Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 15, 2004 P&Z MinutesMeridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 97 of 124 Rohm: Well -- and the applicant said that if -- stipulated they would provide, so -- and there is plenty of room to add those islands, so I don't see any reason why we don't -- I don't think we should waive it. Zaremba: Well, certainly, the shade issue -- this month it's not an issue, probably, but there are times of the year when it would be an issue. Okay. We won't do that. All right. The hearing has been closed; is that correct? Borup: Yes. Zaremba: All right. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 14 on our agenda, CUP 03-064, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for two additional buildings on one lot. We will have a total of three buildings; is that correct? Two additional buildings on one lot in an L-O zone for Capital C hristian C enter b y C apital C hristian C hurch, 2 760 E ast F airview A venue, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of July -- of January 15th, 2004, with the following changes: On page seven we will add a paragraph 16 that says we are recommending that the building heights be approved as submitted. We will add a paragraph 17 that says an engineer's study of ground water elevations shall be submitted with the building permit to consider the sanctuary occupied space at 15 feet six inches below ground level and the lower level of the pyramid entry is below ground as well. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 15: Public Hearing: AZ 03-036 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 19.7 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Salisbury Subdivision No. 2 by Earl, Mason, and Stanfield, Inc. -south of West Ustick Road and west of North Meridian Road: Item 16: Public Hearing: PP 03-042 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 72 single-family residential building lots and 2 common lots on 19.7 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Salisbury Subdivision No. 2 by Earl, Mason and Stanfield, Inc. -south of West Ustick Road and west of North Meridian Road: Borup: Thank ydu. Next item, Public Hearing AZ 03-036, request for Annexation and Zoning of 19.7 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Salisbury Subdivision No. 2 and Public Hearing PP 03-042, request for Preliminary Plat approval on the same project. As mentioned, we will open the Public Hearing at this time and maybe some input from stuff on how much you would like to go into the presentation tonight. I notice Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 98 of 124 from the staff recommendation, they recommend continuing it until we have a final report from ACRD, which I understand is coming very shortly. Then, there is also five findings that you -- that's been mentioned that you would like to have resolved also and I'm not sure the progress on the resolution of those findings. Mr. Hawkins-Clark, do you want to -- Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, I -- as far as the ACHD report, we did just receive a draft one today, so I guess it's really up to the Commission on that. If you want to just rely on staff to basically tell you what their report says -you know, when we submitted our staff report, the assumption was that we weren't going to get that, but it, essentially, is final from them. It's stamped draft, but I was told by Andrea Tuning, their staff planner over there, that it basically is final, so I - you know, certainly we are open, if you want--if you wantmetojusttouchonthe highlights and just take testimony and -- I think that probably there are enough key issues that it would be worth waiting. We were given two options by the applicant, two different -- Option A and Option B, which are largely identical, except for a stub street issue, so, you know -- but I think there probably are enough issues to warrant, you know, some -- foreseeing that it would continued and we could go into more detail at your next meeting. Borup: How about the other findings? Are they all -- were those some of the options you were talking about was under findings A, E, and J and A and D? Hawkins-Clark: Right. Yeah. We had -- I mean I think those would all get discussion as a part of the hearing. Borup: But those are not resolved at this point? Hawkins-Clark: Right. Well, those are largely just going to be, I think, the Commission's decision. I mean I don't know if there is really much resolution. We got a written response from the applicant and, as you could tell, they are in substantial agreement with what staffs recommended conditions are. There is only, you know, two or three issues on that, so I think -- Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Brad? Hawkins-Clark: Sorry. Zaremba: Did you see -- we don't have the ACHD report, of course, but did you see anything in the draft that you got that would lead you to believe that the plat needs to be majorly revised? Hawkins-Clark: Well, there is one issue and that is that the Ada County Highway District is -- has a condition that is requiring them to provide a new stub street that is not shown Meddian Planning and Zoning Commission Meetlng January 15, 2004 Pg. 99 of 124 on either Option A or Option B. It's not a recommendation to the City of Meridian, it's, and actually, a condition that ACHD is putting on them. Zaremba: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: They are saying that it would not go to ACHD commission for a Public Hearing, so I think the public here tonight should be aware of that, too. I mean they are just -- this is ACHD's staff level approval, because they think that it's all policy and there is nothing that varies from ACHD policy, therefore, they don't require a Public Hearing, So, I think some of that is up to the applicant to tell us tonight if they intend to oppose ACHD's condition for a stub street, then, obviously, that would mean you would want to continue this hearing. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Borup: So, I don't know if we have resolved how we want to continue with a full staff report at this time or -- Hawkins-Clark: We have a two and a half hour presentation ready. I'm just kidding. Borup: Well -- Zaremba: I'm suspecting that there -- I think the next question is for the applicant, because if the applicant is going to agree with ACHD's requirements, we need to see a new plat anyhow, and staff needs the opportunity to make a new recommendation sheet. Hawkins-Clark: Right. Yes. I think because of the public interest we want to make that available for a certain amount of time for them to have access to that revised drawing. Zaremba: So, if -- the question of the applicant, I think, is the next question, rather than having staffing go through a presentation. If the applicant is going to go challenge it, we need to continue it until that's resolved. If the applicant isn't going to challenge it, we need to continue it until we have seen a new plat and staff's remarks. Borup: So, it sounds like it may be appropriate to start with the applicant first, unless there is something else that you feel that you would want to bring up -- bring out before they came up. Hawkins-Clark: I think that's --that's fine. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Comfortable for me. Borup: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 100 of 124 Stanfield: Good evening, Commissioners. Scott Stanfield with Earl, Mason & Stanfield Engineering out of Caldwell, Idaho. We are the project engineers for this project. Chairman Borup, Commissioner Zaremba, you're correct, I'm stuck in the middle, so, regardless, we are going to keep going. I don't have the answer to that right now. It's a moot point, because no matter what my answer is, we have to keep going beyond tonight, but I will give you a little history. To my knowledge, short of any additional public testimony from the audience you may hear tonight, there is really only one outstanding issue and that is the City of Meridian wants a stub street to the west to Venable Lane, which is a 40 foot private strip of land owned by Mr. Venable in fee simple and it's designated as a collector road. Mr. Venable doesn't own any other parcels in the area and the adjoining landowners don't even own it. ACHD's contention is how is a collector ever going to get built on that little quarter mile stretch, period, when the adjacent landowners don't even own that strip. So, ACHD's emphatic about they do not want the stub going to Venable. The City of Meridian staff is just as strongly wanting the stub street. I'm stuck in the middle. I don't care if we -- where the stub street goes, to be honest with you. ACHD wanted a stub road to the north, in lieu of the stub road to Venable to the west. That's where the northerly stub road came from, to get to the city's future commercial neighborhood center. I'm kind of in a quandary here as to what to do, but, you're correct, the dilemma goes both ways. Zaremba: We can ask staff, but my assumption is that staff is concerned that even at the beginning of the building process there be a second access, other than Salisbury Lane, to this project and the most logical is Venable. If you can supply another second access -- Borup: There are two accesses now Zaremba: Well, Salisbury is the only one that's built. A roadway exists there through an existing subdivision. Borup: Oh, you're talking about Sedgewick. Zaremba: Sedgewick. I'm sorry. Sedgewick. Stanfield: Chairman Borup? Commissioner Zaremba? Borup: Yes. Indian Rocks isn't in yet, is it? Stanfield: Correct. Indian Rocks isn't in yet and there are a maximum number of lots that we could funnel through to the northeast approach. It's my understanding that they are into DEO and Mr. Freckleton may even know more of that status. Put him on the spot. I think they have been through the city's process, but they are -- they have indicated to us they are going to build this year and real soon there will be two accesses going to the east. In the event that miraculously we get on board before then, there is a cap number of building permits that we could get off that one access and I believe that Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 101 of 124 would be 50 lots, according to ACRD. Ultimately, we assume there will be two. There are two approved collector streets that stub to this. I'm going to add that on the one through Indian Rocks -- and I believe the project name is Clearbrook Subdivision. I can't remember. The street is Indian Rocks in the southeast corner. The Preliminary Plat -- excuse me -the Final Plat for that subdivision doesn't even go to our west boundary. Years ago when Lansbury and Salisbury were developed, apparently, the landowners got into a squabble, and he reserved a 30-foot strip north to south to block access. This project is split into two parcels, one north, and one south, roughly in the middle. He was upset that the previous landowner put a strip access there to land lock him and he truly was landlocked until. about a week ago, until my client, the developer, who owns both of these parcels finally came to an agreement and paid a rather large sum of money for that 30 foot strip. That Preliminary Plat you see there, he went ahead and purchased ii to punch the street through. That's kind of the history behind the southeast. The original application did not even have that, because it looked as it that agreement would never come to fruition, but it is now and that's why you see that little stub to the southeast and those iwo little common lots sucked in. Zaremba: Let me reconfirm with staff. Is Venable a make or break matter or is just a second access during the construction process the -- Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, Commissioner Zaremba, for us it is very important. I mean the two big reasons. One, ACHD -- the 2025 functional classification map that's been a dopted by t he highway d istrict, a ctually s hows V enable a s a n urban collector. You have a map that's been adopted by the two main transportation agencies in the valley that says a collector or should be there, as well as we have on our Comprehensive Plan a future neighborhood center that's immediately north of this and I think an urban collector serves the neighborhood center better and that you don't have front-on housing and it, you know, can care more traffic and it better serves as a signal in the future on Ustick and Venable. Zaremba: And I think you indicated in your notes that this is the halfway point in this mile section. Hawkins-Clark: Right. Zaremba: That Venable is. Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. It lines up with Venable -- more or less lines up with Venable on the north of Ustick as well, which was recently approved for Cedar Springs Subdivision. So -- and there is also an elementary school there. I think for us it's pretty -- you know, it's pretty important. We see it as -- now Idon't -- when I say that, I think that the way that the applicant has showed it, that this Claire stub street - I think we could all agree that it wouldn't be necessary to continue Venable to their south boundary, since the stub street that comes up from Waterbury Subdivision is about 550 feet over to the west. There will -- ultimately, the Waterbury stub will come up, will cross the South Slough, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meetlng January 15, 2004 Pg. 102 of 124 and, then, will somehow come and hook up with Venable at this point. So -- but there are still five buildable lots that are impacted. Borup: But you're saying at this point this design answers the concerns? The design they have here. Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. It doesn't -- Borup: As much as the applicant can do. Hawkins-Clark: As much as they have control over. Correct. Correct. I think, you know, Mr. Stanfield's point that they don't own it today and it would be an off-site improvement that really would do. 1 think it's -they have provided for a ten foot landscape buffer along an urban collector and that much they have provided for. Zaremba: And assuming the future right of way of that collector, they would not need to give up any right of way or the applicant to the west would have to -- Hawkins-Clark: Correct. I think it would -- it would involved a pretty substantial shift of the Flack Drain, which runs north and south. It's fairly deep. Because ACHD will not accept a collector unless it meets their minimum 60 -- I think it's 60 feet of right of way and this only has 40. It would involve this subdivision giving up on those five lots about 20 feet. More than what they are showing. In a sense it impacts it, but -- Stanfield: Chairman Borup? Borup: Yes. Go ahead. Stanfield: I'd like to expound on that regarding the construction traffic. The parcels in this area have used Venable Lane for ingress and egress and there are documents in place to use that for ingress and egress, providing that it's maintained. The construction vehicles, again, providingthat they are maintained, probably have a right to use that. They'd have to watch dust control and make sure the gravel is graded and they don't tear it up and leave the access open for the continuing use of the neighbors out there, so I don't see that being a problem and long term we would put a -- probably a set of bollards across that stub, too, because you don't want the neighborhood using that. I mean that would really upset the homeowners to the west and to the north. We have blocked that o ff a nd,then, i f s omething a ver h appens t o t he F lack D rain o r V enable sells it or something happens to it, then, those bollards could be removed. We have tried to address everything we can in our power. The Flack Drain actually has a right of way that goes just about to our boundary it's a deeded right of way. It's an actual metes and bounds description and it's right on top of Venable's ground that he owns. There is all -- t here a re all k finds of a ncumbrances t here. We have t ried to a ccommodate as much as we could on our side of the boundary and if the stub street has got to be there, obviously, we are not protesting. We show it there. We'd just leave it to the city to decide, to be honest with you. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 103 of 124 Hawkins-Clark: If I could just add to that, that I -- my understanding is that ACHD is not objecting to the stub street now, they are just saying that they want bollards put up so that vehicles can't get out there. They -- is that correct; Scott? It's not an in-lieu-of situation. Stanfield: Correct. tt's not in lieu of, but I think they don't want that public right of way, Claire Street, to be public right of way. I think I read that in Andrea's staff report, that they don't want that to be public right of way, but they did go on later to say that put bollards across there. That's what we had proposed to do and go ahead and make it public right of way. Zaremba: So, you'd use it for construction traffic and, then, once the infrastructure and roadway is built you would put the bollards? Stanfield: Correct. Correct. I -- personally, my engineering tells me that it's -- honestly, even though we concur to show it, it's a waste. To the north of there you're only a quarter mile for a neighborhood collector that doesn't go anywhere to the south, so what's it really collecting. You know, the city has it's reasons and I'm not going to really second guess that, so -- so, with that, that's where we are at today. Borup: Any additional issues we'd like to cover with Mr. Stanfield? Zaremba: Not at the moment. Stanfield: Yeah. I'll jump in and I'll just make it quick, because these people here aren't here to plaud me on and applaud my efforts, but I'll just keep going real quick. The Comp Plan is eight units per acre in this area, because of the neighborhood center to the north. We are at 3.65. The minimum the Comp Plan really wants out here is three, for obvious reasons. Why didn't the developer go higher, then; we'd probably have twice as many people in here that don't want this. He felt that he'd take it as low as he can and keep the density as low as he can, but yet, have good economics with the project. We ended up with 71 lots in a 3.65 single family versus up to eight units per acre in multi-family, which you can do in this neighborhood commercial area. That's why we tried to keep it as low as we could. The parcels are landlocked, as you could tell. Two access points. We used to have one as I discussed, but he successfully obtained the purchase of the little 30 foot wide strip there, so now that we have the two accesses, we can comply with the comp plan in Chapter 6, I think it is, regarding the interconnection and the connections to the surrounding neighborhoods, so we feel we comply with that. Furthermore, in Chapter 6 it wants the traffic spread out, so at least with the two of them we successfully followed Chapter 6. What does the city gain out of this? A couple things. We are getting closer to a neighborhood center and I don't know if the City of .Meridian has seen a neighborhood center yet, but we are getting closer to one now with this annexation and this Preliminary Plat. We will continue the public pathway to the south, on the north side of the South Slough, that trail system will extend all along our south boundary east to west, connecting to the one to the east that will be built, so the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 104 of 124 city is getting closer to their trail goal, plus we will have the pathway going to the north to connect to the future neighborhood center and a continuation, who knows, that may end up being a full blown stub street. Again, getting to the neighborhood center. That's some of the benefits the city's going to see and I think in the staff report there was some questions about storm water and what we planned there and I don't know if you care to get into that tonight, but if you have questions on our detail we have in the upper right I can answer that, if you have any concerns there. With that, that's all I will wrap it up tonight with. My wife's wondering where I'm at. Borup: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you. Okay. We are assuming that a lot of you here are to put forth some of your feelings, so we'd like to open up the Public Hearing, unless -- do we have -- and because of the time -- Zaremba: A spokesman? Borup: That's what I'm trying to say. It's getting late. What we have done in the past, rather than limiting everybody to three minutes, if we have a spokesman representing the group, then, we have got pretty much unlimited time, so is he speaking -- is there anybody in here that he's not speaking for? Okay. Snodgrass: Thank you very much, Members of the Commission. My name is Mark Snodgrass, I'm a member of the Salisbury Subdivision. I live at 405 West Sedgewick Lane towards the very end of the subdivision and as a neighborhood resident and as a spokesman for the subdivision, we do have some considerable concerns about the project and our original concern is many of the homes that are in adjacent neighborhoods, the density is one issue that we are really really concerned about as far as resale of our properties at a later time. The density of our subdivision I believe at this point in time is approximately 2.8 versus the 3.65 homes per acre that is being suggested by this proposal. Also, not only do we have our subdivision at that 2.8, but the Lansbury Subdivision is also of a similar density and is zoned as our subdivision is at R-4, rather than R-8. The original plan by the developer only provided for one entry and one exit into the proposed subdivision and so I feel that there really is economics that is behind this in that, you know, I believe that we want to create neighborhoods that are user friendly and that not only benefit those people that are soon to be homeowners in that area, but not at the expense of those people who are existing homeowners. We are a little bit concerned about -- Borup: Do you see that they do have two -- they have taken care of the second access now? Snodgrass; Yes, they have. We -- I would like to congratulate them for that. I believe that had something to do with the fire code, rather than any kind of input that we had, but we appreciate that that was something that they did, because it did actually decrease our amount of traffic. The storm drain system that is proposed is potentially a little bit different. It is not consistent with what we have in the neighborhoods in that area and so we are a little bit concerned with that. The notification -- this is perhaps maybe a Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 105 of 124 little bit different issue, but the notification for this area I think was something that impacts a neighborhood so significantly, I think that the 300 foot notification of that is, actually, kind of deplorable, that the applicant has -- rather than, taking the time to seek out those people that they are impacting in a very very serious way with the original proposal, chose to do the very minimum and I think that that's pretty difficult. Borup: And do you realize there were three methods of notification? Snodgrass: Yes, I believe that there is -- well, perhaps you could tell me a little bit more about -- Borup: Well, one is a letter mailing to those within --and there has to be some boundary set, so that's the 300 feet. The other is the sign that the property is posted and, then, there is notification in the paper also. Snodgrass: Right. I believe, Mr. Commissioner, I believe I didn't see anything in the newspaper, but, of course, I haven't been looking too much at that. The property is, essentially, landlocked and there is no notification on it at the end of our stub street for that process and so I believe that they have probably went with that third alternative of notifying those homeowners within 300 feet of the project. Borup: No. There is -- Rohm: It should be singed. Snodgrass: A sign on the property? We don't really have any access visually to that kind of sign, because there is -it's, essentially, landlocked. Borup: Where was the sign posted, do we know? Hawkins-Clark: If we could have the applicant address -- the stub street -- Sedgewick should have been signed. Stanfield: Excuse me. We will just jump in here? Borup: Yes. Stanfield: Well, that was a duty assigned to the developer and he signed an affidavit saying that he would do that and I warned him about 20 days ago that he had to do that, so --and Mr. Snodgrass is correct, there are -- visually where would you put such a sign and for-- Borup: Other than at the end of the -- Stanfield: Well, then, the neighbors to the north and the neighbors to the west wouldn't see it, so that's about all I can add there. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 75, 2004 Pg. 106 of 124 Borup: So, we don't know whether it was posted or not? Stanfield: That's a very good question. Borup: Okay. Stanfield: And the developer, he's in Europe and everything, and I constantly try to remind him to do these things and -- Borup: Okay. Well, that may --that may be a moot -- Stanfield: Yeah. Zaremba: To clarify the subject of notice, it's not a choice among those three, it's all three. Snodgrass: Oh, it's all there. Zaremba: So, all three have to be done. Snodgrass: Okay. Well, that makes sense. Zaremba: And I might make a suggestion that the 300-foot notice requirement is from state law. Borup: Right. Borup: One of the reasons we -- we, a lot of the time assume that if you catch that many people, they are going to let their neighbors know, and it looks like that worked. Snodgrass: And we do have a -- we do have a very active homeowners association and, obviously, people that want to stay out here until nearly 1:00 o'clock in the morning to protect their subdivision. Makes sense. Borup: Ahd that may be the only thing that may be worthwhile to -well, I'm not sure how the city would do it. I was going to say in addition to notice in 300 feet that the homeowners association ought to be notified, but -- and I think the city could do that if we knew who that was. I don't know the best way to do that. Zaremba: I don't think we do. Sodgrass: That's a good recommendation. Borup: Whatever the mechanism to do that. Continue on, Mr. Snodgrass. Meddian Planning and Zoning Commissian Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg, 107 of 124 Snodgrass: Thank you very much, Mr. Commissioner. The new plan by the developer will still -- will still, essentially, turn what we have found to be a fairly quiet neighborhood into a busy street, even with the improved plan that they have with two access points into a street that perhaps will add 350 to 450 additional car trips per day to our subdivision. Higher traffic, of course, is going to make it more difficult for us to get the value out of our homes and we feel that one of the reasons that we purchased into this neighborhood is because we felt strongly about having a neighborhood that was good for our families, good for our children, good for us to be able to walk and do those things. It's important to know that because of the stub streets and the way that our subdivision is built, I think that we have the idea that there would, at some point in time, be some future -- future development and that it was going to happen at some point in time, but I'm not -- Borup: But isn't there a sign posted on some street stating that? Snodgrass: Actually, there is no sign at this point in time. Borup: Maybe that's a newer requirement. Snodgrass: I think it is from when the subdivision was developed, but, you know, even though we could see that there was perhaps going to be some development in the future, I'm not sure that we were really anticipating that we would be servicing, you know, upwards of 50 to 70 different homes down our street and for those people who are purchasing who already live there, we don't really have the opportunity now to choose whether or not, so what we have tried to do is figure out a way for us to perhaps modify this plan. I know that the proposal that Mr. Stanfield presented was one that had, you know, some good concessions to it. If it's possible that they might be able to put up the plan that we have. Sorry. That might be good. What we are proposing is something that addresses most of the issues that we have with that. One of the other things that I would like to add is that in this area and as a real estate professional in this area and others, I believe, that are in the audience that are also real estate people, it's very very odd to see a subdivision development that has a reverse density pattern to where you have larger homes sites of less density towards the outside of the subdivision with more entry level homes of a greater compaction, greater density towards the inside. There are a few subdivisions that I know of that have that pattern and, unfortunately, the home values of those people with the larger homes towards the outside tend to be impacted in a pretty significant way. Typically, if you take a look at most of the subdivisions, that are designed and developed as full subdivisions, they will put most of the smaller homes towards the outside, towards, you know, the more traveled areas and they put the larger homes of less density towards the center where it's, obviously, more desirable to live, because there is less traffic and less situations, noise, and so on and so forth. It's great for us to come here and say that we oppose this program, but I think that we have a plan that is really workable, that addresses some of these issues, instead of just coming here to complain, we kind of put ourselves together and decided that we would maybe want to steer this vessel to a new direction, rather than try and stop it in its tracks, because progress is a difficult thing to stop. The first thing that we would perhaps put in Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 108 of 124 our proposal was that we would like to see the density decreased, at least, if possible, to a density that's more consistent with the neighboring subdivisions, which I think is important. Borup: And do you know what -- oh, you said yours was 2.8. Snodgrass: Yes. We would also like to reconfigure the existing subdivision to put some of 'the traffic more onto Indian Rocks Street and, basically, we would provide also an alternative to Kelsey Way with a stub street that would access to the north of Kelsey Way on the plan there. The added traffic -- Indian Rocks Street is perhaps a factor that some people would be looking as perhaps a negative, but because it is a new subdivision with no homes there currently, the people who are looking at moving into that subdivision have the opportunity to make a decision, knowing that there would be increased traffic flow, rather than impacting people who have already purchased their homes and, then, are subject to -- subjected to those greater amounts of traffic. That was a luxury, obviously, that was not afforded to the existing homeowners at this point in time. Also, with the stub street that would be put on Kelsey Way to the north, once that northern portion of eight acres was developed it would seem reasonable that they would probably pull that all the way out to Ustick Road and, then, you have a subdivision that is, essentially, landlocked, but that would provide, essentially, almost a one-third to one-third to one-third access point for each of those people in the neighborhood to access once that land is developed. We would also -- are very concerned with our subdivision at Venable Lane or Indian Rock Street be defined as a construction entrance into the new subdivision. Obviously, if they are building a subdivision on Indian Rock Street and there is very few people that are there; we'd like to see that as a primary entrance to the subdivision and even more likely if we could do something with Venable Lane for the construction entrance, that would be great. We'd like to see a few other things in our proposal. That Sedgewick Lane entrance be - continue to be closed until 50 percent of the homes on Spicewood Way would be built, closed, and occupied. We would like to see a minimum of disruption to the people in our subdivision and -- Borup: When you say closed, do you mean closed to all traffic? Snodgrass: No. No. Just during the period of time that they would be -- Borup: Construction traffic. Snodgrass: Construction -- well, actually, we would prefer that this -- that that road for our subdivision would be closed to all traffic until the infrastructure is in and 50 percent of the homes just on Spicewood would be built and occupied. That would mean that the sole -- or dual construction entrance would be either Venable Lane or on Indian Rocks Road, w hich w ould c urrently a Iso b e h andling c onstruction o f t hat s ubd ivision a t t hat time. Borup: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 109 of 124 Snodgrass: You know, these are just proposals, you know. Okay. Thank you. Actually, what we are -- what we are hoping to do -- and as we look at this, if we could T this street off from Sedgewick -- we are trying to make our neighborhood as user friendly as we can and this rendition is something that, essentially, continues to give, I believe, 71 lots to the proposed person -- to the person who is developing this. This section here is really the section that we have modified. The rest of it and all the work and money that they put into the design of these features and the sewer system would not be lost. It's something we are not asking for a complete redesign, but this northern street up here on Kelsey Way is something that, I believe, addresses the problem for the additional stub street that ACHD is looking at. That would also eliminate, perhaps, the possibility of actually stubbing out the Venable Lane, if that is something that is desired. Our main focus here is that by Ting this street off and this existing sub on the original drawing here, we are actually going to end up servicing these 18 to 20 homes through our subdivision, rather than pretty much, you know, anywhere from -- you know, up to as many as 70 homes and probably as few as probably 30 homes. I .think that that would really help our neighborhood and I think that we would probably be amenable to something like this without really impacting what's going on very s ignificantly. There was a discussion, Mr. Stanfield and I, about whether or not we would be able to have this many homes collected without a second access point. There was 46 lots in this area here up to this point here, so I believe that in talking with the planners they said that 50 homes for a single access would still meet that requirement and they would still have perhaps four lots that they could play with, if they wanted to adjust that density in some say. That is, I believe, our proposal. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Zaremba: Well, all of the points are good. One of the points strikes a very valid point. We do have the requirement that densities be closer to the transportation corridors, which is why you generally don't see the density in the middle of the mile squares -- Borup: Correct. Zaremba: -- they are out closer to the major arterials and that's a very important point to be considered in this. It almost would make sense that this subdivision should be R-4. Snodgrass: And that this our contention and I know that -- I'm sorry. Go ahead. Zaremba: No. I was just agreeing with you. Snodgrass: And I think that in talking with Mr. Stanfield, I think that, you know, basically, by the way that this was brought about, we are looking at putting in a subdivision with 65 foot frontage on each lot, typically, we are looking at homes that are much smaller in size and scope than the homes that are in either of the two subdivisions that are here to the -- I guess it would be to the east of the subdivision and we are concerned about that as homeowners that want to retain the value of our property, along with a neighborhood Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 110 of 124 that is relatively friendly. We would like to see, you know, a density that would be more consistent with a neighborhood. Unfortunately, it sounds as if Mr. Stanfield and his client are perhaps more interested in the economics behind developing the property and packing as many people into there as they can, based on the frontage and the square footage of the homes. I know economics plays a big part of developing property. I feel pretty confident as a real estate agent that there are enough people in this area, just as homeowners like ourselves who bought into an area that was at 2.8 density, that those homes can be sold and that it can be a profitable venture, otherwise, you wouldn't have seen these subdivisions here being developed the way that they have and being sold out fairly quickly. Borup: Okay. Maybe just a couple comments on that. I was around when your subdivision developed and about half of your arguments are the same thing that the neighbors in Lansbury Lane had to say. They didn't want your subdivision coming in, because it was going to decrease property values, cause traffic through their neighborhood, et cetera, et cetera. They didn't like these smaller lots and smaller homes as they were saying. I mean they had some pretty strong things to say. That's normal. The other thing, I think, of part of why those two subdivisions were developed as they were is because of the size of the property. There wasn't a lot you could do, other than a street down the middle, and' so the lots are a little larger because of that. Your subdivision did some of the cul-de-sacs, which decreased some of the lot sizes from what Lansbury did. Snodgrass: Right. Borup: And so it's not -- I mean the sizes -- the density has had a tendency to decrease as it's gone. I mean yours is less than Lansbury and this one seems to be a little less than yours. Whether that's the best use or not, I'm not saying that, but I'm just stating that's the way it's happened. Snodgrass: And perhaps I believe when I did the check on our subdivision we are at around 2.8. I'm not sure what it is typically in Lansbury. I think it would be -- when you look at the actual plat, it's still yet fairly consistent RUT zoning, which is similar to ours and I know that everybody -- you know, we feel pretty strongly that we don't want to be the kind of people that say, you know, growth is not something that we want in our backyard and it's never going to happen. I think that we understand that progress does occur. I think that we just want to make sure that the progress that does occur is consistent with the kind of homes that we have and that fits that density pattern that I think is more desirable for subdivisions. Borup: It looks like what you propose you say it's really only reduced one lot? It's 71? Snodgrass: That is correct. I believe that what we have here is Block 1 -let me see where I have got t hat here. Block 1 u p h ere is retained at eight I ots. Block 2 in the middle is retained. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 111 of 124 Borup: Yeah. That looks like that stayed the same. Snodgrass: Block 3 changed and now -- actually, I believe that they have that as two separate lots, but t hat is now 25 lots. Lot 4 here is retained. T hen, L of 5 a Iso was changed a little bit, I believe to -- oh, let me think here. Borup: One lot was reduced there it looks like. Snodgrass: Yes. The one thing that occurred here by them adding this road is they ended up adding another there, so that was a -- kind of a boon to them a s well by moving this. On the original plat that we had seen, this was 11 lots and now they have, I believe, 12 there on the existing plat on their revised plan: They gained -- they did gain a lot there. Borup: Okay. Any other questions from the Commissioners? Snodgrass: Thank you for your time. Borup: Okay. Thank you. You, sir, you said you had a different issue, so come on up. Simunich: My name is Joe Simunich. I live at 955 West Ustick Road. I own property just to the west of this proposed subdivision. If the -- if you could give me back the original. That's good for right now. If you look to the west of that subdivision you see a line there, that's a property line. That's a proposed road that they proposed to the west, if it's in the location that they have it now, you would come within about 20 or 30 feet of that property line. Therefore, if that road would be extended, it would be difficult to get use out of that property. That -- if they would just change that lot -- move one lot up and put the road a little bit farther south, then, there would be no problem with that. Does that make sense to you? Zaremba: Let me see if I understand what you're saying. Their stub street that is going west from their property -- Simunich: Yes. Zaremba: -- your preference would be that it be moved a little farther south -- Simunich: Yes. Zaremba: -- so that it's more centered on this piece of property? Borup: Is this your property here, Joe? Simunich: Pardon? Borup: Up here. Upfront. On the map. On the map there, this is your property here? Meddian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 112 of 124 Simunich: Yes. Borup: Okay. This is --and this is someone else's property to the north of you? Simunich: Well, that's mine, too, but it's somebody else's. Oh, the other one is somebody else's and that one is mine. Two different owners, same family. I don't know when they will develop -- Borup: Okay. Iwas -- up here. Simunich: Okay. Borup: So, you're saying that this stub street right now is coming in about right here? Simunich: No. It's lower. Right about there. Borup: I thought you said you wanted to go to the south? Simunich: Yes. That would be south. Lower. Borup: You want it clear down here? Simunich: If you would just change -- if you would look at your plat there and just move the -- move the road one lot farther south. Zaremba: So, essentially, the road would be like 70 or 75 feet south of where it is proposed naw? Simunich: Yes. Plus the 40 feet would give you 100-foot. lot depth there for future development. Borup: Would that still connect to Venable Lane? Simunich: Pardon? Borup: Would it still connect to Venable? Simunich: Yes. It would connect if the county required it. Borup: Right. Yeah. Simunich: If that's required, if they don't require that street, that's fine with me also. Borup: Well,theyaregoingto--more than likely they are going to require it if your property is ever developed. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 113 of 124 Simunich: Well, several years ago Mayor Kingsford wrote me a letter and said 8th Street should continue through there. Mr. Yorgason came in, put in a subdivision, and used that right of way for housing. Somebody drop the ball before I got here. Borup: Well, Mr. Kingsford didn't work for ACHD, I guess, is part of the problem. Okay. Simunich: But to that, I don't know why anybody would want to rebuild Venable Lane to a high standard. It's not going to serve that much -- that many people. Borup: So, when you develop your property, you would say you would put a different road in? Simunich: Well, I imagine when my property develops it would come in from Ustick Road. Borup: And you would do all new streets, rather than use Venable? Simunich: Right and abandon Venable Lane. It's got two or three owners. I have got deeds here from I think 1909, if you'd like to see them. Borup: On Venable? Simunich: Yes. Borup: Okay. Simunich: That's the only problem I had, if they could move that road one lot south, I have no problem with that. If they don't build it, that's fine also. Next consideration is the irrigation. Through the middle of that property that's going to be developed, that's the irrigation ditch. It's a raised ditch and maybe some of you people understand what that means, that the water that flows through there is higher than the ground. If a gopher drills a hole or something, the water runs out. It will have to be put in a pipe, a pressurized pipe in order to go from the place where it enters that property to where it comes out on Venable Lane. Borup: And that's already a staff condition. Simunich: Pardon? Borup: That's already a staff condition. That's already a condition. I believe. It normally is. I have a tendency to just look over those, but -- so they are piping that already. Simunich: Yes, but bywhat type construction, what type pipe? Because that shows them wandering around in the front of the lots, it's going to take about 13 concrete boxes that will be up approximately three feet in the front yards. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commlasion Mee0ng January 15, 2004 Pg. 114 of 124 Borup: Well, I don't think it's going to be a raised ditch anymore. Simunich: No, it will be an underground ditch, but it will have pressure on it. Borup: Yes. Simunich: So, the boxes will have to be up -- Borup: Oh, I see what you're saying. Simunich: -- high enough and there is 13 of them and it will be in the front yards of some of those homes. Borup: Okay. We will see if we can get some clarification on that from Mr. Stanfield. Simunich: And the type of material used would be very important. Borup: Okay. Simunich: It should be class three reinforced gasketed concrete pipe with poured in place concrete boxes, because if that leaks, it will be a considerable problem, because there is no way to shut that water off, unless they shut it of at Locust Grove Road. Borup: All right. We will get some answers on that. Simunich: I'd like to see the plan on the irrigation prior to approval of Final Plat. Borup: Thank you, sir. Okay. Mr. Stanfield, comments on -- Stanfield: I'll make this really brief. Borup: Well, yes, first of all -- yes. You have got a copy of the proposed -- Stanfield: Yes. Borup: -- new design that --that doesn't look that unreasonable to me. Stanfield: No, it doesn't to me either. I think the highway district would -- it's going to be a tough sell to the highway district. Borup: W here was it they wanted that stub street to the north to be? Stanfield: No, that's not a problem. That's -- Borup: Oh. That part works for you? Meridian Planning and Zoning Camndssion Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 115 of 124 Stanfield: Yeah. That part works. It's the disconnect between -- I don't know what they are going to say. They may not like it. They may -- and we might be three lots short on this and Mr. Snodgrass was kind enough to give this to me the other day and the developer, like I said, one day he's in Europe, the next day he's in Washington D.C. Then, an hour later he's in Atlanta, so he's really hard to pin down. I will still go over this with him. I just -- I'm concerned with the highway district eliminating that stub and forcing the traffic tendencies to go to Indian Rocks. It's - in fact, if he wants to, he can come and work forme. It's a pretty good layout. With that - Borup: So, it maybe could be -- if the -- well, and they understand that you got to sell that -- I mean the highway district has to sign off on that. Stanfield: Correct. Correct. I mean it's pretty clear we are not -- we are not, going to make a recommendation tonight, so I can definitely work on that. Regarding -- Borup: So, another compromise may be is a similar type of design that would send more traffic to Indian Rocks, if they had a problem with this as it is. Stanfield: Correct. Yeah. We can work on something. Regarding the density, the comment was made about you're higher density should be on your larger roads, your mile roads. That's true, but the fallacy it that thought here is the neighborhood center that the city's Comprehensive Plan designated. Well, in fact, it encompasses the north portion of this property. With that neighborhood center -- in fact, that argument was made by everybody against the city's wishes where they wanted a lot of the neighborhood centers. They wanted them in the mile roads and that's not where a lot of them happened, particularly this one. The problem now becomes the city's designated neighborhood center there -which am I to second-guess that and, then, come in with something R-4 or less right here. I can bet when the developer to the north goes, the city is going to want to see their neighborhood center, because staff and the city worked very hard to get that. Well, do you think these R-4 or less than R-4 people are going to want multi-family or R-8 or a neighborhood center right behind their fence line? So, you have to create some kind of transitional zone between Waterbury, Salisbury, Lansbury, toward that neighborhood center. That pattern has already been established because of that neighborhood center. Your argument is true, but not in this location. Again, we tried to scale that down. Obviously, there is no way we wanted to go in with an R-8 into this, because that -- the developerjust wasn't comfortable with that. Try to get as low as we can. W e will definitely look at this layout. Let me just jump in on some of the requests real quick. I probably won't catch them all, because I really want to go home. Borup: Well, another comments -- well, go ahead. You will probably cover it and I will mention it if you don't. Stanfield: I encouraged the developer to get with all the neighbors ahead of time, because that's always a good idea. Again, his schedule just -- I don't know what he Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission MeeCing January 15, 2004 Pg. 116 of 124 does for a living. I hate to say that. He's on the move constantly. Let me just jump down here. You're correct, Chairman -- Zaremba: Excuse me. Clarify, if you would. Was there any kind of a neighborhood meeting or -- Stanfield; No, there was not. Zaremba: Okay. Stanfield: He literally, thanks to wireless e-mails, that's how I'm able to communicate with him. He's just -- I don't know, maybe he works for the government. He's all over the place. There was a comment Mr. Snodgrass made about blocking of Spicewood and using I ndian Rocks. That's a novel concept, but that really holds us to I ndian Rocks being built and, furthermore, being accepted by the highway district and I really don't like that condition because of that. W e can direct the construction traffic elsewhere, don't get me wrong, but holding, you know, until final occupancy, that's going to affect marketing, people looking at the lots. What if Indian Rocks isn't paved for some reason? Or if they stop short of paving it -- that just puts us in a quandary. The rest of the stuff you had to say made sense. Borup: Any comment on the storm drains? Stanfield: Yes. Then, let me address Mr. Zaremba's question. The storm drain -- ACHD hoped to adopt this -- this layout that I have in my upper right-hand corner of the Preliminary P lat i n N ovember, now i t l ooks like t hey a re g oing t o a dopt i t t his m uch. ACHD has successfully worked with DEQ and made DEQ realize that a lot of areas in the towns have high groundwater and there has got to be a way to make them work and this was a solution that actually ACHD and another developer came up with in a county subdivision and there may be one in Eagle that's going -- Borup: Isn't there one in Kuna? Stanfield: Yes. There is -- that's the old one in Kuna. They are not quite like that, but there is a new one planned in Kuna, but there is an older one that's built. This is the detached sidewalk with a landscape Swale -- grassy lined Swale in the middle where there is no curb and gutter and the storm water just runs just off into this grass lined Swale and the streets are designed flat. Lengthwise there is no real grade to them, so that the water stays there and you don't pass it down to our next neighbor and we put a sand trench -- ACHD requires a sand trench down the middle with a certain grade of top soil on the top to drain that water down and make it disappear a lot, quicker. It is different, than, what you have seen before. In fact, ACHD really has problems with the pond in Salisbury and asked if we could help them out somehow with a discharge line from their pond to the South Slough. Groundwater in the whole area is just -- it's tough, it's really tough. In fact, Mr. Freckleton is going to make a recommendation, I believe, that we have to have a foundation engineered by Geo Tech Engineer. I just wanted to Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 717 of 124 get that on record real quick. That's the storm drain real quick and ACHD is on board with it. We meet with them and that's, really, what governed the project. If that didn't work, this land would be marked undevelopable; you just could do anything with it without that new standard right there. There are four criteria and I won't bore you with the criteria, but they won't let you do that everywhere. There are four criteria that you have to meet and we met all four of them. Simunich, I can't think of any problems. You know, whoever prevails on the roadway location, if there is a stub to Venable, we can pull it down. That makes good planning sense to move that to the south and I don't think there is any impediments in the way of that. The irrigation ditch, if that's Nampa- Meridian's ditch, that letter from them saying it is, they call it the Finch Lateral. I have never heard it called the Finch Lateral. Simunich: It's the Onweiler Lateral. Stanfield: Yes. I don't have a whole lot of faith in the documents the agencies have given me, but if it's Nampa-Meridian, we have to meet their standards and if it's not, there are another set of standards we have to follow. Borup: Further to the east there is one that's the Finch Lateral, but I think they combine. Anyway, go ahead. Stanfield: So, there are a set of standards that we have to follow and one thing that I insist on doing myself and the people that work for me in our office, the engineers, before we start our final design we need to get with the landowners in the area, particularly the farmers in the area, because they have worked the land and they know - - Mr. Simunich knows far better than I do what that water is going today. The landowner that my client purchased the land from, one of them wasn't a farmer, so he's of no use, so you can bet I will definitely get Mr. Simunich involved in this in the very get go, because I don't want to go wrong and have him scream at me a year later. If that's wants to be a condition that I meet with him, that's fine, but that is a matter of practice with our firm. It just makes common sense. With that -- Borup: So, at this point you don't really have a design as far as material and -- Stanfield: No. There is -- it's too premature at this point to sink that much money into a design and, then, change it, as Mr. Snodgrass's layout shows, then, my design I would have wasted thousands of dollars. It's just something we jump into when we -- Borup: That's what we are used to seeing, usually. Okay. Any other questions from the Commission? Probably the one big issue -- it looks like it wasn't posted, so we probably shouldn't have even opened the hearing. There was --the people were notified and we had the neighbors here, so that, of course, was why we wanted to go ahead with the hearing. Stanfield: And they didn't beat me up too bad. Merldlan Phanning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 118 of 124 Zaremba: No. Borup: Do we have some new information? Come on up, then. Okay. I'm sorry. I should have asked that first, because usually the applicant has the last opportunity to respond. Jackson: Thank you, Commissioner and fellow Commissioners and staff members. I own the property -- how do you operate this? Just push it in? Zaremba: Sir, could you start with your name and address. Jackson: Yes. Excuse me. My name is Bill Jackson and I own the property south of the proposed subdivision. Excuse me. North. Borup: You're on the east side of Venable, then? Jackson: It would be right here. Borup: Right there. Okay. Jackson: Right there. I have a couple of concerns. One, I'm disappointed that the developer hasn't taken the time to show sensitivity to the neighboring landowners. Also, I have aconcern -- we gave an easement to the Salisbury 1 Subdivision, which allowed them for their runoff water to border the property into the irrigation ditch and one of the problems we are having is that that water backs into our irrigation and lays there and, unfortunately, I haven't had much success with John Sanford to kind of burn off the weeds and everything in there, so that's also an issue, but I want to get together with the developer and Mr. Stanfield there. The other -- Borup: You understand they are not proposing any ponds in this subdivision?. Jackson: Well -- Borup: I mean you understood that design? Jackson: Well, I haven't had the opportunity to see the proposal and how it could potentially impact. Then, the other concern is with the Salisbury Subdivision up, they did put a fence, which, you know, we appreciate. Unfortunately, that fence doesn't get maintained, some of the slats get knocked down, and the neighbors in that subdivision have a tendency to wander onto our property, not showing the respect that it is private property. Unfortunately, some of the neighborhoods have made it a point to throw their garbage over the fence, which is something that is unfortunate.. I just want to go on record that I do have a concern and would like to have a better understanding of this proposed subdivision to insure that it does not compromise my property as such. That's all I have. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 119 of 124 Borup: Okay. The way I see the design, it looks like there would be one lot adjoining your property. Does that Zook right, Scott? Okay. There would be one building lot that would be adjoining your property. Jackson: Okay. Again, I haven't had the opportunity to review -- Borup: Now, on that stub street it appears that the stub street would go onto your property also. Barely. Or does it? This is your property here? Jackson: That and, then, the one to the west of that. Borup: Oh, this one here. Okay. It looks like the stub street comes in about right here. There would be two lots adjoining your property, one on each side of the street. Jackson: Right. Borup: Okay. Jackson: Yes. That's one of the things I'm trying to appreciate is just how all this is going to impact my property as such. That's all I had, Commissioner. Borup: Okay. Thank you, sir. Okay. Was there someone else that was not part of this subdivision that still had -- I couldn't hear that response. Gale: My name is Robert Gale. I live in Salisbury Lane. I have just been hearing all the comments about community centers and neighborhood centers. I was curious if someone could explain exactly what that is. I have no idea what you're talking about. Borup: Okay. That was something that developed several years ago in the development of t he C omprehensive P Ian a nd fi s t he -- fi s t hat map s till u p t here? R fight t here i t i s. These areas, in this particular case it's this one right here. Is that right? Am I pointing to the right one, Scott? Stanfield: That's correct. Borup: Okay. That is showing a neighborhood commercial development somewhere in that general area. Gale: Okay. It means commercial development, then? Borup: Well, they are talking office buildings -- we don't have any yet, so we don't have a good example to point to. Restaurants, coffee shop, and, then, maybe some apartments close to the commercial and, then, decreases as it goes out, is the general concept. Something else you'd like to add to that, Brad? Is that close? Hawkins-Clark: Good summary. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 120 of 124 Borup: Okay. Gale: Okay.. Thank you. Zaremba: And the theory behind that was you would be putting business destinations close to residential, so that people would be able to walk maybe even to where they work, but certainly walk to some services, like dentists and doctors and not everybody have to get in their car and go downtown or someplace else, so the theory of the neighborhood centers being spotted around is to provide services and employment, possibly walkable or bicycleable from residences. I'm sorry, representative, if I cut you off. Snodgrass: Thank you very much. Just to add something just real quickly, if possible. One of the things as this was drawn up and the density issue that we raised, it seems that this subdivision right here, Waterbury Park and the existing part here shows exactly what we were talking about before with having greater density towards the street here, which would be Meridian Road and less density as you go inside to those more desirable lots and quieter types of things. I think that what we are looking at as far as density is just something that would be consistent with this area right here and these two subdivisions that have been developed here, rather than going back to a density that is perhaps even a little bit greater than what they have at Waterbury Park, which seems inconsistent with some of the things that we have seen. Thank you. Zaremba: Well -- and leaning on your real estate expertise, it's your opinion that the larger, less dense lots would sell; right? Snodgrass: Most definitely. Perhaps I will have the opportunity to talk to these guys about marketing their property. Thank you. Borup: Okay. Now -- Hawkins-Clark: Chairman? Borup: Yes Hawkins-Clark: Sorry. Can we just a sk for one clarification before we continue? I f I heard Mr. Snodgrass correctly, the revised plat that they showed only, I believe, removed one lot. That's, essentially, the same density that they are showing. Bdrup: Well, but it -- the one they removed was against -- was on the eastern side, so it -- Hawkins-Clark: Just to clarify that, is the preference for the community to reduce density or to reduce - I mean, obviously, both in an ideal world, but I mean I'm hearing Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 121 of 124 two d ifferent t hings. One of y our concepts s hows t he s ame d ensity, b ut, y et, you're saying you want to reduce the density. Snodgrass: Well -and without being able to talk to the homeowners individually and find out what their preference is, I mean ideally you're absolutely right, our preference would be that we would have a density that would be consistent with out subdivision, as well as being able to have that one third, one third, sort of access into each of those subdivisions at a later time. I guess that we would need to meet as a homeowners association to decide what our preference was and work with, you know, Mr. Wood and the Stanfield engineering firm to decide, perhaps, whether there is a compromise there that could be reached for either of those. I know the economics of the project, in talking to Mr. Stanfield, showed that, you know, there were some significant economic costs towards lowering that density down and having those lots. You know, I think from a real estate standpoint, having something that is more consistent with our homes are going to retain the value of our homes probably even more, but that's something I would want to check with the homeowners to make sure that they were in agreement with that before speaking for them in this matter. Borup: Okay. Well -and that's kind of what I assumed, too, but also I guess I had the impression that the neighborhood was trying to be practical a little bit in what they were asking for, realizing it more reasonable that -- the better chance of maybe getting some change. Stanfield: Correct. Exactly. Maybe we will get the moon. Thank you. Borup: And -- yeah. I mean it's been -- I don't know about the other Commissioners, but, usually, when something comes and ask for something that's way out in left field, you know, you don't get anything at all. Stanfield: Right. Borup: Well, if we wanted to do a good job on the proposal that you have shown, wouldn't it show the viable alternative and -- all right. Stanfield: Thank you very much. I appreciate your time. Zaremba: Well, I agree, I think it's impressive to show that it can be done to mitigate the traffic through the currently existing subdivision without much loss of property, but the second issue is whether or not it would be marketable with even fewer lots as well. Borup: The problem of the notice. We need to -- I assume we need to renotice? Hawkins-Clark: Yes. We d id -- we have in the record a signed letter, November 20, 2003, that says Jeffrey Wood would post the property, but --and, I'm sorry, that was not verified by staff beforehand, but it certainly sounds like it was not done, so, yeah, we would need to renotice. Meddian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 122aF124 Zaremba: On the renotice do we want to give any direction on where that notice needs to be visible from? Borup: Yeah. Well, the ordinance is pretty clear. I mean from the nearest adjacent right of way, so in this case they have just one public right of way and that's the stub street Sedgewick. Borup: So, it's got to be right there you're saying. Hawkins-Clark: Uh-huh. Zaremba: Venable doesn't count? Hawkins-Clark: It's not public right of way. Borup: Do we determine a date tonight or just let -- does the applicant have to re -- we haven't run into this situation before where we have had a Public Hearing without proper notification. We have usually caught it earlier. Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. I guess Tara from the clerk's office is here. Do you - Borup: Well, what I'm getting at -- yeah. Would it be - I mean is the 19th -- does that work? Green: We can do it as soon as the 12th, but the 19th would work. Borup: Yeah. Does the applicant have to re-apply or -- we just need verification that it's -- Green: You just need to re-post the property. We just have to go through the posting requirements again. Borup: Okay. Rohm: For the 19th. Borup: So, until it's re-posted, we can assume the 19th and this time we will check and if it's not done, then, the meeting will be -- Zaremba: Continued again. Borup: Yeah. Maybe until June or something. Zaremba: As a penalty. We are vindictive, is that it? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 123 of 124 Borup: Uh-huh. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman -- Borup: Okay. Are we clear on that, then? Zaremba: I move that we continue the hearings on AZ 03-036 and PP 03-042 to the date certain of February 19th, with the provision that they be renoticed and resigned. Borup: Posted. Zaremba: Re-posted. Borup: Orjust posted period. Zaremba: Posted. Okay. Rohm: I will second that. Borup: And that will also give them an opportunity to look at the ACHD -- we will have the ACHD -- Zaremba: ACHD report and consider the input from the neighbors, which is -- Borup: On the new design. Rohm: Well, they might even have a community meeting. Mathes: If they can find the developer. Powell: Chairman Borup. Rohm: If they can find the developer. Powell: Chairman Borup? Borup: Yes. Powell: Commissioners, on your motion -- Tara, I believe that if one part of the posting fails, then, all three fail, so you will need to redo the mailing notice, the paper notice and posting notice. It's not just a posting and I think the motion included just posting, so I was concerned about that. Green: That's correct. We do have to do all three posting requirements again. Borup: So, would the applicant pay the additional fee? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 124 of 124 Green: Yeah. If he -- if it's the applicant who doesn't post the property, they would have to pay the additional fee, yes. Borup: For the remailings and -okay. Zaremba: My motion was not seconded, so I'll make it again. Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue the hearings for AZ 03-036 and PP 03-042 to our meeting of February 19th; to be carried forward only if it has been renoticed, re-posted, and republished. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor. Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Thank you. Thank you for sticking here with us, onlywe would just as soon gone home. The meeting on the 19th has a much shorter agenda. Zaremba: We should take a public vote on the order of the agenda. Mr. Chairman, I move that we adjourn. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second to adjourn the meeting. Meeting adjourned at 1:33. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:55 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN / / DATE ATTESTED: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK