be allowed to take access to common drives. Mr. Chairman, that's the end of my report. I'll stand for any questions you may have. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? I think we have tried to ask them -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 35 of 124 Zaremba: We asked them as we went along. Sorry for the interruption. Yorgason: That's okay. Appreciate you being here tonight. Thank you. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question of the applicant? Just a point of clarification. When we were talking value, Dave, I guess if we could -- you talked about predevelopment cost and, then, a devaluation and, then, apost-development cost. I guess -- what are you thinking? I mean are you headed towards offering this if it was for sale to the city at predevelopment cost and is that the number that we should be dealing with or -- Borup: And I don't know if we are going to answer this tonight, but I had the impression it would be predevelopment cost, plus devaluation. Freckleton: I was under the same impression, Chairman. Then, we also talked about post-development cost and developed lots, so I just -- if we could clarify. Zaremba: Well, I think the part of that -- well, you made the statement, but I heard that as being if you couldn't find water there and you had to move into a lot that was platted and salable, there would be an extreme difference. Yorgason: Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Zaremba, I looked to my father for clarification and as we stated earlier, we have had lots of discussions this week since Monday afternoon on this. Specifically, the item of valuation we have had a couple hours, I think, Bruce, to talk about this or less and so, obviously, we are trying to figure out a hard number and that's kind of hard to do tonight, but I think we are pretty close in the ballpark. Commissioner Zaremba, you're exactly correct in that if it's in a common area it has one and if you take two lots out of production, that has a lot different impact to the -- to our bottom line. I think the city would recognize that as well. I think we are all trying to make it work in that grove area, as the best alternative, but that's correct. Zaremba: Thank you. Yorgason: You're welcome. Borup: Any other questions of staff or -- Freckleton: None from me. Thank you. Yorgason: Thank you. Borup: Okay. We'd like to take this opportunity now for any public testimony. Those who have anything they'd like to say, now is your opportunity. Ingram: Good evening. Terry Ingram, 4320 North Locust Grove, Meridian, Idaho. I am a homeowner in the archaic one-acre subdivision that requires a buffer and that's okay Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 36 of 124 with me, because buffers go two ways. I have a couple of questions for you tonight. One of them specifically has not been addressed. The southern boundary of this development has a ditch on our side of it that feeds our pastures and our lawns and our subdivision. There has been no mention of what kind of easement that ditch will have. Borup: Didn't you say it's on your property? Ingram: It is. Borup: Then, it wouldn't affect this property, would it? Ingram: Well, it does, as this property is required to put up a perimeter fence. We burn our ditches. Borup: Okay. Ingram: And I'm concerned that if they -- well, not concerned. I don't want them to waste their money putting up a beautiful vinyl fence that is not going to look beautiful after the first burning season. I am concerned that there should be an easement there, an amount of property that gives us access to maintaining both sides of our ditch and that has not been addressed here and it was discussed briefly in the neighborhood meeting that was held, but no resolution was made. That is something that has to be addressed. Another concern of mine is the first phase of this development is -- has been proposed to come off of Locust Grove Road and I disagree with that. Locust Grove Road is in no shape to take the increased traffic from construction vehicles, to take the increased traffic from the first phase of this development. To me a more preferable place to be would do the first phase of this off of McMillan. At least your staff has indicated that improvement of McMillan is at least on ACHD's books. Locust Grove is a nebulous plan out there that I have yet to see them put in writing with a time schedule. Those of us who drive Locust Grove Road at least twice a day know it's not in great shape. Another question that I had was I noticed that this -- the proposal for this is to zone it R-8. When we discussed this in the neighborhood meeting I came away with the feeling -- and I, in fact, talked to three of my neighbors who also came away with the feeling that this was going to be requested at R-4 and, in fact, your staff tonight said it would be 3.7 homes per acre. I'm questioning why R-8 if that number of homes per acre. Borup: Because that's the average per acre. Some of them are smaller that the -- the buffering homes they were doing around the power station are such a lot size it would not comply in an R-4. Ingram: Okay. This is an overall? The R-8 would be for the entire development? Borup: They didn't have to do it that way, but the lots along the southern boundary are much -- are, obviously, larger than a minimum R-4. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 37 of 724 Ingram: I suspected that was the case, but I wanted to make it very clear, because that was not the impression that several of us came away from the neighborhood meeting. So -- and, then, a couple of -- I have two more. One of them is that it was mentioned tonight that Sheridan place a condition on their development on the north side of McMillan was p roposed t o p utting s idewalks a round t he s ubstation o n M cMillan a nd, then, down Locust Grove. If that can be a condition of that subdivision, why cannot sidewalks from this development to Paradise Lane on Locust Grove where sidewalks pick up -- or walking area picks up for the elementary school be a condition of this development? I worry like you wouldn't believe about children walking from 266 homes down a 50 mile an hour road with no shoulders, no street lights, and no way for those kids to get out of the way of those cars and I can tell you those cars don't go 50 miles an hour, they go 70. I would love to see it be a condition of this development that they have put in sidewalks at least as far as the -- it's not really a side walk, it's kind of a segregated asphalt area that picks up at Paradise to get to the elementary school. I'd like you to considerthat, because that would keep these children safe. From what I understand, t he C ity o f Meridian does n of -- o r M eridian S chool District d oes n of d o safety busing anymore, which puts these kids on the road. Borup: Do you think bath property owners would allow that? Ingram: Well, I'm one of them and I would. Borup: You would? Ingram: Yes, I would. I would much rather see a sidewalk in my front yard than a child's body. My husband is a fireman and an EMT and he feels the same way. He works on enough children. Yes, sir. Zaremba: Your side street to you is Star; is that correct? Ingram: It is. I'm on the corner of Star Lane and Locust Grove. Zaremba: Paradise is the next street. Ingram: Paradise is the next street south. Zaremba: Parallel to Star south? Ingram: Yes. Like I said, that just recently -- and don't know if it was ACHD, I don't know if it was the city. I don't know, actually, if it was that homeowner, but they have put i n a w alkway with -- I don't k now w hat c all i t, a l ittle r aised area i n asphalt from Paradise to the sidewalk that goes back into the elementary school and we do have an elementary school and two high schools there. I drive through that school zone every morning that says -- has these lovely signs and I appreciate the school zone, I do. For a long time we didn't have one. It says 25 miles an hour when children are present. There is no lighting. You can't tell if children are present. It's just something I would ask you to Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 38 of 124 consider. The very last thing was something I really hadn't thought of and Mr. Freckleton aver here was nice enough to make me think about this is the well. I really have to disagree with Mr. Wardle. Until you have water online, I can't see approving this or any other submission. I worry that that well is going to be drawing off of the aquifer that our home wells do and that will be drawing down our wells by putting in a well there and that's something that needs to be considered before the city puts in a well there. Borup: Why don't -- maybe others may have that same question and while you're here maybe get an answer from Mr. Freckleton. It's my understanding you're in a whole different aquifer. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. That's correct. Typically, our domestic municipal wells are in the deep aquifers, you know, several hundred feet below ground. Typically, a single family residential well .will be very shallow in comparison to t he municipal wells, s o -- a nd, typically, t hese a quifers are d ivided b y huge clay layers and I don't feel that we would be drawing from the same reservoir, if you may, so -- Ingram: You have the knowledge, the engineering knowledge and the knowledge of wells much more so than I do. I can tell you that since the development has started in this area I have had four neighbors have to re-drill -- or drill their wells deeper and -- Borup: I think that started before the development. Ingram: It may have. Borup: It stated with the drought. Ingram: It may have. I'm sure there are people here that could speak to this concern more so than I could. It's a concern to me. Borup: Okay. That's -- I mean what Mr. Freckleton had stated is the same thing I have heard from other meetings and other experts it's a whole separate water source. They are not intermixed. Ingram: I hope so. Borup: Because they are going down several hundred feet. Ingram: I hope so. That's all the concerns I have. If you don't have questions for me, I'll sit down and shut up for a change. Borup: Thank you. Ingram: Thank you. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 39 of 124 Borup: Does that conclude? Okay. Sherer: Of course not. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, and planning staff. My name is Steve Sherer. I live at 2090 Star Lane, which is -- if you can still see, it's right there. That lot right there. Just to the south of this development. Mr. Freckleton, I have a question for you before I get too far. Locust Grove is over here. Is there a water main running down Locust Grove? Freckleton: Yes, there is. Sherer: Okay. So -- Freckleton: We have water main that runs to just short of Chinden. We run all the way up through there. There is also a water main in McMillan Road from the intersection all the way across the frontage of Edinburgh Subdivision. Sherer: Is there excess capacity on the water main running up Locust Grove? Freckleton: Excess capacity? Sherer: I mean can you supply water to more houses? Freckleton: The mains that are there have the carrying capacity, if that's what you're getting at, but you have to have the supply to push through the mains and that's where we are short is on supply. Sherer: Okay. The reason I ask these questions is I understand water experts talking about different aquifers and clay layers. I also know the water got down there somehow, whether it's 600 feet or 80 feet below the surface and that it continues to percolate, however slowly, from one layer to the next. The reason I make that point is that we can have all the expert theories that we want, but if you drill a well up in that corner -- and you said that this isn't far enough away to be in a different aquifer. Well, you're a bout t he s ame d istance a way f rom m y p roperty t here a nd i f y ou d estroy t he wells and we don't have water to even -- to even get from Locust Grove to pump into our subdivision, you're going to have a little subdivision that's madder than hornets and probably have -- be entitled to some significant legal relief. I really think that you guys need to get the water supply issue settled. Mr. Wardle made the point that, well, that shouldn't stop the continuing planning and designing and development, but, actually, if you stopped it now, they have very little reliance cost on what they have done so far. If they are allowed to go through tc a Final Plat and invest hundreds of thousand of dollars in this property and, then, get upset when this Final Plat isn't approved, because there is not a reliable water source, they are going to make loud noises and threatening noises, I would expect. Mr. Yorgason mentioned that they wanted an equal playing field. Well, over Sheri Stiles's dead body. I have been before this -- before this body before and if someone else had come in and said we are going to affect the entrance corridor to a Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 40 of 124 city by not meeting exactly the landscaping plan that's required, she would not only chop them off at the knee, she would bite their head off, too. Because that was something that was very important to her and I think it's still important. This is not a level playing field. These people knew what this property was like, they knew about this slough. In fadt, they have well incorporated it into their design and now to say they don't want to have to put up trees, which is part of the landscaping plan, doesn't make it an even playing field. If they want to do this, then, they may have to dedicate a little bit of extra property, so that the irrigation company can have its easement and they can put up the trees that are required by the city. It really bothers me to hear them saying, well, we can sell this land for this well to the city, yet they are asking the city, essentially, to give them land that doesn't have to be given to them that should be used for a landscape buffer. They want an even playing field. They have lots in here with no frontage -- no frontage to any road and they call these single family attached dwellings. Well, they are now proposing common driveways they are proposing common walls between the dwellings. Essentially, what they are doing is proposing a duplex divided down t he middle o nto t wo t my I ots. T hat's not i n accord w ith t he c ity p Ian. They a re asking for -- they are asking for a deviation from the standard city plan. They have got substandard streets here. I can see a fire right there and you have got cars parked on both sides here, because they have common driveways, so they don't have any room to park in their driveway, and you can't get a fire truck in there and you can't do what you need to to take care of that place. It's ahalf-mile away from the fire station and you can watch that duplex burn to the ground. I think for that reason it is poorly designed. I think the street should be a standard width. I think that the houses should have the frontage that is required for an R-8. Borup: Mr. Sherer, I appreciate your comments, but I think the Commission would rather let the Fire Department make that determination. They are the ones that it affects and they are the ones that inspect these -- Zaremba: And the location identified, the applicant has already agreed to connect those two streets, so that isn't a dead end there anymore. Sherer: That's true. That's true. They are still going to have to pass through a street that is 29 feet wide is what I understood them to say. If there are cars parked on both sides and the car is parked a foot away from the curb and the cars are seven feet wide or so, that will leave 12, 13, 14 feet for a fire truck to pass through and that is a concern of mine, because that will affect the neighborhood. When I first heard about this common wall design, it didn't concern me too much, but the more I think about it, it's really n o d ifferent from a n apartment. Y ou h ave a c ommon d riveway you're g oing t o have issues as to driveway use. You have a common wall, you're going to have noise issues and every other issue that you have in a duplex or apartment setting and, you know, Capital Development has been around awhile and they know generally what they are doing, but if you have neighbors that have squabbles here, you're going to end up with a slum and with fights and there is no point to have that. There is not a necessity to have that density and common walls between buildings at this point in this development. The buffer. I think Mrs. Ingram stated the need for a fence along the southern edge. A Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 41 of 124 maintenance easement for the ditch and I think 20 feet would be safe from the edge of the ditch, because I don't want to burn down fences, I don't want to have legal disputes with them about the fences, and I don't want to have any arguments, but I don't see any way, except to grant -- to grant an easement there. The lot sizes on the south, they are bigger, and I think that Capital Development has taken some pains to try to -- try to help us there. I'm a little bit concerned that I will have three neighbors to the north, the way this is drawn out. Borup: Could you clarify the location of that irrigation ditch? Is that right on -- bordering the property line or is it within your property? Sherer: The north edge of the ditch is very close to the property line. Borup: But it's on -- you have a fence there now and the ditch is on your side of the fence? Sherer: There is an old fence there, yes. Borup: Is it a barbed wire fence? Sherer: Yes. Borup: Okay. I take it there are problems now with when the ditch is burned the posts start burning? Sherer: Metal posts. Borup: They are metal post? Okay. Running clear down the whole property line is metal posts? Sherer: Yeah. For the posts that are there. It's not a completed fence. Borup: Some of the lots don't have fences, you're saying? Sherer: I'm saying most of the lots have fences. My fence is broken down in places. Borup: Well, yours is. Yeah. I'm thinking of the property as a whole clear down the whole property. Sherer: Yes. Generally it is fenced with barbed wire. Borup: Okay. Sherer: At our neighborhood meeting regarding these southern lots, you know, I would expect at least a six foot privacy fence there somewhere, so that they don't get to look into my backyard and I don't have to look into theirs. The other thing I suggested was to Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 42 of 124 have -- these lots that backup to ours are larger lots and they can well accommodate a larger single story dwelling and that's what I would propose for those lots. We mentioned this at the homeowners meeting and Mr. Yorgason's response was, well, we are not going to deny those property owners the right to build the house that they want to. What they mean is they don't want to be limited in what they can sell those lots for, because the homeowners who buy them will know exactly what they can do with those lots, certainly. I don't think that's an unreasonable request. We have enjoyed a significant amount of privacy there for the past 40 years that the subdivision has been around. Rohm: Are any of your homes two-story homes? Sherer: There are -- I think there is a split entry home that is a story and a half and that's the only one. Rohm: Thank you. Sherer: On that side that I can think of. I think that's a reasonable condition for them to be able to meet. There are three irrigation wells on that property. Well, I thought there were three. I guess there are four. I don't think those -- I think those should be capped and collapsed or whatever you do with abandoned wells, they should be properly abandoned as a condition. Rohm: Why? Sherer: Why? Rohm: Yeah. Just curious. Sherer: I don't know how deep those wells are. I don't know how they would affect our water supply, but I wouldn't want -- I wouldn't want people playing and dropping things down in those wells and affecting our water supply. While the farmer was on them, there was reason for people to go on them and trespassers were easily noticed, because it was out in the middle of the field, so I would like to see those abandoned. I am concerned about the traffic flow. Again, I was here last week and Locust Grove is not the five-year plan for expansion to its three-lane capacity, not the five lanes, and I -- we heard testimony tonight that McMillan is going to be 15 years out. I know my son drives to Eagle High School and he has a heck of a time at the intersection of Locust Grove and McMillan. McMillan is usually backed up from Eagle Road a mile and if you put another subdivision there, it's certainly not going to get any better. Now, I haven't driven the road, frankly, very much since they put in the light at Locust Grove and Chinden, but the traffic continues to be a problem and a challenge to me. The other thing is that this is -- this is kind of a checkerboard annexation and I'm concerned with where this leaves us as a subdivision, especially if we have water issues after the well is drilled. It seems like we have -- we have very little choice but to get together and incur the cost of a local improvement district to run city water to our properties. That's one of the problems with Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 75, 2004 Pg. 43 of 124 the well on the north, but it's also one of the issues that comes from a checker board annexation pattern, which is generally, to my understanding, recognized as not very good planning. Borup: Now, I'm not going to let you go on with that. How do you figure this is checkerboard? It's got not large existing subdivisions on the north and on the west of it. The only way to prevent that would be to tear down your subdivision and redevelop it. I mean it's not a checkerboard development. Sherer: Well, this is not annexed into the city. Borup: Right. That's what I'm saying. The only way to prevent it from your definition of checkerboard is to annex that subdivision. Sherer: Are there plans to annex our subdivision? Borup: No. The city normally does not force annexation. It's requested. Rohm: So, are you proposing that the city annex you? Sherer: No. Borup: ,But that's the solution to what you say is a problem. It sounds like that's what you are proposing. Sherer: Oh, no. Borup: Okay. Sherer: Oh, no. Thank you, Commissioners. Borup: All right. Thank you. Do we have anyone else that would like to testify? Come forward. Clapp: My name is Vick Clapp. I live at 2255 Paradise Lane. It's on the other side of Heritage Subdivision. Thank you for allowing me to speak. I just had a possible solution for that ditch. I wonder if you could pipe it, because that's what we did on the other side of Paradise Lane where the elementary school is and where Challenge Subdivision is going in, we are going to continue the piping there. If you put a pipe on that side, wouldn't that solve the problem of burning the ditches a nd so forth? Just a possible solution. Borup: Do you know where the original ditch along your property -- was it on the school's property originally or was it on your property and they relocated it? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 44 of 124 Clapp: No. It's just on the other side -- well, my property line is about the middle of the ditch, actually. Borup: Okay. Clapp: So, it was kind of in between. Borup: That was a little bit different. Clapp: Yeah. It kind of goes in and out. It's not perfectly straight. That was a good solution there and I'm just suggesting it for this one. Thank you. Borup: Okay. Rohm: Do you flood irrigate south from that ditch? So, you put a headgate in and, then, the ditch fills and, then, it --thank you. Zaremba: The response from the audience was yes. Borup: Do we have anyone else who would like to come forward? Okay. Mr. Wardle, are you doing final comments or -- Wardle: M r. C hairman, o nce a gain for t he r ecord, M ike Wardle. W e did h ave a v ery lengthy discussion with the neighborhood on all of these issues and it's interesting that the comments and concerns about the ditch in question -- and we have concerns as well about the burning and I appreciate the last gentleman's concept of possibly solving it, because the property owners in Heritage Subdivision noted that they have difficulties with their ditch, that some property owners do a better job than others of maintaining the ditch and they actually asked for an easement on the north side of the property, essentially, down this line, so that they could get access to their ditch when some of the property owners wouldn't allow them access to help maintain their ditch. Obviously, ditches are a challenge and -- but this ditch is not on this property. We have to find a solution to the fencing question, if, in fact, they keep it as an open ditch. There are some options that we have seen in other locations that might be -- this would be, obviously, that the city is going to have to, I guess, consider as well. If the only solution is an open type fence that is noncombustible -- there are some of those types of fencing that could be done and I'm not suggesting that that would be the best, because you have heard these folks indicate that they would like to h ave some buffering as well. With regard to that buffering, if you look -- and let me -- I'm going to pass this down, so that you can actually look at it, but you will see that there is no privacy area for the homes themselves that would be threatened by any homes on the other side of that fence. They basically have the open area storage, some pasture, and limited pasture, there are not that many animals, as we have been down and looked at those properties, but there are some. These are not privacy areas that would be threatened by homes on the other side of a screening fence. My point is that there would be no need for any type of restriction that was never applied to their side of that boundary for either a one Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 45 of 124 story or a two-story home. With regard to traffic, 1 don't think anybody would say that the t raffic c hallenges don't exist. T he t ransportation e ntity responsible for t raffic a nd transportation and its capital improvements and planning and directions of traffic, counts, and so forth, indicates that this roadway, Locust Grove Road specifically, at this point in time is not at -- and with this project will not be at or beyond capacity of that roadway. We have similar concerns for safety and one of the solutions that we will be providing, obviously, is that along the frontage that we have and, then, in working with the adjacent issues to the north of what we have control of, there will be sidewalks provided. In the discussion with the neighborhood, they made similar statements about sidewalks along their frontage and we indicated that there are two options available to them today. One is to wait until ACRD does a project in the future. The second one is to ask for ACHD to help them form a local improvement district to make those improvements along their frontage that would tie into this system. That's an appropriate solution to the expressed concerns that these folks have made. It wouldn't have to be a curb, gutter, and sidewalk situation, but it could be a solution to get asidewalk -- they would have to help provide, though, easements for that sidewalk to be located, because it's doubtful that it would be located within the existing somewhere limited right of way. Borup: Are you familiar with what ACHD did on that stretch that Mrs. Ingram was talking about from Paradise to the school? Wardle: Mr. Chairman, I am not. I have not seen that. I don't know what they did. Borup: Well -- and I'm -- Wardle: And it would interesting to know that. Borup: I'm assuming ACHD did it. I guess we don't know -- Wardle: That I don't know either. It could be -- it made it possible for the folks within that subdivision to, you know, at least have the ability to get -- Borup: And what's Iwhat -- and they did something I haven't seen also where they widened the pavement and put a curbing separating the paved sidewalk from the roadway, so I believe it probably was within the right of way. Wardle: It may well have been. I think that's a solution that would be available to help these folks improve the frontage of their properties for the safety concerns that they have expressed, that we will be providing for the frontages that we do have control of. The landscaping issue along McMillan Road -- could staff put up the last exhibit that you had, which was the overall map? If you look at the existing canal right now, it comes up to this point and, then, drops down through here. What we are proposing is relocation of that canal in a straight line up to the point -- and, obviously, there is going to have to be some decision between ACHD and Idaho Power Company on how to transition in this area. Whether it transitions off this property where we do have control, but there will not be a road right up against that easement, it just gets to the point that the irrigation Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 46 of 124 company does not want trees in their easement and the rest of it will be public right of way. It's not as though we are trying to dodge anything. What we are trying to do is implement a regional pathway system that fits the context of your Comprehensive Plan and your recently adopted parks and recreation plan and these are some factors that happen to come together and we are going to go to a great extent to help that system come to fruition, but it is an issue that is beyond our control, because of rights of way or easements that are controlled by either the highway district or by the irrigation district and we will do what we can, but we are not trying to dodge anything. Zaremba: Mr. Wardle? Wardle: Yes, Commissioner. Zaremba: While you're at that point in the discussion, I will ask either you or staff if we know -- what is the setback on the Idaho Power substation? Do they have 35 feet landscaped beyond the future right of way? Wardle: Mr. Zaremba -- do you have the photograph -- I can illustrate it from the site plan. Yeah. Unfortunately, the aerial photo, I think, was takeh a lot earlier than the improvements. There is -- this original fence has been extended on down and so if you were out there today without the snow on the ground, you would see grass in that area. However, the canal runs right along the side of the roadway in that area and you have the large -- you can see the little dots for the towers, the large metal towers in that location and so at some point when ACHD comes to widen that roadway, they are going to have to look at possibly relocating that canal outside of that area or tiling it through there, but at least that area is currently available and open for pathway, canal, or whatever. There is currently sodded area between their fence, which is in this location, and the canal itself. Zaremba: I guess my question was how deep is that sodded area and where I'm going is in other locations where there was already existing structures that already had existing landscape buffers that were smaller than what we were trying the new property to get, it made more sense to make the new property compatible with the old property, as opposed to go the whole 35 feet. My question is do you know -- the reduction that you're trying to do, is that compatible with what's already there next door? Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Zaremba, from the standpoint that if this canal realigns in this location and, then, transitions, there is still about the same equal amount of open space from the existing roadway to that point as it is to the fence along the substation. It's about the same. Zaremba: So, it's a consistent appearance. Wardle: It would be consistent. Zaremba: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 47 of 124 Wardle: I just wanted to make a comment about the roadway question. That roadway, when it's connected, and as it's proposed, is 29 feet, would be a one-side parking roadway and that actually works, because you have the driveway accesses on the north side and you would have no driveway accesses on the south side, so you would have parking available in that location. It would be through the -- it would be connected and it, actually, does conform fully with ACHD and Fire Department standards with that restriction and that's exactly what will be done. Borup: Would there be a signed -- Wardle: Yes. Borup: A sign no parking? Wardle: Yes. That's what they typically do. Mr. Chairman, Commission Members, I think those address all of the issues. Again, everything that is of concern to the neighborhood -- we will look at the fencing question, but we, honestly, have to express the feeling that the maintenance and operation of the ditch to the south is really the challenge and responsibility of those property owners. Our need will be to not impede or impair the use of our property, but to be certain that whatever we put there does not get damaged or cause them any liability. We will have to work on that question and that's largely a question of fencing, unless they chose to the the ditch as was suggested by one of the other neighbors. Unless you have questions, I would conclude. Appreciate the opportunity and, quite frankly, I'm pleased to bring this project forward, as I have several others in the recent past that I believe have added to both the integrity and the diversity and let me just state that this doesn't have really any high density elements to it. Even the attached units are still reasonably modest in size and character, but they do add at least a little bit of diversity on a project that otherwise we are trying to maintain complete compatibility with the surrounding area. Thank you. Borup: Mr. Wardle, maybe while you're here, I -- something for staff and I don't know if I had clarification, but the point that Mrs. Ingram brought up and that's on the sidewalk along the power substation property that Sheridan Place is putting in. You made mention of it. I realize that's a whole separate project, but could you clarify that a little bit? Hood: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the difference with that -- and I guess I should have made it a little more clear. The Idaho Power site is actually part of that application. Borup: So part of annexing their site? Hood: Correct. That's part of the application. The difference with what Mrs. Ingram referred to is that would be an off-site -- if this applicant had a flag that went all the way down Locust Grove, then, we would be requiring them to construct sidewalk on that Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 48 of 124 property, but they do not -- off-site improvements aren't something that we normally require and that's why the sidewalk is being recommended, is because they are part of that application. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: A I ittle following u p o r s ideways s tep, I g uess, o n t hat. I f t he I daho Power substation is part of that other subdivision, including their annexation and all of that, the 22 feet of right of way that is a flag in front of this subdivision, will that be sidewalk at that time by them? Hood: Yeah. Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, that's the idea, that's the condition. It has not been approved yet. That subdivision has not been before this body -- at least the Public Hearing hasn't been opened before this body. That is a condition that staff is working on preparing that would require the sidewalk to be constructed from the terminus of this project to. Through the Idaho Power station and work -- and a condition of the applicant is to work with Idaho Power or whoever is going to be constructing that, on the location of where this multi pathway ties in and being extended, so you don't have, you know, them stubbed in different locations. We need them to tie in together and make sure that those locations match up. Borup: Mr. Wardle, I assume you have -- there has been some discussion with Idaho Power on that little flag piece of property. Is that something they want to keep? Is there -- do they have a use for that? Wardle: Mr. Chairman -- Borup: It looks like it's 13 feet. Is that what it is? Wardle: I don't have an answer to that question. I'm not certain if the Yorgason's do or not. You will need to come up here if you want to -- Borup Well, maybe it's not pertinent, it was more of a curious -- Wardle: It's just this piece right here. Hood: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Icon -- about half of that will be future right of way and the other half will be the sidewalk with a little bit of it being the remaining portion of the landscape buffer on the street. I can't imagine that Idaho Power necessarily wants it for anything. I can't imagine that it would benefit this developer to obtain that for any purpose. I think they would just be required to construct a sidewalk if they bought and dedicated the right of way to the highway district, so I don't know how this lot got in that configuration specifically, but that's kind of what would happen with the -- with that property and the future of that property. Borup: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 49 of 124 Wardle: Thank you very much Rohm: Mr. Wardle, I want to return to this fence issue for just a moment and bear with me. It appears as if they are concerned about being able to maintain their ditch, which is rightfully s o, a nd y ou're c oncerned a bout building a f ence t hat i sn't d estroyed by t he maintenance of the ditch. Maybe this is a time to come up with some solution and, I don't know, maybe a chain link fence is the right answer along that south line of your development, which can't be destroyed by burning of the ditch. Is that -- is that something that we can put in the conditions of approval if we move forward with this? Is that acceptable to -- Wardle: Mr. Rohm, what I would prefer at the moment is to leave the question open for -- to work with staff, because I believe that we do have to address the fencing, but to know exactly what tonight -- I don't know what the distance is between that ditch and their fence. That's something that needs to be looked at. You know, I'm not certain, you know, what the options are. If some of the problems that they have had of getting water down that ditch, maybe it's time for them to consider tiling it, so that that issue goes away and that t hey have something t hat is maintained and t hey d on't have to worry about how they get water from one end to the other. I don't know that we can come to that conclusion, but if it has tc be a noncombustible, then, I would ask if we could work with staff on solutions. I don't think it's -- you know, the Commission needs to spend the time to worry about exactly what the fence would be, except that there does, obviously have to be some type of a fence and consideration has to be given to the ditch. Borup: Still have a question on that? Zaremba: I would only add, from a regional perspective and other meetings that I attend, that it may not be very long before burning the ditches is not allowed. DEQ is getting very excited about how close we are teasing nonattainment, they will be looking at e very s Ingle s ource, a nd I w ould s uspect t hat these n eighbors m ay n eed t o the i t that's their solution to the burning problem anyhow. Without our doing anything about it. Just an opinion. Wardle: I don't think we are going to be doing a lot along that boundary initially, anyway, for some time. We are going to be concentrating on coming in and working our way in this direction, as I recall the phasing. That issue isn't the first thing that has to be addressed or a solution decided tonight. Again, thank you. Borup: You still have a question, Mike? Rohm: Well, I -- my just general comment would be anytime you have two pieces of property that are adjacent to each other, that these community meetings are generally where you resolve these issues and it seems as if that's still an open issue and I don't feel comfortable making a determination for two parcels of ground that are adjacent to Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Mee[ing January 15, 2004 Pg. SD of 124 each other that should figure out the resolve to that between the two of them. That would just be my position on that. Wardle: Mr. Chairman, just in response, the developer has agreed that if the appropriate and best solution is chain link that would be agreeable to them. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Borup: I still think it makes sense to work that out with staff. Rohm: Yes. Zaremba: I would express the opinion that I realize a lot of the effort goes into making these plans and it's an odd piece of property, I think they have dealt with it creatively. There are still a couple of issues that I can just hear the City Council saying these need to be worked out before you send stuff to us. Whether the fencing issue is one of them, certainly we have not -- ACHD has not finished their meeting and even if it's just a consent item next week, I think we still need to know what ACRD does. I think for the sake of our Public Works Department we need to know abdut the water situation. It would be helpful to have further resolution on the fence situation. What I'm saying is -- I understand the desire to move it along, either fish or cut bait, you know, approve it or kill it, one or the other, but I'm inclined to continue this until there has been at least the ACHD report and a test well agreed to. I'm hesitant to pass it onto City Council either way, because they have consistently said they want these questions answered before it leaves here. Borup: So, your main concern is the well? Zaremba: The well and the ACHD report. Borup: And the ACRD -- and the fence -- Zaremba: I think it's very possible that ACHD is going to say it's fine, we have no opinion, other than what they have already expressed through their draft report, but -- Borup: The fence is already agreed to and determined, it's just a matter of material. Zaremba: Yeah. Oh, yeah, there is going to be a fence and that's been agreed to by everybody, but I'm just hesitant to hand it to City Council with the -- a couple of major items hanging. Rohm: Can the well be addressed at Final Plat, as opposed to as part of this application, just say we are going to move it forward, but full well knowing that they are not going to receive Final Plat approval until the water issue is resolved. I mean that seems logical. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 51 of 124 Borup: We have had similar things where the developer went with that understanding, that they were taking the risk themselves. Zaremba: I don't recall ever forwarding anything until we had seen the ACHD report. Rohm: I'm not opposed to waiting to see the ACHD report, but as far as the water issue, I think that at Final Plat that would a good place to either move forward or put the brakes to it. Borup: I think you're right on ACHD as far as major subdivisions. We have forwarded some -- the motion was stated that it was continued upon satisfactory approval of ACHD or something along that line. With the understanding if there was something negative, they would need to come back. That was on small projects. Commissioner? Mathes: Bruce, what's your comfort level on the water? Freckleton: Could you restate that, please? Mathes: What's your comfort level on the water? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Mathes, you know, if -- I think that the developer and my department can work together on coming to an agreement on the -- you know, granting permission for the test well. We can get in there and get that done. Like I said, I think that within a month's time, we can have the well -- or the test well drilled. You know, if you guys -- if it's your desire to move this forward. I think where Commissioner Rohm was going, you know, I would just recommend, maybe, that you put a condition in the Preliminary Plat section, just create a condition of approval that, you know, just simply states something to the effect that we will not sign the Final Plat until supply is there. You're exactly right, the developer is assuming some risks, but I think he's going into it, you know, fully aware of those risks. Zaremba: Would we identify those risks in the Development Agreement? Attached to the zoning? Powell: The risks associated with not having the water -- I think they already went on record as saying that they were willing to take that risk. I think it's more of an acknowledgment. I don't -- we can always rely on that if, for some reason, they were to go back and sue the city, that they acknowledge that they are -- that risk was there. I'm not sure what they'd really be agreeing to in the Development Agreement, other than there is a risk that they might not get sewer and water it's kind of a standard risk that they know they need sewer and water, so -- Zaremba: Then, let me ask Craig what your comfort level -- having read the ACHD draft report, what's your comfort level that there isn't going to be major changes? Borup: And along with that, I don't know if I -- when was the date of the ACHD meeting? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 52 of 124 Zaremba: The 28th. I think. Borup: 28th? Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, the staff -- the report -- the draft staff report that I received from ACHD did say the 28th. However, talking with the applicant, I believe that has been moved up a week, but I can't even verify that. It was the 28th on the draft that I saw, the 21st according to the applicant, which may be the case. As I stated earlier -- Zaremba: But having read it, what's your comfort level with -- Hood: And reading that and -- as I stated earlier, I -- the issues, aside from Locust Grove and McMillan and everyone's concern with them being two lane roadways and four way stop controlled intersections, the internal design of this s ite really does not have any issues for them to resolve, except for the ones a s noted a nd the highway district did have a copy of my draft report with the connection of the two roadways and that should still meet their policy, as well as the fingers going to private streets. I think there was one other issue, they were -- the draft that I saw, there was a stub street that was requested on the eastern boundary of the site, an additional stub street. Zaremba: But I think your comment was any additional stub street to the east would go into what ACHD is going to use as a holding pond right? Hood: There are actually three parcels. ACHD has ownership of the parcel that you can only see a portion of here. There is a property line right here that separates ACHD from this parcel from this parcel. These two parcels are under the same ownership and the distance between -- if a stub street was provided to this -- I think it's about six acres is this parcel. Again, it's under the same ownership. The city looks at those as being the same parcel. There may be a property line there, but when they are in contiguous ownership, they are really looked at as the same piece of ground, so -- Borup: Is that under the ownership of a developer, Mr. Wardle -- Hood: Mr. Amyx owns that. Yes. Correct. Borup: Okay. Hood: So -- and he owns some other properties that go over -- I think he has three or four or five parcels even in this area, that he's just waiting for this to get through and come and see us, but that's why that was an issue for -- in the draft report that you may have seen, that was a stub street, they are requesting that this be extended over there. The block length, then, becomes really short between this street and this street, a stub over there, and I -- another crossing of the North Slough here really didn't -- I think the same interconnectivity can be accomplished with just this one stub here and that's why I Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 53 of 124 did not require that with this application in my staff report, but, other than that, I think ACHD staff and my report jive pretty well, so -- my comfort level is fairly high. Zaremba: Well, I could be swayed not to continue it until those have been resolved. It sounds like they will be resolved by the time it would get to City Council anyhow. That's where I was coming from was to continue it until we had the answers. Borup: Well, yes, there is some concern there. Zaremba: I could be swayed. I would comment -- and this comes up with almost every subdivision, that the traffic on the surrounding streets and particularly the mile section streets, ACHD's capital improvement plan and their five year work program are downstream results of studies that are done by Compass, the metropolitan planning organization for this area. They base their traffic forecasting pretty much on what exists, with some thought about what might be put there. Approving subdivisions actually changes their forecast and the change of their forecast sometimes can change ACHD's priorities. I realize that seems like it's backwards, you ought to have the roads there before you have the subdivisions there. The way the system works, we won't get the roads unless we approve the subdivisions. That changes ACHD's program. I mean, I'm sorry, that first changes Compass's program, who lets ACHD know that they need to do something about it and it's like a discussion we have on another one with the fire station. We think there needs to be a fire station south of the interstate. Well, it won't be there until there are enough houses there for the city to justify paying for it. I realize it s eems w rong t o k eep a pproving s ubdivisions w hen t he traffic p roblem hasn't been solved first. Unfortunately, the way the system is handed to us, two agencies over which we have no control respond to having the subdivisions go in first and the roads won't happen until that does, so that's just my comment on creating the traffic. Rohm: And that's not just Locust Grove, that's any development and so that's -- Zaremba: Everywhere in Ada county. Rohm: Right. Borup: My memory may be off, but I believe Locust Grove was in their long-term plan at one time and they pulled it, because they didn't see any development happening. Zaremba: I think that's true. Borup: That's since changed and it can get back on the long-term plan just as easy, I would hope. Zaremba: The capital improvement plan and the five year work plan are kind of floating documents, they do change, and they change because of the impact. Borup: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 54 of 124 Clapp: Dick Clapp. 2255 Paradise Lane again. Question. When the Champion Subdivision was approved, when the developer develops property, isn't there some sort of monies held out for ACHD development? In other words, on Ustick Road. If that's the case -- Borup: It's paid for by impact fees, so each builder as he pays for his building permit, he pays for road impact fees. Clapp: Okay. If this is developed, then, impact fees would be there to widen Locust Grove right? Would that influence ACHD to get on the stick? Zaremba: It does to some extent. The struggle we go through is trying to get ACRD to prove it to us whether they are using Meridian's impact fees to build the East Park Center Bridge. We -- ACRD is our only highway department. It's Meridian's highway department, because we don't have any other and it wouldn't be efficient for us to have any other. W e need to be friends with those people, but there is always questions about whether the impact fees collected in Meridian are being spent in Meridian and they, actually, don't have an accounting system that can prove that one way or the other. Borup: They have tried. Rohm: But you're exactly right. There are impact fees collected for each development based upon the number of lots within that development and so to your point, yes. Clapp: So, the money would be there, it's just -- Rohm: There is money being collected Borup: Well, that money has to go towards increasing capacity. They can't use any of that money for maintenance or -- Zaremba: Right. They have a separate budget for maintenance of existing roads. Borup: Yeah. It is earmarked for increasing capacity. Commissioners? You have talked about a couple different options here, so I'm not sure which direction you're leaning entirely, but -- Zaremba: Ihave been given a comfort level that the things that I think need to be resolved before it gets to City Council can be resolved before it gets to City Council. That could give me comfort in passing it along. Rohm: I concur with that. Zaremba: I'll make the easy motion. I move that the three hearings be closed. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2D04 Pg. 55 of 124 Rohm: I'll second that. I wanted to do that one. Zaremba: No, I'm going to give you the next three motions. Borup: We have a motion. Do we have second? Rohm: Yes. I'll second. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Is there any discussion that we'd like to go through on any of those before forming a motion? Zaremba: Well, unless we want to do it page by page with staff. Rohm: I think we need to do that, because I didn't take notes based upon Craig's changes and if we are going to make a motion, we are going to have to include some of those recommendations as we went through the -- each one of them. Zaremba: Uh-huh. Borup: I think the -- Zaremba: Start on page seven. I don't think there were any changes to the Annexation and Zoning facts conditions. Borup: No. I think we are all fine on those. Zaremba: And the applicant appears to have agreed with all of those. Preliminary Plat, which starts on -- a lot of pages here. Borup: Fourteen. Zaremba: Fourteen. We probably ought to -- Rohm: I think we needed to add a condition on that at the end to speak to the well being --approved well -- Borup: Yeah. There is some clarification. I guess the motion could state that -- incorporate the applicant's responses that Mr. Hood agreed with. Except for probably 15, 16, 17, and 23 were the only -- or the only ones that -- is that correct, Craig, that 15, 16 -- the ones pertaining to the well and, then, the Preliminary Plat revisions were the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 56 of 124 only ones that you had a question on. The others as stated by the applicant were agreeable. Hood: There is other -- a couple of other issues, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. There were a couple other -- condition number four, the applicant just asked for some additional language there and they did not propose any additional language. There are a couple of them like those that I would like to clarify or clean up a little bit. Borup: Okay. Do we want to discuss that right now? That question was because Idaho Power owns 13 feet of frontage between their property and the road, so how would you address -- Zaremba: Wasn't it the other way around? Idaho Power has 22 feet and the applicant is only going to landscape 13? Hood: That's correct. Yeah. They are landscaping the back half. I have some language here if you'd like or if you want to draft your own. Basically, the applicant's fear, I believe, was that we are going to make them construct a sidewalk where they didn't own property. You know, for any -- I have a -- for the portion of this site that has frontage on Locust Grove Road, construct a five foot wide concrete sidewalk. For the portion of the site near Locust Grove Road that does not have frontage, construct a portion of landscape buffer as shown on the submitted landscape plan, but not sidewalk. Borup: Okay. Now, what was the other one that you were -- Hood: Number 5 the applicant didn't propose anything. Just to delete the second sentence there in condition number five should cover his concerns. Number 12 all right with -- Zaremba: Say again on five. Delete the second sentence? Hood: Second sentence, yes. You will have to call out Ithink -- staff is all right with the changes as proposed to number 12, 14, 21, not 23, and, then, add condition 24, which I read. That's the other one that I wanted to add in about the private streets. I want to go back, I guess, to Site-Specific number five. The applicant referred to a couple of other lots that will be using common driveways. I have not seen that revised site plan, so I have a little bit of reservation just making a condition to refer to lots that I haven't seen how the common driveway works or anything like that. I trust if they are doing the same thing, that the lot and block numbers are going to have to change, because the other ones are lot and blocks. If we refer to Lots 5 and 6, what number is a common lot and, then, that throws every other lot and block numbering off in that whole block. I don't have a n i dea w ith t hem d oing a c ommon I of t here m gybe a b etter i dea i s a generic common driveway statement about frontage for lots that share a common driveway, that they don't need frontage or something like that. Like I said, without seeing the revised Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 57 of 124 plat, it's hard for me to really comment on that. Again, I don't have a problem with it, but Zaremba: Okay. On page 15, paragraph five, we could say along with making that street connection, applicant will supply new lot and block numbers for any new common driveways. Borup: In their revised Preliminary Plat? Zaremba: Yes. Does that work? Borup: Well, I had the impression the lot and block numbers weren't changing. The configuration of the lots were changing, because part of that hammerhead was disappearing, there was just going to be a curve. Hood: But they are adding a common driveway lot in there, so that throws you off at least one throughout the rest of your count in that block. Zaremba: They are making their shared driveways a common lot, so -- Hbod: So, any other reference to a lot further down the line, then, it gets thrown off and the staff report kind of gets -- Zaremba: Yeah. Borup: Okay. Yeah. Zaremba: But can we leave it vague enough to say we know they are going to do that and the lots will be renumbered? We have already said they have do a new plat. Hood: And, actually, the plat that Mr. Smith just handed me does show frontage for that and I don't see a lot number on there. Zaremba: Well, if the lot number didn't change, then, we won't even mention it. If they didn't do the common lot thing there -- Hood: So, the site plan that's -- as submitted, that just is not a lot and block, but it will have to be it by a Final Plat, so -- Borup: Okay. Zaremba: What is the name of the street that's being connected? Hood: I would call it Stampede Avenue. I believe that's what they will be addressed off of. Yeah. That -- Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I have a possible solution for you. I guess just the lots on the northwest corner of the intersection of Stampede and Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 58 of 124 Territory, rather than a lot and block, you could refer to the attached unit sharing a common driveway at the northwest corner of Stampede Avenue and Territory Court. Zaremba: Okay. I may have that worked out. Let's see. Now, did we want to add a -- let's see. Where do we mention fence. Eighteen is a detailed fencing plan and they are saying a six foot solid fence shall be required around the perimeter of the subdivision, unless the city agrees in writing that such a fence is not required. Do we want to add a sentence on the end that the applicant will work with city and -- to determine the fencing materials along the southern border? Hood: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, I guess I have some of the other concerns that -- I don't feel like -- not being on the other side of that fence, I don't know that I'm capable of taking into consideration what type of fence. I mean I have heard noncombustible, that seems to be the main issue, but for me to work with the applicant on coming up with something that appeases a third party, I don't know that I would be capable of doing that. If you want to make it a noncombustible fence, we can certainly work with the applicant on something like that. Just a design of a fence along a property line, I don't know that I could do something where I would make all 20 some homeowners happy with what design the applicant and myself came up with, so that's -- Zaremba: How about this, if we just delete the word solid. The requirement, as it states, is for a detailed fencing plan, which we still want. A six foot fence shall be required all the way around the perimeter, which is still true, whether it's vinyl or chain link or anything, if we just take the word solid out and it would still be installed in accordance with -- right? Just delete the word solid. If they want something different, then, they get the permission of the city in writing. It already says that. That leaves it up to the applicant to figure out. Am I getting a yea or a nay on that? Hood: Sorry? Zaremba: Will that work? Hood: Yeah. That's goad. Zaremba: Okay. Are we ready to move on to Conditional Use stuff? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Mr. Freckleton. Freckleton: If we are going to recommend this forward to Council, we had talked about adding a condition number 25. Zaremba: On the plat? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 59 of 124 Freckleton: Correct. I have just thrown together some wording here. If you want to modify it, feel free, but I just said until such time that additional domestic water can be supplied to the vicinity the city will not sign the Final Plat for any phases of this development. Rohm: Pretty black and white, isn't it? Zaremba: Okay. I got most of that. I have missed a couple of words right in the middle. Until such time as additional water supply can be -- Freckleton: Supplied to the vicinity, the city will not sign the Final Plat. Zaremba: The city will not sign the Final Plat. Freckleton: For any phases -- Zaremba: For any phase of this development. Freckleton: Yeah. Zaremba: Supplied in the vicinity is what I missed. Assuming I can read that again later when I get to it. Okay. Freckleton: Okay. Then, Mr. Chair, with respect to condition 15, this was the one that talked about -- Zaremba: Pressurized irrigation. Freckleton: -- being modified to allow staff the ability to either charge a reduced assessment or eliminate the assessment, depending on the value of the land needed for the well. I would, I guess, respectfully request that we just let Council deal with that one. I don't know if you -- how you feel about just leaving it the way it's worded in the staff report and let Council take it up. Borup: But I'm assuming Council would like to have some type of recommendation or proposal worked out. Freckleton: Certainly and that's your -- Borup: And that being the intention for staff to have prior to Council. Freckleton: Yeah. I would welcome that. Borup: I don't think Council wants to iron the whole thing out during the Council meeting. Zaremba: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January t6, 2004 Pg. 60 of 124 Powell: Chairman Borup? Zaremba: Just to make sure I'm in the right place, page 16, item 15, talks about the pressurized irrigation system. I don't see how that relates to the city well that we are talking about. Borup: Well, you could add it to 17, that -- the actual comment on a well is not in the -- that's -- is 17, probably, the best place for staff comment? It's referred to previously under -- under special considerations. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, the applicant's response is where it was brought up. On their page three of four, item 15, in both text down there. Their response is to the second to the last sentence I have in that comment. My comment reads: If a single point connection is utilized -- we are talking about the common areas here -- the developer shall be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the Final Plat. What they are after is just some consideration of the value of the land for the well site when we start talking about assessment fees and -- either reduce them or eliminate them to help offset that value. As I stated before, City Council is the only one that can really do anything with that. I don't have the authority to do that. Certainly, a recommendation from you would be welcome. Zaremba: So, leaving paragraph 15 the way it is, not adding their requested modification, but adding one more final sentence that says: Applicant will workout with City Council any setbacks or any offsets to these assessment fees to cover the city well that's been requested. Something like that. Freckleton: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, I think that would be fine. Any adjustments or deletions or something to that effect, that's fine. Shall be taken up with City Council. Rohm: What happens if the other proposed well site is developed and you don't end up with a well on this development at all? Zaremba: They want them both, though. Don't you want them both? Freckleton: It is our desire to have two well sites in the vicinity. If we cannot -- you know, if we can't get one here, we are going to be looking somewhere else in this vicinity. If we get a well site up on Chinden Road and Locust Grove, if we get that well drilled and activated into the system, that's going to give us more supply and it gives us more room to work. Certainly, this development could probably move forward with that one well, but the long-range plan is to have two wells up in this area. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January i6, 2004 Pg. 61 of 124 Rohm: I guess my point was -- is specific to moving forward with this development isn't necessarily that we resolve the financial impacts, because it potentially won't even come to that. That was my only point. Freckleton: Exactly. Zaremba: So, the sentence I would have is: Applicant may apply to the City Council for offset o f t hese fees -- a nd w e a re talking a bout the p ressurized i rrigation c onnection fees -- offset of these fees against a municipal well site in The Grove. Freckleton: I think that would be fine. Zaremba: Okay. Then -- okay. Are we ready to discuss the Conditional Use? Powell: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, I want to just add in one comment on the fence. I think that neither staff nor the applicant at this point would have enough of guidance from you as to what you're looking for in way of the fence. I don't know if you want a noncombustible fence or not. You might -- I'm not sure the applicant knows or even all of the homeowners. It might be appropriate to ask the applicant to try and resolve that issue prior to City Council, so that we can have some recommendation that the Final Plat I don't believe all the homeowners get notice for the Final Plat. Typically, the fence issue is decided -- or often decided, then, but these folks won't get notice of that hearing. There is an issue that needs to be worked out with the neighbors now would -- now would be the appropriate time, rather than the Final Plat. Zaremba: Well, the beginning of paragraph 18 says a detailed fencing plan will be submitted. Powell: Usually they do that with the Final Plat. Zaremba: Oh, yeah. With application of the Final Plat. That -- oh. Well, shall we change that to say prior to the next hearing? Powell: If we had some idea of, you know, what was going on, that would be better. Zaremba: A detailed fencing plan shall be submitted prior to the next hearing. Hood: Mr. Chair -- Borup: How much detail is the fencing plan? Hood: And that's what I was just going to tell you. On their submitted landscape plan, they show asix-foot solid fence all the way around this and four foot on their micropaths in accordance with City Code. I guess we will need some more -- and that is just because they know that they are going to have to show it on their Final Plat. If you want to change that to be more specific, that it's six foot chain link with slats or whatever -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 62 of 124 you know, I don't know what direction -- and that's why I didn't feel comfortable working with the applicant on coming up with something that he's 15 or 20 -- Zaremba: And I'm trying to give the applicant room to make that decision in their discussions with the neighbors. The applicant wants the opportunity to go out and eyeball the distance of the ditch from the property and make the determination, so -- but I agree, that needs to be worked out before this goes to City Council, not before Final Plat, and the City Council hearing, of course, is noticed. A detailed fencing plan shall be submitted prior to 10 days before the hearing and will specify fencing materials to be used. Borup: Okay. That's what I was going to say, that's probably the only thing that's missing now is material type. Zaremba: Because we have already said it's got to be six foot and it has to be in compliance with MCC, which the four-foot section also is. Borup: And they have gat it on their landscaping plan now. Zaremba: Y es. A detailed fencing p Ian s hall b e s ubmitted 1 0 d ays p rior to t he n ext hearing. Borup: And at this point there has been discussion perhaps chain link with slats, but there would be an opportunity for the developer to come up with something different. Zaremba: I'd just say identify materials to be used. That will get it to the hearing before the City Council. I have a lot of notes. Okay. Site-Specific conditions, Conditional Use Permit, which starts on page 22. Hood: I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba. Before you go further, I just want to make sure on the Preliminary Plat -- and Bruce added that condition -- the condition for a private street as well be added, just -- I don't know if you -- the two fingers that we talked about earlier. I don't know if anyone was writing that down in my original presentation, but that -- I would request that that be added as a condition as well and if you have Bruce's as 24 or 25, that -- Borup: Well, yeah, you have got that down as Condition 24, didn't you? Hood: And, then, Bruce's would be 25. Borup: Yes. Do you have 24 down? Zaremba: 1 do have a 2 4. Y eah. C ul-de-sacs w ithout t urnarounds w ill b e m ode i nto private streets is the way I put it. That was 24 and, then, 25 is -- Borup: In accordance with Meridian Code. Was that, essentially, what you -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Mee[ing January 15, 2004 Pg. 63 of 124 Hood: Thank you. Borup: -- in accordance with Meridian Code? Zaremba: Okay. Okay. Got that? Okay. The only mark I had had that, page 23, the -- what's actually the third bullet of paragraph two that starts on the previous page, they have agreed to construct the emergency access, right, in design and construction with emergency, so I don't really need to make any change there. Let's see if they have any comment on that. Borup: Mr. Hood, do we need to make mention of the pathway moving to the north side of the waterway? Is that -- did I understand that correctly? Hood: I don't believe you need to. It doesn't specify that the path needs to be constructed on the north or south side. Borup: That's what I thought. Zaremba: Okay. They requested that the second bullet be changed and I think we agreed with their suggestion; right? Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, they, actually, didn't have any language, but that was the one, again, that referred to a common lot, so if you still have Lots 34 and 35 of Block 2 and Lots 53 and 54 of Block 1 in the northwest corner, then, I guess iri that same bullet the last sentence needs to be removed. Zaremba: Are we talking about paragraph three? Hood: It is Site-Specific number two, bullet two. Zaremba: Okay. Hood: Last sentence in that bullet. Lots sharing common driveways shall have minimum street frontage, because those lots will not have frontage. Zaremba: Delete that sentence. Hood: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. Then on paragraph three their suggested changes were acceptable? I think we -- Hood: Yes. Zaremba: And five also. Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 64 Of 124 Rohm: Good job, Dave. Zaremba: You're leaving it to me. Rohm: Yeah. You do so well. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I'm ready to make a motion if we are ready. Mr. Chairman, I recommend we forward to the -- move that we forward -- let me start over. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 8 on o ur a genda. A Z 03-035, request for A nnexation a nd Z oning of 7 0.64 a cres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Settlement Bridge Subdivision by Capital Development. 2205 East McMillan Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of January 15th, 2004, received by the city clerk January 13, 2004, with the following changes --there are no changes to annexation. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 9 on our agenda. PP 03-041, request for a Preliminary Plat approval of 266 single family residential building lots and 34 common lots on 7.64 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Settlement Bridge Subdivision by Capital Development. 2205 East McMillan Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of January 15, 2004, received by the Clerk January 13, 2004. With the following changes beginning on Page 15, Paragraph 4, as an additional sentence added to the end. That along Locust Grove, the portion with frontage on the road, they will construct landscaping with sidewalk. The portion where a section is actually owned by Idaho Power, they will construct a portion of the landscape buffer without the sidewalk. Paragraph five on page 15. The current last sentence is deleted and we will add a sentence that says similar treatment shall be given to the lots around the northwest corner of Stampede Avenue when the two sections of Stampede are connected as required. On page 15, paragraph 12, staff comments may be modified by the comments provided by the applicant in their moment received by the city clerk January 15th, 2004. On page 1 ti, paragraph 14, they may be modified by the applicant's comment in the applicant's memo of January 15th, 2004 -- received by the clerk January 15th, 2004. Paragraph 15 will be modified as follows: A last sentence will be added that says applicant may apply to the City Council for offset of these fees against a municipal well site in The Grove. On page 17, paragraph 1 6, may be modified as requested by the applicant in the applicant's memo of January 15th, 2004. On page 17, paragraph 18, will be modified so that the first sentence reads: A detailed fencing plan shall be submitted ten days prior to the next hearing, identifying the material to be used. A six-foot -- delete the word solid -- fence shall be required and the rest of the sentence Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 65 of 124 goes on as is. Paragraph 21. Delete the portion that's in parenthesis and move the period up after the word phase. Still on page 17, we will add a paragraph 24 that says any cul-de-sac without a turnaround shall be changed to a private street in accordance with Meridian codes. We will add a paragraph 25 that says: Until, such time as additional water supply can be supplied in the vicinity, the city will not sign Final Plat for any phase of this development. There are no changes to the general requirements, so end of motion on Preliminary Plat. Rohm: I will second that. Borup: Motion and second. 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 recommending approval of Item 10 on our agenda. CUP 03-065, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development to allow single-family residential and attached single family in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Settlement Bridge Subdivision by Capital Development. 2205 East McMillan Road, to include all staff comments of their memo dated for the hearing date of January 15, 2004, received by the City Clerk January 13, 2004, with the following changes. On Page 21, at the very bottom of the page, in the discussion about cul-de-sac length, the last -- next to the last sentence as it appears on this page says the key reason for the city adopted -- the key reason the city adopted a minimum cul-de-sac length -- and that word should be maximum, not minimum, was for emergency services. Then, going to page 23, the bullet at the top of the page, which is, actually, the second bullet of paragraph two, which starts on the previous page, but the bullet on the top of page 23, the last sentence, lot sharing common driveways, that sentence can be deleted and in addition to that add wording as proposed by the applicant in their memo of January 15th, 2004. On page 23, paragraph three, can be modified as proposed by the applicant in the applicant's memo of January 15th, 2004. On Page 2 3, Paragraph 5 c an also be modified as proposed b y t he a pplicant i n t he applicant's memo of January 15, 2004. End of motion on CUP. Rohm: I will second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Well, thank you. Appreciate everyone. Would the Commissioners like to continue on or are we ready for a short break? Zaremba: A short break would be appreciated, I think. Borup: Okay. INe will take a short break at this time. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 66 of 124 (Recess.) Item 11: Public Hearing: AZ 03-028 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 7.98 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision No. 2 by Initial Point, LLC - 1295 West McMillan Road: Item 12: Public Hearing: PP 03-033 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 40 single-family building lots and 7 common lots on 7.98 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision No. 2 by Initial Point, LLC - 1295 West McMillan Road: Item 13: Public Hearing: CUP 03-059 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for reduced requirements for frontage, lot size, minimum house size and street side building setback in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision No. 2 by Initial Point, LLC - 1295 West McMillan Road: Borup: Okay. We'd like to reconvene our meeting this evening and start with the Cobblefield project. Items Number 11, 12, and 13, AZ 03-028, request for Annexation and Zoning of 7.98 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for the proposed Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision. PP 03-033, request for Preliminary Plat approval, and Public Hearing CUP 03; 059, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development on the same project and open all three hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Kirkpatrick: All right. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is an application for the Annexation and Zoning of 7.98 acres. It's currently zoned RUT in Ada County. They are proposing a Rezone to R-8. There is also an application for a Preliminary Plat for 23 single family detached lots and 16 attached single-family homes. Actually, there will be 16 lots. There is also an application for a CUP planned development to allow reduced lot sizes, reduced frontage, reduced setbacks, and reduced home sizes. I will go through and explain the location of this property. It's located approximately ahalf- mile east of the southeast intersection of McMillan and Linder, and I will put up the aerial and show you some of the surrounding land uses. McMillan Road is located directly to the north of Cobblefield 2. The phase one of Cobblefield Subdivision is located directly to the south. To the east, we have property, which is still located in the county. It's zoned RUT. To the west, we have property that's still located in the county it's rural residential and zoned RUT. I also want to point that this is an area with a fair amount of development. Baldwin Park was recently approved and it's located to the south and Paramount Subdivision is located to the north of this property. I'll put the plat up. Let's see. Probably the main issue I want to go through --and the applicant, I know, is going to address this, because there is some changes, I think, that came up relatively recently, I just found out about in the hallway. Cobblefield 2 includes a replat of Lot 1, Block 1 of Cobblefield 1. There was a space lot and in Cobblefield 1 there was a proposed -- or, actually, approved micropaths and there was workout stations. The applicant is -- and I will have to see their new version of their plat -- was proposing to reconfigure this open space lot. Part of this open space lot was going to include the