Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 19, 2004 P&Z MinutesMeridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 74 of 705 Item 9: 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 10: 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: Okay. Our last item is Salisbury Subdivision No. 2. I'd like to open Public Hearing AZ 03-036, request for annexation and zoning of 19.7 acres and Public Hearing PP 03- 042, request for preliminary plat approval of 72 single family residential lots. Again, both these hearings are opened at this time and I'd like to start with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. You have received a staff report at your previous hearing on this application. I think I'll just point out for you a couple of the changes and discussions that have happened since the last hearing and, then, can take any questions that you might have. The reason -- the primary reason -- well, I guess there was a couple that the application was continued last hearing. First and foremost the noticing did not happen correctly, so that -- the property was posted and we did received confirmation at the city clerk's office that they did that. That should be in your packets. Secondly, the hearing was continued for discussion about some -- more discussion about Venable Lane and some of the treatment on that. There was a -- we also did not have the Ada County Highway District report as of the last meeting. They did approve the plat. The plat that the highway district a pproved i s s hown h ere o n t he s Green a nd i is s ubstantially t he s ame a s t he previous plat from the last hearing, with the exception of the stub street -- there is a -- there was formerly only one stub street to the north, which was this one here in the northeast corner and there was a pedestrian connection here on the north and they are now proposing that to be a public standard 50 foot right of way street. What was called Claire Avenue was shown about in the middle of this block on the west boundary adjacent to Venable. That has been removed in its entirety and, essentially, shifted up here to the north. I think maybe at this point I will go ahead and put the other plat that was presented at your last hearing, just so you know that there has been numerous discussions between the Salisbury Homeowners Association and the applicant for this project. That doesn't come up -- well, maybe if we can get a little more light on that, but, as you can see, essentially, they were proposing a stub street to the north as well, but the east-west connection here is removed on the proposed plan. There we go. Shed a little light on the situation. To create a knuckle here on the north side and, essentially, funnel traffic to the south. I just wanted to point out that that plat has always been floating around and part of the discussion since the last hearing. Zaremba: Brad, I'm sorry. Did ACRD see that choice? Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 75 of 705 Hawkins-Clark: I believe they did, yes. And they agreed that the applicant's plat was preferred and, primarily, that's a distribution of traffic. They felt that it would better distribute traffic in this area to have both streets utilized, instead of funneling the majority of the traffic to the south. I included this section from the future land use map in the Comprehensive Plan here, primarily just to show you the long range vision for this area a nd this n eighborhood center, a s you c an see, d oes comedown and touch, in effect, a piece of this property and the majority of the north part of it. And so I think the connection to the north to have basically two ways into this neighborhood center, which is envisioned to be higher density, is -- you know, is probably a good thing to encourage connection, particularly under the assumption that Venable Lane in the future has a signalized intersection at Ustick and Venable at this point that would allow residents to have good access, less than a quarter mile, to a future signal. There is also a school immediately north there, so a signalized intersection would provide for a safer crossing as well. So, I think a public street there is a good thing, although all the plans, with the exception of their first, showed both stub streets to the north, so --and, then, one other item to point out is on the -- the main change to the staff report, you did receive a revised staff report that was revised February 12th and the main change to discuss is on page ten and this is a discussion about Venable Lane and, essentially, how we prevent this private lane from becoming some kind of troublesome parcel in the future, since it's under totally separate ownership from any of the adjacent parcels. It is owned by Mr. Venable and his wife, who live outside of the Meridian area, and there is ingress- egress easements of all the abutting properties on Venable Lane, so, obviously, they have the right to use Venable, but it's different than a lot of our lanes where the adjacent parcels own to the center line of the lane and it's often like a lane users association. There is no such animal in this case. It's just astand-alone parcel. Borup: That's this entire property? Hawkins-Clark: Seventeen hundred feet long. Zaremba: Yeah. I don't think I understood that before. The only thing they own is the road that -- Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Zaremba: They don't own an adjoining property or -- Hawkins-Clark: Correct. And I don't know all the history there, but today that's the case Zaremba: A pretty narrow house they could build on it, with the setbacks. Hawkins-Clark: Bruce Freckleton was just pointing out that they did own the lot of land to the south of this and that was sold off for Waterbury Subdivision, so -- so as far as -- I'll just go to this aerial, so you can see the main -- there is -- the two parcels that are the subject of this application have frontage and access onto Venable and, then, there are two parcels on the west, which are within the Semanich family control and, then, there is Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 76 of 105 this larger parcel immediately north that is -- that has a lot of frontage on Venable, so you, really, have three other parcels besides this application tonight that have the right to use Venable Lane to access Ustick. So, the question becomes how do we help prevent -- if Venable does not become a public street, which the highway district does not want it to be, how do you present this 40 foot wide private lane from just sitting there and becoming maybe a de facto sub street by other properties in the future or something else. You know, if we -- if you assume that a portion of Venable gets redeveloped and maybe is extended down and, you know, serves the area, there is a large ditch that runs along Venable on the west side that could be piped, I suppose, but it would be unlikely. So, the assumption is that probably it would -- this parcel to the north when it redevelops would be able to take access onto Ustick, maybe relocate Venable, somehow acquire the lane or otherwise incorporate it into their parcel and get a public street that still comes down at least to the north boundary of this application tonight and provides, then, a connection across Venable for the Semanich property to give circulation in this whole area. So, that's what we were trying to get at with this item number seven was trying to -- I guess, conceding with the highway district that probably the northern --the southern 700 or 800 feet is unlikely to really help move much traffic in this area, but that the northerly thousand feet is probably going to be pretty critical to this neighborhood center and we would really -- we would want to see that happen, we would want to preserve that ability. So, we recommended a new condition, which is on page 13, item 16, that says prior to the City Council hearing the applicant should obtain written notarized statements from the other three parcel owners that they are, in effect, relinquishing existing ingress-egress rights on Venable Lane when a new public street is provided to serve their parcels and if legal counsel has any input how that wording could happen, but that's the only thing that staff could think of at this point to help insure that we get this Venable Lane to be public and to be a usable access in the future. Borup: Well, there could not be any development of those other three parcels out without public access of some type, could there? I mean that would prevent any development of that property at all, wouldn't it? Of the three parcels that are abutting Venable now, without a public roadway down there, a public access, there would not be any development, would there? Hawkins-Clark: Well, if I understand your -- yeah. I mean they need to get some kind of north-south movement within those parcels to get up to Ustick Road and certainly preferably east-west movement as well at some point. Two of the three currently have frontage on a public street, of course, on Ustick Road, but this southerly one down here has a stub street coming from Waterbury Park to its southwest corner. Other than that, should they want to continue to use their right to use Venable Lane to get up to Ustick Road, the plat that you have before you right now, the latest one, doesn't show -- the application -- this plat to take any access on Venable. That doesn't mean that this parcel, either one of these, would come in and be as agreeable to not use Venable. If they -- if they chose to exercise their right that they enjoy today, that we would like to, I guess, see -- go back to the old plat and see Venable used, but the problem is that there is no control over this -- over this lane and the highway district is very clear that Meddian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 77 of iD5 they don't intend to put any public money to purchase this to make Venable public, so they envision us to just -- Borup: But they are not opposed to developing -- future development as a public road, though, are they? Hawkins-Clark: Well -- Borup: By someone else. Hawkins-Clark: By someone -- right. Borup: Right. Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Zaremba: If we required the other three properties to make it a public road when they requested, is that what you're talking about? Borup Well, when those properties developed. That's the time to do that. Zaremba: This may have been covered when we talked about this before, but has anybody approached the Venables about abandoning their easement or selling it for a dollar or --what value is this piece of property to them, other than that they pay taxes on it? Hawkins-Clark: Certainly city staff hasn't offered by buy it. I believe the applicant has had some conversations with them. Borup: The only other question I have was the applicant's comment on the easement. I don't think you mentioned that in your staff report this time -- or did you? Hawkins-Clark: I'm sorry, Chairman Borup -- Borup: Well, they are proposing --aren't they still -- Zaremba: Ithink Isaw aproposal after your report -- Borup: Right. Zaremba: -- that they provide a common lot that could eventually be a connector road, if I'm remembering that correctly. Borup: To Venable if they'd ever sell it. Meridian Planning 8 Zoning February 1g, 2004 Page 7B of 105 Hawkins-Clark: Oh, yes. There was an Option B. Correct. And that --that is shown here, which this public street would just -- we would have curb, gutter, that would go across there and this would remain a common lot. Borup: With no curb, gutter, or anything. Hawkins-Clark: It would not be improved as a street, but it would remain -- remain there as a potential -- as not a buildable lot. Zaremba: Doesn't that help -- Hawkins-Clark: Well, certainly from staffs -- I mean that would be -- that would be a good solution if they are willing to keep this option on the table. My understanding it was withdrawn from the table, but we can get clarification. Borup: Okay. Yeah. We didn't have anything more recent than that, so maybe we can find that out. Anything else? Powell: Chairman Borup? Borup: Yes. Powell: Just to -- Brad and I struggled with what to do. If you could move up to the vicinity map. And the concern is if we just do piecemeal development - if we just do piecemeal development, that as each one comes in -- or piecemeal planning. As this one comes in, yes, they could bring in a public street and serve their entire property and connect to this one, but they are going to put lots that back onto this or they might put a stub street there, but the stub street would end at the property owned by the Venables. But they couldn't front on this area, because it's not a public street, so you would be backing up to it. And, then, as this property comes in the same thing would happen and, hopefully, this will look something -- what we are trying to avoid is that it starts to look like Wingate Lane, where you have got perhaps one property owner and I'm not trying to imply that Mr. --the current owners would do this at all, but if there were one property owner here that refused to give up their access right to this property, then, we are creating that situation again and it's doubly bad, because we have got this neighborhood center that's trying to be here where you can't even get across this no man's land and we don't know what to do. I mean we are grasping here, if you have ideas, but at some point with these four properties, these are the properties using that lane and if we just keep on pushing it off and pushing it off until the next development, it's just going to be a nightmare. Borup: So, what's the best solution? Powell: Well, our solution was before the City Council hearing that all the owners kind of agree that eventually this will be a public road and they say once a public road its their property that they will give up rights to the private road, the private lane. Meddian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 79 of 105 Borup: And were you anticipating that this public road would tie into this project, then? Powell: No, not actually this one. It would probably come through this up here. Borup: So, you're not concemed about access from Salisbury to afuture -- Powell: No. We are just concerned about this whole area with the two streets going here and we did look at that a lot, because there is a deep ditch right there and the Venable on the other side of this street is kind of right here. So, they really need to --the entrance needs to be here and whether it swings -- you know, it may be appropriate to just kind of T it in this location to serve those properties and, then, they can stub into the two for Salisbury. So, we didn't -- you know, originally the tactic had been to try and get them to make this a public road, but that seemed to not work at all with ACHD, so we are still struggling -- I mean we really are just trying to plan for this area and trying to make sure that we don't have a private lane that becomes a problem in the future. Borup: Well, I agree with that, but Iwonder --the time to address that is going to have to be when any future development is applied for, isn't it? Powell: This is the first of the access ones to come in. If you put it off until the next time, this guy is going to say the same thing. Borup: Well, no, my question was -- but you said you didn't want any access from this property. Powell: No. But he is --they are one of the rightful access users to the private lane. Borup: Right. Powell: So, the issue starts here. Now, whether the buck stops here is a different question, but the issue starts here. Borup: But if they have no access, no public access to that private lane -- I guess they have got a right, but, you know, they are not really giving up anything or they are not using it, so it's -- I don't know why -- how it applies to this project that much, I guess what I'm saying, unless we wanted it to have future access. Powell: No. The only thing is that the next guy can say the same thing. You let Salisbury go and it didn't make them deal with this issue. Borup: Well, I know. It's different, though. Powell: Well, t hey c ould s erve t heir w hole p roject o n their p roperty. T hey wouldn't -- they wouldn't need to use the Wingate -- or the Venable property. And when this one came in, they could say the same thing. Meddian Planning 8 Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 80 of 105 Borup: Well, maybe this project needs to -- needs to sign off their rights and this would be a good one to start with. Powell: That's it. That's what we are trying to do. Borup: Well, you said all four of them, which are off-site -- off-site properties and maybe that's what needs to be, to start with this one, have them relinquish it and -- Powell: The problem is if one of them ever doesn't sign, the last one -- the problems -- you have already created the problem by the time the fourth property is developed, depending on the sequencing, but there is a high likelihood that you already have that and your opportunity to deal with it is gone. Borup: Well, t he d ifference I s ee i s l d on't see t he o they t hree properties d eveloping without some cooperation among all three of them. Imean I -- I don't know how staff would look at a proposal like that, but I don't think that -- Powell: All of these -well, we had a developer come in that was looking at all of these, so I assume they were on at the block, so if that were the case -Imean this one is right across t he s treet from V enable a nd i t could c ertainly come i n and s tub i nto t his a nd provide stubs out that way. This one could take access over here. It would be certainly far enough away for ACHD standards. And I think they have stubs into this property. Zaremba: Y ou still h ave t he i ssue t hat i f t he n eighborhood c enter d evelops t here o n Ustick, is it, you have this right down the middle that nobody can cross. Powell: Exactly. Borup: Well, I agree with that condition, but how did we -- how do we require this applicant to obtain -- well, let's hear from the applicant. Maybe we ought to move on. Unless there is any other questions from the Commission. Mr. Stanfield. Zaremba: I would have that question of the applicant. Borup: Okay. Stanfield: Feels good to stand up, actually. Scott Stanfield, Earl, Mason, Stanfield, engineering firm in Caldwell, Idaho. I'll jump right to it. I completely understand where the city is coming from. You just got to realize we are caught in the middle, so I really don't know what to do. But I can throw a couple things out there. You do realize that this situation wasn't created by either the current landowner or the previous landowners. This condition was, actually, created when Waterbury was approved. That's when this strip was allowed to be detached from the south. In my opinion that completely eliminated the concept of a north-south collector, because it doesn't go to the south and there is nothing I can do or the developer can do or the city can do or anybody can do to Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 81 of 105 bring that back to this point. So, we are caught in the middle. What do we do. Condition 16, you know, it has some ood ideas, but if I were one of the landowners would I sign it? No. I would be scared. A I signing one of my rights away to something? That's what my perception would be. So I wouldn't -- I personally wouldn't sign it. Borup: Which right would thgy be signing away? Stanfield: Well, my perceived right to have access to Venable Lane, not fully understanding how the rule work or what the future would entail, why would I give up a right that I already have tod y. So, to counteract that -- Borup: Well -- but it wouldn~t go into effect until a new public street had access to your property. Stanfield: Well, you know that and I know that„ but -- Borup: Well, that's what it states, though. Stanfield: But does the property owner really understand that? That's what I'm getting at. Would a property owner -- would a layman understand what that really means. So, what I can do on our end is on our final plat, to eliminate access from this parcel, because they do have a right to access it, every lot owner that purchases a lot here would have a right by that old instrument. I can put a one foot no access strip easement along our whole entire west boundary flat forbidding any vehicular access or anything to go across there. Borup: Wouldn't it be even more comprehensive just to relinquish access rights for this parcel? Stanfield: I don't know how you would do that. That would be a lot easier, but I don't know how you would do that legally. I know that -- Borup: Is there a legal agreement now granting access? Stanfield: There is the one that goes back many many years and by the pure use of that by the neighborhood there is certainly a prescriptive. I don't know how you get rid of that. I do know if we p ut a n o access strip on the p lat it's gone for this parcel. You cannot cross over the top of it. So, in my opinion, that would supersede that old document. So, that's an item we do quite a bit in Canyon county and it seems to work quite well. It eliminates any questions, period. That will force the city, obviously, to be on their toes with future applications. I think the city has control as future applications come in and at annexation time to make a similar requirement, analyze their preliminary plats, analyze their layout, see if it's in the best interest of the city and the roadway network patterns and if you don't like it, you don't annex it, you make them have a similar condition like I'm volunteering to put on our final plat. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 82 of 105 Borup: Well, you said -- you were just talking about a no access strip, but they're not giving up their legal rights to access. Stanfield: Right. But they can't cross it -- Borup: Well, what if someone --what if the city or whoever, future developer wanted to abandon that Venable Lane and the property owners in Salisbury said, no, I'm not going to relinquish that right? Stanfield: Well, they still have a right, they can drive up and down there, but they can't go to their house, they can't trespass back and forth. Borup: But they could prevent that from being abandoned. I don't know. I -- Stanfield: I don't know either. They could prevent it from perhaps being developed, from being blocked, but I don't know how you legally get rid of that right. Borup: Anna, you said that's what you would like to see is -- Powell: Our understanding is that if -- if that access is just a part of the deed, that that access doesn't need to be continued onto the next one. I don't know that you can relinquish that access right just by platting it and not continuing that access on. Stanfield: We could do that. We could even create a notarized statement that the developer signs -- well, he owns the entire ground, which he does own today, where he just hereby relinquishes any and all rights to such and such document and blah, blah blah, and record that. Borup: Then, you wouldn't have to worry about a no access strip. Stanfield: We could do that. Borup: That would be cleaner anyway, right? Stanfield: That would be a whole lot cleaner. Borup: Okay. And, then, that would be -- that would be setting the precedence for future development; wouldn't it? Hopefully. Powell: As long as the development occurs from south going north it will work. The concern is if it goes from the north going south, then, we have got a problem and that's - Borup: Well -- but there is only a problem if the city annexes it. Powell: Okay. I'm going to remind you of that. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 83 of 105 Borup: Please do. Powell: I'm marking this one down. Borup: No. Yeah. And, hopefully, we are still around when something happens there, we could all remember that. Stanfield: That's my position. The city, via the annexation process, has that control and it probably should be noted -- well, this could change, but I believe that the Semanich family owns everything to the west north and south and, then, the parcel due north on the a ast side o f V enable is one o caner, except f or that o ne little p iece, which I think you're dealing with one owner on each site contiguous. But I still come back to annexations in the future the city has control. The best I can do is eliminate anything that Salisbury residents can do. Borup: Okay. Well, I think would be a good start, but as Anna said, you got to start somewhere and this is the property that we are dealing with that -- Stanfield: I would like condition 16 -- I don't -- to be rewritten such that the developer would relinquish the rights and record whatever necessary to relinquish the rights to Venable Lane. Borup: So, I take it you have not talked to any other property owners about this? Stanfield: I believe the owner's representative, Ken Reeves who is here tonight, has contacted some of them and I suspect you're going to hear probably what I exactly told you. Borup: Okay. Stanfield: So, I would propose the rewriting of 16 and what if they don't sign it, then, that means I can never go to Council with this action the way th'e condition is written, so I would like to leave it that if this developer relinquishes his. rights that that would be sufficient for this project. I had notes all over the place here, but I think I have pretty much addressed everything. Oh, there seems to be some confusion on this option B. That was an option we threw together at the last hearing, again, being caught in the middle and not knowing what's going to happen. Borup: I think this other discussion makes that probably a mute point. Stanfield: Okay. And I do have -- what was I going to say? I have notes all over here, but I think I'It probably just -- Borup: Any questions from the Commissioners? Meridian Planning & Zoning February 79, 2004 Page 84 of 705 Stanfield: -- answer questions. Borup: I think we -- I mean that seemed to me, in my mind, probably one of the major questions was that and there may be some others come up, so we will give you a chance after some public testimony. Stanfield: Thank you. Borup: Okay. This is the time for public testimony. Who would like to come forward? Snodgrass: Thank you very much. My name is Mark Snodgrass. I reside at 405 West Sedgewick, which is part of the Salisbury Lane Subdivision and I'm actually a little bit discouraged to report to the Commission today that as of the last meeting that we had that I believe started on January 15th and ended on the 16th early in the morning, I believe that there was an admonishment by this Commission that the engineer and the developer meet with our homeowners association to try and workout some sort of solution and I am actually a little bit discouraged to report that that has not been done, that to my -- the best of my knowledge that has not even been attempted outside of a return phone call from Mr. Stanfield, which I did deeply appreciate. One of the things that we discussed when we were here previously, we did come up with aprevious -- or anew street proposal, which was previously put up on here. We felt like that that was a very good opportunity to give our subdivision as much buffer as we could as far as new traffic, as we thought was reasonable. It did not address any kind of fire code changes. The other thing that I was hoping that they might be able to put up would be the map with the red oh there. One of the concerns that we also had originally is all these areas that we have -- we had a concern with the reverse density that this seems to be promoting. This area of Waterbury Park, R-4, these areas here are R-4. This new subdivision here R-4. The two subdivisions here, including Salisbury, R-4. This is an R- 4 designation. All these here are RUT. This is also R-4. And, yet, we are actually promoting an R-8 designation here, which promotes I think a reverse density that you will not find hardly anyplace in the valley, because that, actually, goes against a lot of the kind of demographics that we are trying to promote. The other thing that we had talked about was a designated construction entrance. I would like to commend Scott Stanfield, he and I have talked -- at one time we played phone tag for awhile, but he actually did contact me and said that he had spoken with the owner and developer of this property, but I think one of the problems that we have here is we have a person who is the developer of the property that is absentee and as much as I can appreciate the things that Mr. Stanfield was doing, he really has limited or no authority to be making a lot of the decisions that are made and I find it very very difficult to think in seeing testimony that's been presented early today in the previous meetings and I find that those developers really want to be there, so that they can understand the concerns of the community and that has not yet happened. When I continue on and couple that with the fact that no attempt has been made to contact the homeowners association, I'm really kind of feeling that there has not been a whole lot of regard by the developer to address any of the concerns that we are having. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 85 of 105 Borup: Could you maybe just quickly outline those concerns again? Snodgrass: The concerns that we had originally was with the -with the original, we had a concern about the street layout, that that was going to put quite a few homes onto our street that we are really not prepared to have at the outset. We knew that the stub street that was there at the end of Salisbury Lane was at some point in time going to be added onto and that we would end up servicing some additional homes. However, I don't think that there was anything that would have led us to believe that we originally would be looking at servicing four to five hundred cars -- car trips per day. Borup: I would have thought you would have expected more than that. Snodgrass: Oh. Borup: Well -- I mean you have got all this property here to the west and it would be logical to think that whatever subdivision went here could continue on to the west. Snodgrass: Well, we would have probably thought that, with the exception of that with a lot of the properties that is adjacent here I think that we also felt since this was a landlocked piece that many of these other properties here would have provided additional access points to that property by being developed .off Ustick Road, rather than -- it doesn't seem reasonable to have all of this property accessing, even in this area, accessing -- Borup: Well, not the only access, but there is normally going to be -- there is normally going to be tie-ins to the other subdivision. Snodgrass: And Iwould -- Borup: And because of the situation of this Venable Lane,. you know, that's been stopped now. Snodgrass: Right. Exactly. Iwould also like to note just from the original proposal previous to the one that is being submitted, the original proposal only had access onto Salisbury Lane, because of a preexisting condition that occurred down here that they were not sure that theywere going to be addressing. I guess my point is is that the developer, in my opinion, has realty not taken into consideration any of the adverse effects that might be affecting our subdivision and seems to really be looking only at potentially the monetary benefit, rather than the community benefit that can be derived from this subdivision. I can probably state that not only in access points, but also the R- 8designation and, frankly, the unwillingness of the applicant and the owner to work with anybody within our association to try and resolve that. There have been some red flags that I have seen the developer from this position has not moved at all since we have met with you previously, has not met with any of the homeowners associations. The absentee problem to me is problematic, in that should this move forward, we really have no person that I have any confidence in as far as being absentee, but once this Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 86 of 105 development moves forward, who are we going to have to go to to resolve any problems that we may have with construction or anything like that if we have a person who is not even available to come to hearings or meetings or anything like that. The other thing that I also am concerned about and many of the other homeowners are concemed about is, you know, I understand that this was presented -that our alternative proposal was presented to ACHD, but none of us were ever made aware that that was going to be presented as a proposal, so that we could defend the merits of our proposal versus the applicant's original proposal and I find that to be somewhat of a disservice in that I think all we had to do is say, hey, we are going to present this to .ACHD and be able to present our proposal on the same kind of level footing as everyone else. 1 know that more than likely that this was not just presented to ACHD as two plans that they drew upon their desk and said, hey, which one of these do you like. Obviously, the applicant is going to take on the merits and explain the merits over ours, we, unfortunately, did not have that opportunity. Outside of that, you know, I know it's getting late, I think that there may be a few other people here that would like to discuss a little bit more about this, but we would really respectfully request that the committee decline this application until the developer not only comes to bat a little bit with us as a homeowners association to address our concems, but addresses those in a real and tangible way that promotes community goodwill as well. And with that I would stand for questions. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Again, I was trying to write down what you felt your concerns were and the only one I got was you said street layout and the R-8 zoning. Snodgrass: T he s treet I ayout a nd t he density. We were a Iso a I ittle b it c oncerned or have been concerned about designating Indian Rock Street as a designated construction entrance. We really didn't have that many concerns about Venable Lane. The addition of the northern -- the additional northern stub street was something that we had put into our proposal as well, so that was something that perhaps borrowed from that and I think provided additional access to the north when some of those other properties are being developed. Borup: So, you'd like that aspect? Snodgrass: We have no problem and we really felt that by stubbing that out to -- to this area here -- if I could grab the -- there is a proposed stub street here which we are okay with and, then, we propose this other here with the continuation of this. We have no problem there and we feel pretty confident that at some point iri time this area is going to be developed with perhaps multiple access points onto Ustick Road and greater amount of access here. Rohm: And that will relieve the pressure on your streets. Snodgrass: It would. When that became developed that would alleviate a lot of the pressure on our streets, but, as I said, what we are trying to do, more than anything Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 87 of 105 else, is provide a little bit of safety for our neighborhood as far as having that major access point be onto Indian Rock Street. Perhaps you could pull up the proposal that I had, if that's available. Yeah. What we are really looking at is by having this street here, you know, it looks like most of these people and I would agree, most of these people are going to access out this way, because that's going to be their primary access point. Once this is developed to the north, you're going to actually see people using this and that's going to become an access road for them as well, as well as this point here. What our proposal, really, is trying to do is this area here is a new subdivision and those people that are looking at building in that subdivision or purchasing in that subdivision are going to be able to make an informed decision about whether or not they want to buy or build a home that's on a street that's going to service up to 40 other homes. Unfortunately, the people that are in Salisbury Subdivision, we haven't had that opportunity. We knew that at some point in time we would probably be servicing some homes, but at this point in time I think we are looking at, hey, we are more than willing to accept the responsibility for 20 homes or so, we just don't want to end up servicing 35 to 40 homes on our street. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Snodgrass: Thank you. Borup'. Do we have someone else who would like to come forward? Come on up. Reeves: My name is Ted Reeves, I'm with Coldwell Banker, 6933 Emerald, Boise. And my involvement in this subdivision has been a case of working with the engineers and staff primarily in the shoes of the developer. He has not been absent, he does reside in Boise, Idaho. But he is out of the state quite a bit during the week and I stay in daily contact with him over the phone and give him updates and faxes and this sort of thing, so h e i s a ware o f w hat's g oing o n with t he d evelopment a nd h e's p art o f t his w hole thing. We have done some major efforts of working with staff and going into with staff at various different meetings. I have tried to work out the best -- better good for all concerned, the neighbors -initially we were going to do R-4, but with this community center up front it seemed to be the best thing to do was to go R-8 as a buffering and it was, actually, one of the things that we felt that that's what the city wanted was just to have a buffering of R-8, because of the community center. The thing about the access, the roads or the stubs going north of the subdivision, go before ACHD and you folks have -- undoubtedly you have done it quite a few times more than I have, probably, but had the luxury to go up there and negotiate streets and this sort of thing is not really that much of that. When you go before them I just would like for everybody to know that it's a case where they pretty much dictate and determine how much flow and where they would like -- as a result of good planning. That's all it is, just good planning to make the subdivision flow as nice as possible. And initially we had that street going off of Venable and we didn't have an additional street going north, but it was -- ACHD required that of us, the last time I was in there that was their requirement is to have that additional street go north and take the one off of Venable and the whole idea was is when that community center comes i n there s ervicing that northern s ite, t hose people I ike from Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 88 of 105 Salisbury, they will be able to have a good access going north up there to for the stores or whatever, the kids are in an environment of a residential area and riding their bikes and they can -- they are not on the main thoroughfares to be able to go to those stores. So, that's nice for the subdivision. And when it came down to how many lots of -- 72 I believe we have in there, we actually have four artery roads of being able to be in and out of, it's probably got more flow than any other subdivisions I've had in the last nine years and to be able to service that amount of lots in there. So, I think this is a good plan. We put a lot of effort into it, but I don't know how many times we have met with staff to try to come up with the right combinations and stay in compliance with everybody's needs on this thing, so I'd really appreciate it if you would let this project go forward and -- so we can get going with it. The idea of Venable Lane and it's ownership, that's very workable as far as -- I think that's a good idea, for the ownership giving up their rights to it proportionally when they come in and there is no reason why they can't work on that and we can certainly do it on our end. Thank you. Do you have any questions? Borup: Do you have questions for Mr. Reeves? Zaremba: Would you have any problem with designating Indian Rocks as the construction entrance? Reeves: Construction entrance? Zaremba: During your construction keeping -- keeping traffic off of Sedgewick. Reeves: I would be more than happy to use Venable Lane. We can do that. That could totally take all the pressure of construction off of Sedgewick going into Salisbury. Borup: Okay. You would use Venable for the majority of the construction? Reeves: Probably the tail end, but the way the land lies there, it -- we talked about that at great length, enough that that's what we are seeing disturbing, we don't want to do that. It would involve disturbing people. We can relieve like 80 or 90 percent of any kind of construction disruption by using Venable Lane coming in there. That include all the construction development, as well as construction of the homes. That would be one of our things that we would make a requirement as far as the builder is concerned is to utilize that. Zaremba`. If you do that, though, then, et what point would you relinquish your access to Venable? Reeves: Well, in order to accomplish what we talked about earlier, that -- we would have to work that -- the other thing is what wasn't spoke of, yes, it is privately owned, but it is also a county road that parallels going all the way down. Our maps are really -- are fine where you can see them right here, but I could show you where it has its actual own parcel number for Mr. Venable, which is on the east side going north and south on Meridian Planning 6 Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 89 of 105 Venable, full I ength, 20 feet. O n t he r fight s fide i s county road, full I ength, 1 ,700 feet, parallel to each other in there. This property here doesn't -- wouldn't hit Venable's property, it's a county road, actually. Borup: A county road of 20 feet you said? Reeves: Twenty-five, I believe. Borup: That hasn't come out previously in testimony. Reeves: Ada county is aware of it. Or not Ada county, but ACHD: That's the reason why they don't want anything to do with it and as far as -- I think they wanted to abandon it, primarily. It's not big enough to do anything with. Got the gigantic canal on the west hand side -- or west side. Borup: And how much of the Venable property? Reeves: Twenty feet is what they are saying. Private ownership all the way. it's even in the multiple listing that 2.3 acres for sale for 15,000 dollars. Can you believe that? Borup: Twenty feet wide. Reeves: Yeah. Borup: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you. Reeves: Thank you, folks. Borup: Anyone else? Semanich: I'm Joe Semanich and I live at 955 West Ustick and I own the property --and the family owns the property on the west side of this subdivision. It looks like Venable Lane is creating a problem. It hasn't been for sale. If it is for sale, the price is astronomical. Now, let's see if I can learn how to work this thing. Some of the people were talking about that when this property develops, this one develops, this one develops, might have to use Venable Lane. It's privately owned. If we would have to be involved in Venable Lane, why not these properties? Why would they be excused from having any expense on rebuilding Venable Lane? Borup: Because they are not accessing it. Semanich: Well, why would I have to access it when it's private? Why would I have to build it? Borup: You don't if you don't want to develop your property. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 90 of 105 Semanich: It's a private road. Borup: Right. Semanich: It's private. The staff was talking here about when Ward's property develops and mine develops, that we should go ahead and build Venable Lane as a street. Borup: Well, no, they are saying when any property develops it needs to have public access to it. Semanich: To Venable Lane. Borup: No. To the property. Venable Lane could be abandoned as long as there was another public road. Semanich: Well, there is a public road on Ustick. Ustick's a public road. Borup: Well, a lot of that is going to determine -- it's going to depend on how the property develops. Semanich: Well, certainly. But - Borup: So, that would be when that application comes in. Semanich: Wouldn't a quarter of a mile of frontage be allowed access to Ustick Road? Borup: Yes. That would be allowed access normally. Semanich: Yes. And, then, you would not need Venable Lane. Borup: It depends on if you want access -- are you going to put one building on the whole property? Semanich: Sixty acres takes more than one building. Borup: Exactly. So you -- Semanich: And you can drive down any of these streets where these other developers are doing and they have access a quarter of a mile or much shorter pieces of frontage. Why would I have to access Venable Lane? Borup: Okay. I think we are talking about something that probably doesn't really apply tonight. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 91 of 105 Semanich: Well, I think we are. It's very serious. If you're going to allow these people to be excused from working on Venable Lane, why should the other property owners have to fight Mr. Venable and build a lane? Borup: That property already has two public roads accessing their property. Semanich: But he has to go out to Ustick also. Borup: No, he doesn't have to. Semanich: Who doesn't? Borup: This Salisbury has two public roads accessing their property. Semanich: Yes. Yes. It has two public roads. Borup: And they are providing future access for other properties that may develop in the future, so that we can have continuity between the neighborhoods. Semanich: May I ask over here again why these people we are talking about having Ward's property and our properties build Venable Lane, to access Venable Lane. Is that correct? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, would you like staff to respond or -- Borup: Yes, please. Hawkins-Clark: I think there must have been a miscommunication. Our whole concern with this is -- I don't think the statement was that you have to build Venable Lane. The statement w as t hat once s ome p ublic a ccess -- a nd o ur a ssumption i s that i t w ill b e more than just Ustick Road -- once that happens, you come off Ustick and head south on Ward property or your property, that the alignment of those north-south streets that are going to go up to Ustick will be built by that developer of those two parcels. It doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to be Venable Lane. Semanich: If you're going to line up with Venable Lane on the south you have to get that property from Mr. Venable. There is another 20 feet that's involved. Hawkins-Clark: I understand. That's correct. Semanich: So, then, you're forcing the Ward property and my property to line up with Venable Lane on the north. Borup: No, not necessarily at this point. All he's saying is that if this property -- if your property develops, you need to have roads in it. Would you agree with that? Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 92 of 105 Semanich: Absolutely. And I give roads -- I have donated - Borup: Okay. That's -- Semanich: Listen, I can speak here just as long as these other people can. I'm not as good a speaker, but I want my rights here. I have donated property for the bike path free of charge to this city. I have donated property to the Tully Park free of charge. Now, you don't want to give me time to discuss this. I should not have to build Venable Lane, because I don't own it. Borup: Okay. It's agreed. Semanich: And also the people on the right, the Wards --and if we have to build it, this property here should participate. Borup: Okay. I don't think anybody said you had to build it. Semanich: All right. Let's just put that in the minutes, then, that that will not be required to be built by either Wards or us. Improved. Borup: Right now it's county property that's just not even in the city limits, is it? The city is not going to require you to do something to property you don't own. Semanich: No, I don't own it now, but if somebody would want to develop those two properties -- Borup: Well, that would be up to that person to decide how they want to get road access into their property. Semanich: Would they have to go through Venable Lane? Borup: I don't think that's necessarily a requirement. There just needs to be access. That would be determined by Ada County Highway District on how they want their roads to align. Semanich: They were using plainers to show when this property comes -- develops the road would come right up there and come in about here and join up with Venable Lane on the north side. Borup: Okay. He's talking possible -- possible development scenarios. The city does not --does not design and develop property. The city tries to -- Semanich: Will you guarantee us at Planning and Zoning that. we are not required to build Venable Lane. If Salisbury doesn't have to participate -- you know, I said at the last meeting if Salisbury puts an access, I'd like -- if they put an access, I'll have an access from Venable --from the Cattrell property. The one that was shown right there. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 93 of 105 Borup: It's not a public road. It's a private road, isn't that correct? Semanich: It's privately owned. Absolutely. Borup: Okay. Any other questions? Semanich: Well, I hope you understand me, that if Venable Lane is going to be required to be rebuilt, then, Salisbury should participate. Borup: Okay. I understand what you're saying. Semanich: They border Salisbury just -- more so than I do with this piece of property. And they are also a little farther north. Zaremba: If one of the proposals was to have the neighboring property owners, which would include you, abandon their access to the Venable property, would you do that? Semanich: Pardon? Zaremba: Would you abandon your right to access the Venable property? Semanich: I, actually, do not need access to Venable Lane if we can come out to Ustick. This here parcel is separate now. It has access through these other properties that are down here from this subdivision, but presently it's accessed by Venable Lane. These two properties were accessed by Venable Lane. Borup: Is there anything else we can answer for you? Semanich: Well, I'm just disappointed in what -- what I have discovered here tonight. Borup: And why is that? Semanich: You can't give me a clear determination on Venable Lane. Borup: No, because there is no project before us. That's a private road. How can we -- Semanich: That's right. It is a private road, so how can you force me to build a road on Venable Lane? Borup: I don't think anybody is forcing you to do anything, sir. Semanich: You were talking about it. Everybody was talking about it, to bring Venable Lane and make it a public road right there to connect with the north side of Venable Lane. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 94 of 105 Borup: And that could be a development scenario if this property ever developed. That probably can stay like it is for a hundred years. Semanich: If I go in and develop my 60 acres there, can I develop it without going to Venable Lane? Borup: Bring the project to the city and we will take a look at it, I'm sure. Semanich: I'm asking you now as Planning and Zoning. This is part of this entire meeting that we have here, because I own property that adjoins this other property on Venable Lane. Borup: Well, but we are not talking about your property on the agenda tonight. Semanich: I understand that. But I should have a fair answer. Borup: Well, this is not the body to give that answer. I'm sorry. Do we have anyone else that would like to -- come forward, sir. Corbin: I'm Jerry Corbin and I live on Sedgewick. I bought the Sedgewick home for a simple reason, it was a nice street, it was a nice area, accommodated by quite a bit of things going on there and with the growth of Meridian happening in all, much much better than Boise where I lived prior. Now, the situation arises, okay, we get a lot of traffic and you would be surprised the amount of traffic. Right now the way. it is comes off of the next door neighbors subdivision. What is that Landsbury? People cut through down on Sedgewick, goes out at 3rd Street, take a left and go over to Landsbury right now a t t he m oment. Okay? S o, we a re g etting t raffic from t here a Iready, which t hey have t heir o wn s treet that c omes o ut onto Meridian R oad, b ut t hey d on't u se i t. The other one is is that if this goes through back there, you know as well as I do there is going to be hundreds of cars. The reason I say that, you got 72 homes, the majority are families all over, not just this area. Two people have to work in order to make a living, so what's it going to be? Two cars per household. What's going to happen? Like a lot of these cars, some of these households got teenage kids driving cars -- they don't know how to drive. They shouldn't be driving, but they do, they race up and down the street and everything, now what's it going to be? Husband and wife, children come up of age to get a driver's license, drive the car, where is it going to go? Up our way. You know as well as I do. You have the main streets -- which, actually, Ustick is a main street, you have Meridian connecting to it, which is a main street, will they use those? Not necessarily. People like to take -- it's a trait with people to take the way they want to take and the way they want to drive. You can't stop them from driving. You can't stop them coming down Sedgewick and going on 3rd Street over to Landsbury. I mean that cannot be stopped. That we understand. But if you're going to take another 72 homes and put -- you stand a good chance of coming up that way early in the morning and retying their engines high and everything going up there trying to go, some people racing, you're g oing t o h ave s chool b uses go b ack i nto there t hat's g oing t o h ave to make pick ups and everything, you're making a main tragic area out of Sedgewick. I Meridian Planning & Zoning February 79, 2004 Page 95 of 105 don't see anything else or any other way that this thing would said or spoke for. I don't like the idea. I'm totally against it and I think you would find a lot of other ones if the people would only show up here and talk about it. I looked for a street that was kind of quiet, nice, everything, which it is. It gets a little noisy once in awhile, but you have to accept that. That's why life goes on. But I do think that these 72 homes are going to put a lot of traffic down that main street. I only have one thing to say, you want to buy a home? It's just up to that. I bought the home with the intentions of being a nice, quiet street and firid out that this is happening. We looked at it very closely. Well, if they do anything in the back down there it should have points coming in from Ustick, not being aware or understanding the whole situation. But now finding out between the last meeting we had and this one, well, how much traffic -- can you tell me how many of those 72 homes are going to create how many cars. Borup: When you bought your home you didn't realize there was a street stub to the west? Corbin: We realized it stopped back there. We realized there is a drain back there against the property. Okay. But the most common ordinary thing to be -- and it's just kind of general all over, you more or less go out to an existing main street you have ways of doing. Unfortunately, you got a situation here where you got a piece of ground that's sandwiched in between a bunch of other pieces of ground that all have subdivisions, how are you going to get out, where are you going to put them to, what are you going to do with it? Unfortunately, that's what you're trying to decide, what are you going to do with it, what's going to happen to it. Looking at that, we did drive down that way, we did look over the open way there, we seen what was there, we couldn't figure out why they put that drain thing there, but we kind of understand, because they could have had like another two houses back there, just like Landsbury has, they go it all what they did back there, so they don't have it going out to them from this new subdivision, Salisbury Two. We have an opening there. Put it that way and make a main street out of a nice residential street. That's the way I look at it. I'm totally against it. Thank you. Any questions? Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Mr. Stanfield. Stanfield: Seeing nobody else up here, I'll come up here and offer some quick rebuttal. I'll key into Mr. Snodgrass first and I apologize to him for some of the return phone calls and I must admit he's probably one of the most polite individuals I have worked within this situation, so I appreciate that. I have to take credit for not getting with his group. It was my understanding when we left the last meeting that if the lead agencies, i.e., the city's fire department and/or ACHD, if either one of those -- if both of those folks did not have a problem with the new layout, then, I would get with his group. So, that was my interpretation and it's got nothing to do with the developer, so 1 apologize to him and to this board ahead of time if I was incorrect. With that said, we did get with the fire department, Mr. Joe Silva didn't -- he preferred one over the other, but he said code wise there is nothing in his code bookthat would preclude either one. So, then, we moved onto the highway district and the highway district said -- and Mark asked a Meridian Planning 8 Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 98 of 105 question, well, he doubts the layouts were just thrown out in front of them and said which one do you prefer. That's exactly what I did. I didn't lead them, I laid them both out on the table, eight and a half by elevens, and said which option best suits the highway district. That's exactly the way I put it. They came back with aletter -- we finally got the letter two days ago and I have a copy of it - in fact, my only copy, but you can have it if you want it, but it basically discusses which option that -- Borup: Staff has a copy I think. Stanfield: It basically goes over that they support our option. Well, you know, why do they support our option? I think it's important to point out that they make statements about it increases emergency services response time, increase walkability throughout the region. Reduces vehicle miles traveled and interconnection to the surrounding neighborhoods. More importantly, it distributes the traffic equally between all the neighborhoods in the region, rather than focusing it just on Clearbrook Estates, which is aka Indian Rocks. So, she gave some of the reasons why. And step back and you look at your own Comprehensive Plan. In fact, your own Comprehensive Plan pretty much states the same thing, where ever and whenever possible your Comprehensive Plan wishes to have interconnectivity, walkability, and evenly distributed to traffic. It says that in numerous places. So, engineeringwise all I have to follow is what ACHD guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan dictates. So, that's why the alignment stayed the way it was proposed originally. Primarily because of ACHD's input. And Mr. Wood couldn't make it this evening, but I told him that he really needs to be at the Council meeting and he will definitely be there, should we make it that far. Mr. Snodgrass asked why R-4. Well, you look at our density and are actually like 3.65. We are actually less than Waterbury by quite a bit. The Comprehensive Plan actually designates an R-8 in this area because of the family center. So, again, we are doing this reverse density, we are just following what the Comprehensive Plan says we should do in that area. And as Mr. Reeves pointed out, that's because of the neighborhood center, to create a buffer so that you don't have R-4, bam, light office and small commercial businesses. So, again, R-8, but our density is actually quite a bit less than an R-4 when you run the numbers. Mr. Snodgrass asked about who should they call when they have problems during construction. Well, heck, everybody else calls me when they have problems, so he can feel free to call me. Construction entrance, we will try, definitely, to work through the Indian Rocks Street. I will be honest with you, I don't know how successful the developer or my office or Mr. Reeve's office can be. The fact remains that's a public street, it's a full width, it's a full right of way width, and we can try as we might to really insist that those contractors use other mechanisms, but when it comes down to it, can I really police them -- can the developer police them, but we will definitely encourage them to the fullest extent possible. Borup: That would be signage and -- Stanfield: signage and perhaps a little statement in the lot options, anything we can do we are all for it, because we understand -- Meddian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 97 of 105 Borup: But you do have more control over the development -- Stanfield: Correct. Over the heavy construction. Zaremba: I'm thinking the heavy infrastructure development traffic control. Stanfield: Correct. I'm thinking backwards. I think the house building is going to generate more traffic than the infrastructure is. Zaremba: But that's generally light traffic. Stanfield: Yeah, but it's a lot. It's your framers, it's your sheetrockers, it's your concrete truck, it's your delivery trucks, it's the city building inspectors, it's a lot more than the heavy construction. Heavy construction is going to be slow and far and few between. But, again, no matter what type of traffic throughout this we will do the best that we can. But please realize that we can't police them and stop them from using it, but we certainly can focus them in the right direction. We could even use Venable for the heavy construction. If we have to relinquish the access, I would propose prior to signature of the final plat by the city. At that point, then, the builders couldn't use it. Again, stretching through my -- I think -- I tried to get everybody. Again, we are convinced we are following the Comprehensive Plan, so we are not asking for any special treatment. The reasons I stated with the Comprehensive Plan regarding uniform traffic and interconnectivity, that's why this stub street was proposed there, right, wrong, or indifferent, no matter what I think, no matter what the neighbors think, no matter what you think, that's there and the best I can do is follow the rules that are in front of us. And with that I will stand for. any questions. Borup: Questions for Mr. Stanfield? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I have one if no one else does. Borup: Please. Freckleton: Excuse me. Scott, Iwas -- I'm a little unclear -- Mr. Reeves got up and was, talking about there being actual ACHD public right of way in Venable Lane. When we. first reviewed the application when you submitted, I know that issue was discussed, you and I talked about it, because your original preliminary plat showed it that way and I questioned it and you researched it and came back and said, no, that is not the case. Stanfield: Correct. Freckleton: And revised the plat accordingly. And so now Mr. Reeves testified tonight that it, indeed, is public right of way. So, I guess I need some clarification on that point. Stanfield: To my knowledge that is not ACRD right of way. They don't recognize it in their staff report. Andrea Tunning claims they don't recognize it as being public right of Meddian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 96 of 105 way. Instrument documents don't recognize it as public right of way. I'm convinced and the highway district is convinced that it's privately owned by Venable and Mr. Semanich I think even addressed that, too. So, to my knowledge it isn't, based on discussions with the highway district and quickly reviewing their staff report. I don't know if that -- Borup: Mr. Reeves made a reference to a notation on the plat or something Stanfield: It's what --there is a strip there and what -- Borup: Was it recorded, though? Stanfield: There is an instrument number or there is a strip of land right there that started Bruce and my conversation at the very beginning and the instrument number, according to the assessor's office, was, I think, a roadway, wasn't it, Bruce? Freckleton: I believe it was. Yeah. Stanfield: And, then, ACHD did some work and, then, Jeff Wood's title company did some work and came back, no, it's not. And the highway district agreed. I actually talked to Gary Ancelman and Andrea Tunning about that and completely disagreed with the assessor's office, as did the title company who did the research for us. Borup: Okay. So, there was something showing at one point? Stanfield: Yes. Borup: So, it's amatter of -- Stanfield: Yeah. Something in the mapping somewhere got thrown on there, but Mr. Venable has been paying taxes on it forever. Borup: Okay. Stanfield: So, hopefully, that helps, Bruce. Freckleton: It does. It does. Just one other point that I wanted to make and that is the construction a cress issue that's been brought up tonight. I h ave a real concern with trying to funnel construction access from this development onto Clearbrook Estates, which is a development that's already gone through our process and has been approved. Their final plan has been in front of Council, it's a little hard to impose a requirement on another property that they have to accommodate the construction access through their development from an adjacent property. I think there could be some legal issues involved with that. Certainly, the timing of the developments -- I mean you could really be causing some problems with that. Meridian Planning & Zaning February 19, 2004 Page 99 of 105 Borup: Well, you're saying if the traffic had to funnel through there before that's a public street you mean? Freckleton: Correct. Borup: I had that same thought. It's going to need to be a public street. Stanfield: Correct. I thought about that last hearing, but it completely escaped me. That's correct. We have no right to goon that property until it's a recorded plat. Borup: I think we are assuming that their development would be ahead of yours Zaremba: We are talking about Indian Rocks? Stanfield: Correct. So, perhaps that condition should be maybe eliminated with keeping the city out of hotwaterand me telling youtonightthatl'llencourageallthepeople involved in this project to cooperate with Indian Rocks and try to utilize another means for construction traffic. Zaremba: Well, the suggestion that I was going to make as a substitute to on page 13 of the staff notes, the new paragraph 16, I was going to suggest the substitution that you be required to use Venable for heavy equipment that's constructing the infrastructure, then, relinquish your right to use Venable before signature on the final plat, which would mean that house construction would have to get there by whatever public road was available, which would mean half of them are probably going to be on Sedgewick and half of them are going to be on Indian Rocks, which should be in by that time. The two stub streets to the north probably aren't going to be connecting to anything quick enough, but the heavy traffic would not be going through existing subdivisions and although there is a lot of it, the lighter contractors' trucks would split between the two, but the city would not be directing which way that happens. Borup: I think the applicant said that they are willing to put some signage and encourage them to use Red Rock, as long as that's a public street. Zaremba: Indian Rock. Borup: Or Indian Rock. So long as there is a public street. Mr. Freckleton. Freckleton: Mr. Chair, Ijust -- and, Jill, if I'm off base, please, jump in, but I have a real concern with the city trying to dictate where -- where we are telling this developer that he's got to run his heavy traffic, especially when we are dealing with other people's property. Venable Lane, excuse me, it's there, it was, obviously, intended as an access. t don't think the original intent was for heavy construction equipment to access down through there. Certainly I don't think the road base is probably adequate to support heavy traffic like that. I guess I would maybe suggest that we look into the legalities before we make a condition like, you know, trying to dictate that they have to take their Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 100 of 105 construction access over Venable Lane. We should probably get some guidance from legal counsel if that's even possible for us to do that. Holinka: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I would tend to agree with Bruce and maybe for now it's sufficient to have the indications from the applicant and we can research that issue further and have that more finely tuned before Council, perhaps, would be the best way to go. Borup: Okay. Stanfield: I'm amenable to that. Borup: Anything else that needs to be mentioned? Stanfield: I hope not. Zaremba: (guess (would -- I had one remaining question, which I didn't ask earlier and it would probably be on phasing. Until Indian Rocks is connected and there are, therefore, at least two ways in and out, they wouldn't be able to go beyond 50 houses; right? Borup: Correct. Zaremba: Is that standard or do we need to make that a condition? I know that's a fire department requirement, but -- Stanfield: I'll jump in there. That's not only a fire department requirement, but that's a highway district requirement. Zaremba: Okay. Stanfield: Yeah. That's understood. And the developer is aware of that. Zaremba: Okay. Stanfield: To use Indian Rocks. And, you know, I will add -- I want to throw in real quick the same Indian Rocks, Mr. Snodgrass's concerns --his position be well-founded about the developer's position, but speaking of Indian Rocks, he went out of his way with a great expense to purchase that spite strip to bring the traffic back around. Granted, he could have done quite a bit less lots, but he took that upon himself to purchase that spite strip and I don't think a lot of other developers would have. I do have one more thing. REA. Reciprocating Egress Agreement. That's what that stands for. Borup: Thank you. Rohm: I was not sleeping tonight. Meddlan Planning & Zoning February 18, 2004 Page 101 of 105 Stanfield: I knew you couldn't sleep tonight until you knew that answer. Zaremba: See, these are educational meetings. Stanfield: Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup? Borup: Yes. Hawkins-Clark: If I could just clarify that. I think for the benefit of the neighbors, for the record that the Landsbury 13.3 acres, 41 lots, 3.1 dwelling units to the acre. That's Landsbury. Salisbury 14.66 acres, 42 lots, 2.86 dwelling units to the acre. The proposed subdivision, 3.65 dwelling units to the acre. So, I just wanted to point out what the actual -- Borup: Okay. You didn't calculate Waterbury, did you? Hawkins-Clark: I did not. I'm sorry. Just need another couple hours. Borup: A few more lots in there. Do you want to keep the meeting open a couple hours do you say? Zaremba: Uh-huh. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Anything else from staff? Hawkins-Clark: Well, the Meridian fire department had a condition that Venable Lane has to be improved to serve as a secondary emergency access, but that was before the revised plat was submitted, so if the Commission chooses to approve this, if you could delete condition number eight on Meridian fire department comments. Or, yeah, you could modify that regarding the 50 houses, because that is a Meridian fire department -- Zaremba: What page is that on? Hawkins-Clark: That was Meridian fire department December 30 memo, page one. Zaremba: Is that an annexation comment or a preliminary plat comment? Hawkins-Clark: Preliminary plat. Zaremba: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I move the public hearing be closed. Meddian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 102 of 105 Corbin: Can I make another comment? I'll do it real quick. Borup: Okay. We will hold you to that. Corbin: Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Something else that's come to mind. Thank you. Borup: You need to state your name again. Corbin: I'm Jerry Corbin. I live on Sedgewick. Okay. I have something else that I want to bring up to you. We are talking about construction vehicles going up and down the street. As you know, our construction on our street has been done quite sometime ago. Okay. This past summer has been incidents where a cement truck comes down the cul- de-sac -- now if you come off into Sedgewick, if you come off into the Sedgewick subdivision there is -- Powell: Sir, can you get forward. Borup: You need to get on the microphone. You said it was going to be real short, remember. Corbin: To t he I eft when you come i n the Salisbury S ubdivision i s a c ul-de-sac area there, okay? We have had cement trucks come down there down, they come from other areas, now, okay, I think Ustick Road. Borup: Okay. l understand what you're saying, but I'm not sure how that applies to this. Corbin: It does apply. They come through that area there and what do they do, they run their cement in their truck a bit and they dump it out,so it goes on the street and makes the street look bad. Okay. Also, they reach in the cab of their truck, the pop bottles, pop cans, rags, pieces of lumber, threw it out in the cul-de-sac area of the street. There was several times I went out there, with the help of the neighbor across the street, to pickup this garbage. Is that going to happen now? Who can say it's not going to happen? Cement trucks will be going back down there up and down Sedgewick, see that area, oh, this is a nice big area, swing around, let's dump our garbage there. Thank yoia. Borup: Thank you. Zaremba: That would be illegal dumping. You need to get their license numbers and call the police when you see that. Borup: I would do that. Zaremba: I believe there is a motion on the floor. Rohm: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 103 of 105 Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: The first item is annexation and zoning. Zaremba: Well -- and my comment would be, once again, this complies with the Comprehensive Plan. I like the fact that there are eventually going to be four ways in and out of this. I realize in the immediate future it puts traffic pressure where traffic pressure is not desired, but I think by the time there are four ingresses and egresses, that will spread out sufficiently to reduce itself again. I did like the alternate plan that was proposed by the Salisbury Lane people, but, apparently, ACRD did not. But I still feel t hat w ith four eventual accesses a nd i ngresses a nd egresses t hat the t raffic w ill eventually -- I mean assuming that it goes equally, that's less than 20 houses per street and it may not go equally. As I say, I don't see anywhere where this doesn't comply with the Comprehensive Plan. That being the case, Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 9 on our agenda AZ 03-036, request for annexation and zoning of 19.7 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for proposed Salisbury Subdivision No. 2 by Earl, Mason and Stanfield, Inc., south of West Ustick Road and west of North Meridian Road, to include all staff comments of their memo originally for the hearing date of January 15th, 2004, but revised February 12th, 2004, the revision received by the clerk February 13th, 2004, with no annexation and zoning changes. Mathes: You said R-4. I believe it's R-8. Zaremba: I read that incorrectly. It should be R-8. R-8 is the correct number, regardless of what I said. Rohm: I'll second that. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? Moe: Are we doing anything at 16? Zaremba: That's preliminary. Moe: Okay. Borup: All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 10 on our agenda, PP 03-042 and I note that we are referring to the preliminary plat dated the first -- dated January 13 of '04, received by the city on Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 104 of 105 February 3rd, '04, request for preliminary plat approval for 72 single family residential building lots and, actually, four, not two, 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, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of January 15th, 2004, revised February 12, 2004. And received by the clerk February 13, 2004, with the following changes: On page 13, paragraph 16 will be changed to -- actually, the current paragraph 16 is deleted and a new paragraph 16 substituted that says applicant and developer will relinquish their own rights for the use of Venable Road prior to signature on the final plat in some formal legal fashion. Moe: Venable Lane. Zaremba: Venable Lane. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 11: Public Hearing: AZ 03-038 Request for annexation and zoning of 21.38 acres from C-2 to C-G zones for proposed Mussell Corner Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. -northeast corner of East Victory Road and South Meridian Kuna Highway: Re-noticed due to improper noticing Item 12: Public Hearing: PFP 03-007 Request for Preliminary Final Plat approval of 4 commercial building lots on 21.38 acres in a proposed C-G zone for proposed Mussell Corner Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - northeast corner of East Victory Road and South Meridian Kuna Highway: Re-noticed due to improper noticing Item 13: Public Hearing: CUP 03-071 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development to allow the construction of a combination feed store and gas station /convenience store on one of the proposed lots and to allow the existing commercial and residential uses to remain and the property for M ussell Corner Subdivision by P innacle Engineers, I nc. - northeast corner of East Victory Road and South Meridian Kuna Highway: Re-noticed due to improper noticing Borup: Thank you. That concludes our agenda. Do we have one final motion? Rohm: I move we adjourn. Mathes: Second.