Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 19, 2004 P&Z MinutesMeridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 2 of 105 Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from February 5, 2004: AZ 03-037 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 46.40 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for proposed Chesterfield Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC - east of North Black Cat Road and north of West Franklin Road: Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from February 5, 2004: PP 03-046 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 215 residential building lots and 34 common lots on 46.40 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Chesterfield Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC -east of North Black Cat Road and north of West Franklin Road: Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from February 5, 2004: CUP 03-070 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development with request for reduction to the minimum requirements for lot size, street frontage and front yard setbacks for patio homes for proposed Chesterfield Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC -east of North Black Cat Road and north of West Franklin Road: Borup: Okay. Our first hearing concerning Chesterfield Subdivision. We'd like to begin with continued Public Hearing AZ 03-037, request for annexation and zoning of 46.4 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for proposed Chesterfield Subdivision by Centennial Development, and Public Hearing PP 03-046, request for preliminary plat approval of 215 residential building lots on the same 46.4 acres, and CUP 03-070, request for Conditional Use Permit for a planned development and I'd like to open all three hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Kirkpatrick: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, and residents of EI Gato Lane, this project is located on Pine Street. It's approximately a half mile north of Wesf Franklin Road and a half mile west of Ten Mile. This project is directly south of the previously approved subdivisions Castlebrook No. 1 and I'll go ahead and put up -- I have a better map. That was the best one. Castlebrook No. 1 and Castlebrook No. 2. Castlebrook No. 2 lies directly to the north of the proposed subdivision and Castlebrook No. 1 is to the northwest of the proposed subdivision. Borup: What we are looking at is outlined in black. Kirkpatrick: Okay. The applicant is here this evening with three applications. The first one is for the annexation and zoning of 46.4 acres from RUT, which is a county zoning, it stands for rural urban transition zone, and they are requesting a rezone to R-8. There is an application for a preliminary plat for 215 building lots and an application for a Conditional Use Permit, which will be a planned development to allow reduced lot sizes, Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 3 of 105 permission to exceed the maximum block length of 1,000 feet, reduced frontage for subdivision lots and reduced setbacks. Staff is recommending approval of this subdivision. First, I'm going to go through a couple of Comprehensive Plan issues associated with this subdivision. Let's see. This is a section of our Comprehensive Plan's land use map, which, essentially, is sort of -- it's Meridian's vision plan for how Meridian should develop. Basically, when you come in and ask for -- to be annexed into the city or for a rezone, you need to comply with this Comprehensive Plan map. This area is designated as medium density residential. The zoning that they are asking for of R-8 units per acre complies with the medium density residential zoning on the Comprehensive Plan. I'm going to point out some of the surrounding Comprehensive Plan designations of this subject property. The subject property, is shaded in the black there towards the southern part of this map, right below the number ten. Kind of south of the canal. That's the subject property. But to the east of the subject property we have a Comprehensive Plan designation of mixed use community. To the west of the subject property we have a Comprehensive Plan designation of medium density residential. To the south of the subject property on the south side of the railroad tracks, we have Comprehensive Plan designations of industrial and high density residential. To the north we have the previously approved Castlebrook Subdivisions. The one directly to the north has zoning of R-8 and the one to the northwest has zoning of R-4. And I went through the exercise of explaining all that, because I know for a lot of folks when they first saw this plat and saw the density that was proposed in what is, essentially, now what looks like a rural area, they were really kind of taken aback by it, so I wanted to go through and explain the Comprehensive Plan designation and how this really fits in with the designations for this area. The applicant's proposing 'patio lots to the south, which feature a shared driveway, and staff is supportive of this, it's helping to provide a variety of housing types in the Meridian area and that's one of our Comprehensive Plan goals. And I'm going to go through some of the zoning issues associated with this project. A couple things I wanted to point out, because these are new things that I don't' think have come to this planning commission previously. The applicant on the patio home lots is asking for an eight foot front setback from the edge of the pavement of the shared driveway and this is different from a traditional lot, because it is a shared driveway, but I just wanted to point out that that eight foot setback is definitely a smaller setback than I have seen working here before at the City of Meridian and, additionally, on some of the street side setbacks, some of the lots that are located off of -- if I can get the street name. 1 wanted to make sure I had my street names correct. Okay. The side yard setbacks for several of the lots on the south side of the Meadow Pine and on the south side of Kaspell Street, the applicant's proposed a five foot landscape buffer and, then, a five foot side setback. So, essentially, that's a ten foot s ide setback, where normally they would be required to have a 20 foot side setback. So, I just wanted to point out that the applicant asked for these things. Staff is supporting this project and the diversity that this project brings to Meridian and I wanted to point out that this is something different and I want to address -- initially I think we have a lot of neighbors here this evening to discuss the extension of Pine Street. I'll go back to our area map. So; our subject property is, again, outlined there in black. Through the approval of Castlebrook No. 1 and Castlebrook No. 2, the developer was required to exterid Pine Street to EI Gato to provide access to the subdivisions. Castlebrook No. 2 was Meridian Planning & Z.oning February 19, 2004 Page 4 of 105 approved in May 2003 by Council and Castlebrook No. 1 was approved in October 2002. So, essentially, this extension of Pine Street to EI Gato has already been approved as part of those two previously approved subdivisions. So, I just wanted to point that out. I know that's an issue and why a lot of folks are here this evening. The completion of the extension of Pine Street actually will be a condition of approval before this plat can be signed. Essentially, it's landlocked today. Before this plat can be signed Pine Street needs to be constructed, so that there is access to the subdivision. I went through the ACHD comments prior to the meeting and, essentially, they have no concerns over this extension other than that, it needs to be constructed to provide access for the subdivision. Are there any questions of staff? Borup: Questions from the Commission? Zaremba: I have two, actually. Kirkpatrick: Okay. Zaremba: Thank you for your presentation. On page four of your comments, the top paragraph, the last sentence, you say the applicant has indicated they will construct a five foot asphalt multi-use parkway -- pathway, I'm sorry, along the west side of Ten Mile Creek. Kirkpatrick: Uh-huh. Zaremba: Doesn't the parks department usually require that the multi-use pathways are ten feet wide and, then, plus a little buffer zone on each side? Kirkpatrick: Yeah. Actually, I talked to Doug Strong, the Parks Director, a nd in this location the regional pathway will be on the other side of the canal. This is just a pathway for the residents of the subdivision and it will, eventually, connect to a micropath in Castlebook. Zaremba: Okay. Kirkpatrick: But this is not the regional pathway, that's why it's five feet in width. Zaremba: Thank you. Then, on page seven, your additional considerations, park drainage area, you discuss whether or not some of the drainage areas will be countable as open space. If they are being counted as open space, do we have a requirement specifying maximum slope and should we add that? Kirkpatrick: I know we have done to where you cannot exceed the three-to-one slope ratio. We could add that here. Zaremba: I would add that here. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 5 of 105 Kirkpatrick: And I think we probably would add that. Borup: I think that's in the ordinance. Zaremba: Oh, is it in the ordinance? Okay. So, that's automatically enforced. All right. Never mind. Those were my questions. Borup: Okay. Mathes: I have a question. On Pine and EI Gato, Pine goes from Black Cat this way east and, then, it stops at the edge of the subdivision and, then, EI Gato starts there and goes to Ten Mile or how does that work? Kirkpatrick: Let's see. Let me get my map out. Zaremba: Pine currently ends at Ten Mile. Kirkpatrick: And, actually, there is still -- Zaremba: And extended west. I guess there is still a question about what the name will be, because -- Mathes: Are they going the whole mile? Zaremba: Eventually, yes. Kirkpatrick: Eventually there will -Pine Street will continue to EI Gato Street. Mathes: Is it like Emerald, Executive, Presidential going on here? Zaremba: Uh-huh. And they will eventually connect to those. Exactly. Mathes: Oh. Okay. Zaremba: Everything you named, plus Pine and EI Gato, will eventually be one street. Mathes: Okay. Borup: And, Wendy, you -- you had mentioned about the construction of Pine Street in conjunction with the other subdivision. Who is responsible for that construction? Was each developer to do half or has that been -- Kirkpatrick: Actually, probably fortunately for the project, the same developer is working on Chesterfield and Castlebrook One and Two. Meddian Planning & Zoning February 1g, 2004 Page 6 of 705 Borup: Okay. So, it doesn't really matter if each one is half or what they are doing. But wasn't -- but that was the requirement for the previous subdivision. Kirkpatrick: Correct. And, then, as a condition of approval this final plat cannot be signed and lots cannot be sold until that road has been constructed. Mathes: From what point to what point? Kirkpatrick: It needs to extended from -- Borup: The whole border of the subdivision. Kirkpatrick: Yeah. Basically, the whole border of the subdivision. Mathes: But not the whole mile? Rohm: From here to here. Zaremba: Northern border. That's the railroad track you're marking. Rohm: Oh. Excuse me. Here. Borup: No. Mathes: I don't think so. Borup: Just the border of the subdivision. That's all they own. Rohm: The road would have to extend from Ten Mile, though, would it not? Mathes: I don't think so. Kilkpatrick: And, Chairman, members of the Commission, we also have the developer here who wanted --when he gives his testimony can explain all that of when that will be extended. Borup: Okay. We will do that. Zaremba: I think Castlebrook had to do this part and I would assume that this group needs to continue it to there. It will eventually connect here, but that property is not in question at the moment. Borup: Okay. Rohm: It's, actually, coming from the west, then, and feeding back to the east. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 7 of 105 Mathes: Right. Rohm: Okay. Right. Zaremba: That's my assumption. Borup: Any other questions from any of the Commissioners? Is the developer ready for their presentation? Amar: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Kevin Amar, address 114 East Idaho, Suite 230, here in Meridian. I'm here on behalf of Chesterfield Subdivision, which we are in complete agreement with the staff report, so I really won't go over much of the staff report this evening, unless you have questions and which I'll answer. But we have met with staff on numerous occasions and this is the second rendition of this project. The one wasn't quite, I guess, what everybody wanted to see. So, we are moving forward with this project trying to provide something of a little more variety and not the same style in Meridian. I will start off by presenting the subdivision and telling you a little bit about the project, how we arrived at where we are at, and, then, try to answer some of the questions that you have. W e also have our land planner here tonight, Shawn Nickel, who can ask any questions that I'm sure your staff can answer them better than we can, but --and we have our engineer here that can answer some of the engineering related questions, sewer and water or storm drainage, if you have any of those questions. Could Iget -- Wendy, could you put up that map? Actually, could you put that map up first? Thanks. This project is located in this location. It looks like mine is dying now. It is east -- or, I'm sorry, it is south of what will be Pine Gato, because I'm not sure if it's going to be Pine or EI Gato yet, but it will be east of what will be Pine or EI Gato. If you look at the project, this square has been approved as Castlebrook Subdivision No.1. This square is Castlebrook Subdivision No. 2. And we are here tonight on Chesterfield Subdivision. It is a -- it is a continual flow back in towards the city, so we are not trying to go away from the city, but more -- I don't know if you can call it an in-fill, because it hasn't been d eveloped around it, but we are not pushing further to the west. We are trying to come back to the east. So, I think it will help the city in that regard. We have the railroad tracks bordering our southern boundary, which some day maybe a light rail system or other type transit area. So, it is an area that a little more density is requested, so it will support that style of trahsportation. If you look at the rest of the area, you can see most of Meridian really has developed up to this point. Black Cat being the dividing line, if you will, of anything going further west. So, as the city wants to have orderly growth, we are filling in the city before we go out further from the boundaries. Wendy, now if I can get the other map. Thank you. The project itself has 215 residential lots. We are requesting preliminary plat approval, annexation to R-8, a variance, and I don't know all the other terms that we are asking for. One question that came up -- and you may have the other map. The Fire Department code requires that the distance from the two accesses be half the diagonal distance of the site, so we did move this road from this original location further to the west in order to accommodate that. So, the variance we are requesting is in this location. It does exceed the thousand foot block length, but that was done in Meddian Planning 8 Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 8 of 105 cooperation with the city trying meet all the codes and I guess picking the -which one we needed to meet more. Some of the -- we have ten percent park space in this project or open space. I'm trying to intersperse these parks -the larger parks throughout the subdivision, so all residents will have easier access to the project: If you will look along this southern boundary -- if you look along the southern boundary where we have the patio homes, we also tried to incorporate between the patio homes some open space, so the patio homes will either have access -- close access to this open space or they will have direct access to a park space nearby. So, we are trying -- we understand we are asking for smaller lots, but we are trying to provide a larger area for people to go to that really will provide an area to play in and those parks will have some playground equipment, tot lot style -- in fact, we have a picture here if you'd like to see that, we can put on the overhead. We are going to have some picnic areas. We are going to have a volleyball court. So, there is functionality in these open spaces, notjust grass'and open. space, but something for people to go and do. Along our western boundary this is a pathway that we are constructing. It will be through an agreement with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District, they own that property, but we will put a pathway along the edge of that canal. We have spoken with them and, in fact, they are in the process right now of getting the license agreement signed in Castlebrook No. 1. This pathway -- can you put. up that vicinity map? Powell: No. Amar: Okay. Sorry, I can't show you that. Kirkpatrick: We are going to show you the tot lot first. Amar: Okay. The pathway will be a continuation of what we included in Castlebrook No. 2. So, we are trying -- hopefully, some day it will all connect back to Fuller Park. The city pathway, I think you asked, will be on the other side of the canal. The Ten Mile Creek, actually. Oh. Thank you. So, this is the property -- we have on this portion of Castlebrook along the Ten Mile Creek provided a five foot pathway and, then, it has a bridge connecting over to Fuller Park. That Fuller Park pathway I think is ten feet wide and is the city pathway, but we didn't have the ability to get from Castlebrook No. 2 without putting a bridge to Fuller Park and with the school being in this location and also having a park space there, we wanted the residents in here to be able to get to that community park. So, in Castlebrook -- or in Chesterfield we will be constructing. a pathway along here and we hope --.although we do not control this property -- some day if this develops, whoever the developer may be, would put a pathway along there'to' connect those. We don't control that, we can't say that that will or will not happen, but we are trying to set I guess precedent up front to do that. And. as I mentioned before, this pathway agreement has gone through the process now with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District and their attorney is finalizing the documents and that signature will be forthcoming. So, it is something we have spoken about. With respect to Pine Street, this project will complete the section of Pine from Ten Mile Creek to this subdivision's western boundary. So, it will add the full right of way, which is an additional eight feet of right of way to make the full width right of way for that entire section. So, we will -- Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 9 of 105 before we can build any of this, we will have to have the street constructed with Castlebrook Phase 2 to this point. And, then, at that point when -- should we start to build this one next, we will have to continue that --that Pine Street all the way to our first phase. It will be built in phases and eventually up to the Ten Mile Creek. With the approvals of Castlebrook No. 2, this neighborhood requested because Pine from Ten Mile to the east is a private road and those neighbors and those residents do not want public traveling across their private road and so -- and in the approval of Castlebrook No. 2 we had told the neighbor that -- and as part of the conditions of approval that we will barricade that road off with concrete barricades or something. We have to make sure the Fire Department is okay with that, but they have already indicated they are, because they have access from the other direction. So, we will continue that barricade, even though we will have to improve the right of way on front of his house, not on his property, it will be for him, I guess. It's not going to be used for the residents within this subdivision, within Chesterfield. And we have located our second access, obviously, on the other side of that line, so people can get in and out of that. But we wanted to be aware and put on the record that that is -- we know that that was a condition of approval in Castlebrook No. 2 and we will continue that through, even though we have to improve some of the right of way with this project, it will not be used at this time until either this piece develops or some day if that road goes through, but it will be there. in the future when it does need to be used. Borup: So, at this point there is going to be a permanent barricade to stay? There will be a permanent barricade at that point? Amar: Yes. Borup: So, no vehicle traffic -- Amar: To the east. Borup: -- can go to the east. Amar: Correct. Zaremba: While we a re on the subject of the roadway, though, I do rememberthat requirement for Castlebrook. What I don't remember, did Castlebrook need to build half the road plus 12 feet and you're building the other eight feet? Is that what you meant? Amar: Correct. Zaremba: So --and you're just agreeing that the barrier will cross the new eight feet as well? Amar: Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 10 of 105 Zaremba: Okay. Amar: It will be over the full width, so the gentleman's property line is approximately in this location. So, that barricade will be right here across the full width of the roadway, so people cannot travel to the east until that develops to the east. People have to come out a nd go back to the west, which is something we understand and was already a condition of approval. So, we are trying to carry that through with Chesterfield also. Some of the -- we did have a neighborhood meeting on this project and some of the neighbors to our west -- originally we had these lots backed up to those neighbors and that was a concern of theirs, so we relocated those to the other side. Fronts of houses will be facing their pasture and their yard and, then, there will, actually, be landscaping and park space between the houses and their property. And, then, another neighbor that lives in this area gains access to his irrigation water down here. So, we are fencing the boundaries of the project, but we will have to be providing gates for those fences to get -- to get in and out of the irrigation rights for the gentleman that lives here. Another of the concerns that came up that night, along with Ten Mile Creek -- and this was also a condition of approval in Castlebrook No. 2, these lots are a little larger and these will be required to be 1,600 square foot homes, the same as was required in Castlebrook No. 2, t tying t o b e c onsistent, a gain, w ith what a pprovals w e h ave a Iready received. Again, I think it's a good project, it's a project that we really did try to think out and we understand this area is for medium density residential, which is from four to eight units to the acre. Our density is 4.63 units to the acre. Well, we are really on the low side of what the city envisions for this area and trying to be as harmonious with what the city envisions and what the neighbors have living there and trying to put that all in one bundle and put it together before this body and get approval. With that, I believe I will stand for any questions. Engineering, I'm going to defer those storm drain questions to my engineer, because -- Zaremba: I think I got my drainage question answered, so -- Amar: Okay. Zaremba: -- the ordinance will cover that and I'm sure your engineer is complying with it. Amar: He certainly will. Zaremba: You mentioned the fences and making access to the irrigation canal -- irrigation ditch. Would you remember if the people that you're doing that for, is that the Caseys? Amar: I can point them out. Zaremba: Okay. I was going to put in the record that we have a letter from them asking just on that subject, so I wanted to make sure -- Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 71 of 105 Amar: Yes. Zaremba: -- you are taking care of them. Sir, you will need to wait and testify with the microphone. At any rate -- Amar: We will make access to anybody -- we can't cut water or access to the water off. Zaremba: Right. Amar: So, we have to fence it as a condition of approval, but that doesn't mean -- and what I told them is we will put the lock - if they want to lock it on their side, so they can control access to who is getting to their water and who is getting to their property. Zaremba: Okay. I just wanted to make sure the Casey's concerns were brought up. While we are on the subject of fencing, around the patio homes do you envision any fencing? Let me preface that by saying my concern when we reduce setbacks is Fire Department access, should something happen. I notice the Fire Department didn't say anything about that, but when we reduce access I get concerned about having fences go along property lines, which doesn't give the fire department enough room to move. Do you envision fences between them? Amar: We will have fences and I think one of the conditions of approval was the fences would be four feet in height and be see through. Zaremba: I saw that along the public pathway. That's for visual safety - Amar: We will put that on -- correct. So, around all the -- if you look here, around, obviously, these common areas, but also in this area and, then, on the lot lines, not along the southern boundary, because that will be a six foot fence, but along all the lot lines it will be a four foot high --what's the proper term? Zaremba: Site obscuring? Amar: Well, no, it's open -- Kirkpatrick: Call it semi solid. Amar: Bridgetower, are you familiar with the fencing on there? You can kind of see through it, but it's not solid either. I don't know how to explain it. Rohm: Transparent. Amar: Okay. Transparent. That will be the fencing. But it will be four feet in height, so -- and we did talk to the Fire Department. One of the reasons that -- this is the second rendition. The first one had -- these accesses were too long. We tried to keep those Meridian Planning 8 Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 12 of 105 down as little as possible, so the Fire Department can gain access to all the houses there. Zaremba: Okay. If they have considered all the issues, I won't add that. Amar: We have tried. Zaremba: Okay. Let me ask one other. This area here -- you identified several of them between the patio homes as being open space. Is this a walkable pathway connecting those two streets? Amar: Yes, sir. Zaremba: Okay. Great. Amar: Yes. If I might bring up one comment on the front yard of these lots, we are asking for an eight foot setback to those garages. Scott, could you put up the overhead with the -- there is a subdivision in -- it's, actually, in Boise, but it's similar in nature to this. They did a 20 foot setback and I'll show you on this picture why we are asking for eight feet. The vision is we don't want people parking in front of their garage, we want them to park in their garage, because you get cars and it just looks a little more clustered. So, if you can see here, this is a 20 foot setback to the front of the houses. Well, it leaves enough room for people to park there. If we push the houses in tighter, first of all, it gives more open space in their backyard. Second of all, it forces them to park in their garage. The eight feet is enough room to get cars turned in and out of there. So, that, again, was done with some, I guess, forethought. With respect to the driveway itself, there will be a ribbon curb around this asphalt. That's something that we have to install as a developer, but we are trying to keep that from breaking down. Asphalt always breaks down on the edges, so there will be a curb that goes all the way around that. And, then, if you have the other landscape -that's the one. This is what we envision the -- so, all of the patio homes you have got these driveways here, but you have one driveway that accesses four houses every 200 feet or greater, instead of a driveway every 30 or 40 feet. So, this really becomes more of a streetscape than a sea of asphalt or concrete and driveway. So, although the lots are the same size whether we would have turned them the other way, this creates more of an esthetically pleasing look. But that was just some information in pictures that you can actually see what it would look like, rather than -- I wish it would have been sunny. It was sunny, but I wish it would have been green, it would look even better, but -- at least it was sunny today. I think with that I'll stand for any questions. Borup: Any other questions from any of the Commissioners? Rohm: I have got a couple of questions. You mentioned your neighborhood meetings. At those neighborhood meetings did you keep minutes or notes of the concerns of the neighborhood and try and provide response to specific concerns as you went through Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 13 of 105 your neighborhood meeting or is this just an assumption that the proposal that's before us incorporates those concerns into the final proposal? Amar: I guess I can --did we respond, I guess we returned phone calls back to -- Rohm: I'm more interested in when you have a neighborhood meeting individuals will speak to their concerns about a specific portion of your development and if, in fact, it's just to take their input, but no response, there is no value in the neighborhood meeting. And so from my perspective it makes it easier for us to be able to know that you have gone through that process, if, in fact, there is a list of concems on one side and a list of responses on the other, so we can say, okay, here is the concern, say it was on fencing, and you said, okay, I understand what you're saying and, then, this is what our response to that would be. And in this type of development when there is a number of people in the audience to speak to it, it's very important for us to at least be able to know that you have an opportunity to incorporate those concerns as you move forward, otherwise, it puts us in a -- a pretty tough spot. So, I'd like you to speak to some concerns that came up. Maybe you will be able to solve some problems before, individuals have to speak. I just -- I think that might be in good keeping. Amar: Thank you. At the neighborhood meeting -- I don't remember how many fliers went out, but there were probably 15 to 20 people there. Fewer people, obviously, than are here tonight. Some of the concerns that came up are some that we did address. Along this Ten Mile Creek the neighbor to our east was worried about the number of houses and the size of houses and what he was going to see from his house and so we did eliminate from our initial proposal a lot in this area, making those lots a little larger ahd, then, requiring the homes on those lots also to be larger. So, these homes will be 1,600 feet minimum home size, excluding the garage on these lots. Providing him, I guess, some answers to his questions. And, then, we had neighbors on the west side who were concerned with two things, one, this road at one point stubbed through to a properly that really was - it was ineffective to have a stub road there and so we eliminated that stub road by putting lots in there. We also pushed the lots -instead of bordering the west boundary, we pushed those back to the east bordering the Kennedy Lateral in order to have the fronts of the houses looking onto his property, rather than the backs of the houses looking onto his property. That is also where the fencing issue came up and the gates with respect to the access to the irrigation. So, I guess to answer your question, yes, we did take notes and we do try to respond to the items that we hear at those meetings and, in fact, in this case we did change the plat to reflect that meeting. I think a lot of the neighbors here tonight are for the extension of --and maybe I'm speaking on their behalf or out of turn, but it's for the extension of Pine and that really isn't -- the extension of Pine, as Wendy has suggested or stated, has already been approved and it will go through. ACHD also approved this subdivision. This subdivision does not extend Pine any further. Well, I guess it extends Pine from this point to here. It, really, just completes the width on Pine for the majority of the project, so .you have full width street, instead of, as was stated, half plus 12 feet. So, I don't know if I've answered your -- Meddian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 14 of 105 Rohm: No. That's exactly where I wanted to go, because there will be people that will want to speak to some of the differences between your proposal and what they'd like to see and l j ust -- it's i mportant to u s t hat you have addressed t hose as you put your proposal together and it just gives -- it gives us more information. Thank you. Amar: Thank you. Borup: Is there anything else concerning ACHD's comments that would be pertinent to mention? Amar: No. The other comments from ACHD were really standard comments with respect to road width, interior road width. We have got an island in this area, on either side of the island, but with respect to the subdivision itself and how Pine will be extended, I think it's really just the completion of that right of way that would be pertinent to Pine itself. ACHD did hear this probably two weeks ago and did approve the plan as presented. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Amar: Thank you. Borup: Unless there is anybody else -- all right. Thank you. Was there -was there anybody who wanted to hear from the engineer on anything? I think we are covered on that, aren't we? Okay. Well, we'd like to open up for public testimony at this time. I had someone who mentioned there may be a neighborhood representative. Is that true? Okay. What we are able to do in that situation with a neighborhood representative is allow extra time, so we are not --don't need to limit that to the three minutes. Noll: I appreciate that, because we have sat 40 minutes or so talking about it up until now, so -- Borup: Well, a lot of times it's a lot longer. I mean there is no relationship between the two. The purpose of the developer is to present their projects so everyone can have an understanding of what we are talking about. Noll: I appreciate that. Zaremba: I'd like to add, though, that the spokesman is using the other people's time. Noll: I am. Borup: Right. And that's what I wanted to find out. How many people here is he representing? Okay. Do we have -- do we have a neighborhood on -- one on the east and one on the west? Is that how we are divided? Are you representing which neighborhood, then? Meridian Planning 8 Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 15 of 105 Noll: I'm representing the people that live on EI Gato Lane. Borup: East and west. Noll: There is not EI Gato east of this subdivision. Borup: Okay. But isn't there a road there, though? Noll: No, sir, there is not. Zaremba: Just private access. Powell: Sir, can you state your name for the -- Borup: Yeah. Noll: I'm waiting. Powell: I know. Noll: I'm waiting to be que'd to start. Borup: This is your que. Noll: Are you going to que me to start? Borup: Yes. Noll: Okay. Borup: Let's go ahead. Noll: Okay. My name is Tom Noll. That's N-o-I-I. I'm a Ph.D. economist. I live on EI Gato Lane and I'm representing some of my friends and neighbors here who live on EI Gato Lane as well. I'm going to talk a little bit tonight -- I'm going to -- I have introduced myself and I want to talk a little bit about the EI Gato neighborhood. I'm going to present the issues, our position on those issues, and I'm going to close and give you a handout and tell you a little story about the neighborhood. It's a little bit different testimony than you hear on the dry engineering stuff, but 1'll get into some of that, too, because I have that ability. Borup: Maybe at the beginning could we establish the neighborhood that you're talking about. Could we get the other map up? Noll: If you have got a pointer. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 16 of 105 Borup: There should be a pointer right there at your -- Noll: Yeah. This will -- okay. Okay. This is the proposed subdivision. I think we need to go back to the map that has the sections on it, Section 10 and Section -this is the proposed subdivision here. As the developer has explained, this is Chesterfield, these are the Castlebrook Subdivisions. This is EI Gato Lane here that runs for one mile, plus this little - it runs for one mile here between -- this is McDermott Road and this is Black Cat Road and the road runs here. There is about -- you can count them up, but I would say about 25 or so residents on that lot -- on that street, a one mile street. Then, there is a private road there that's Pine that parallels EI Gato for a few hundred feet and, then, angles down here and serves these people. I'm representing the folks that live on EI Gato Lane, this paved road that runs here for this -- Borup: This is all west of Ten Mile? West of Black Cat I mean. Noll: West of Black Cat, too. Borup: Thats what I mean to say, west of Black Cat. Noll: It is. Yes, sir. Borup: So, that the whole neighborhood you're talking about is all west of Black Cat? Noll: Yes, sir. Borup: Okay. Noll: That neighborhood was developed in and plat -- you know, platted in about 1974, so it's a 30-year-old neighborhood. As I said, I'm speaking for the residents on EI Gato. I visited every resident on EI Gato, except for one. You can't always get to all the people. And I'd just like the EI Gato residents to raise their hand, the ones that are represented -- that are here tonight. I think that's important. I think it's important, too, just to let you know, we have two irrigation circuits that feed out of the Kennedy Lateral and that's how many of our neighbors know each other. Of the 25 people, I would say most people on that street know most of the other people. That's unusual. I challenge other folks in this audience to name everybody that lives on their street. It would be a tough task. Anyway -- and I read the paper, I read the paper -- read it this morning about Meridian and the connections and the goals of Meridian and trying to d evelop more of a character, less of a bedroom community, and I think what Meridian is trying to develop is what exists today on EI Gato Lane. I'll talk more about that. I would also like to say that EI Gato is not just a residential street, there is some businesses on there and there is contract farming. These are five acre parcels and there is seed crops grown on a couple of those parcels at least. There is also a day care center on the street and I would say that, you know, most of the people are very concerned about this development and that's why we are here tonight. We also have a long history of working with the government with developers. You know that McDermott is the county Meddlan Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 17 of 105 line road and the neighborhood has worked extensively with what's off your map, uncharted territory to the west, which is in Canyon County. We have quite a long working relationship with Canyon County and a developer that built a five acre development just to the west of McDermott off of EI Gato Lane. So, we want to emphasize that we have a history of working with folks and that's important to realize. We'd like to extend that history and work with the Castlebrook and Chesterfield developers, as well as the City of Meridian. I'm going get into the issues and one issue that comes up that I think is really important and the developer talked about this, is that - - the public meetings. I think it's important to know that not a single family on EI Gato Lane was notified or invited to a public meeting. Now, I'm sure that the letter of law was met on the public meetings, but the intent of law is to notify the impacted parties and I will state that, again, not a single family on EI Gato Lane was notified or invited to any of the public meetings. Borup: Did any of you attend? Noll: We didn't know about it. Powell: Chairman Borup, we need to have this woman come up to the podium and give her name, please. Ferrera: This will just take a second. My name is Kathy Ferrera and I live on EI Gato Lane also and a couple of us attended -- we heard about it on very short notice the same day. When that Pine Street extension was approved we didn't know. Nobody on EI Gato Lane is within 300 feet of Black Cat Road and we got no notice and we found out -- Rohm: I was just curious. I -- Ferrera: That's why there is so many here tonight. Noll: This is our -- this is our chance, so that's why we are here tonight. So, as I said, none of us were invited to the developer's meetings. We have got some issues and they are engineers and civil engineers and such in our neighborhood and we have worked with them and I'm going to outline the key issues here that we have. Okay. The present subdivision plans for Castlebrook and Cheste~eld do not include a residential connector -- a connector connection's at Ten Mile Road. I think you folks have pointed that out earlier in the meeting today. So, what that means is all subdivision traffic from over 400 residences is going to enter and exit on Black Cat Road. I should say that not one of the three proposed subdivisions -- this is according to ACHD documents. Not one of the three proposed subdivisions have completed final platting in the decision process. There is no iron in the ground for these. So, what that means is that, layout -- design and layout changes are still appropriate at this time. I think that's an important fact to remember. It also -- another issue is that it appears that ACHD and Meridian Planning and Zoning have assumed that there will be no traffic impacts to the existing EI Gato neighborhood from the proposed subdivisions. Now, remember, the only entrance Meridian Planning 8 Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 18 of 705 and exit from the subdivision is directly opposite EI Gato Lane as proposed here tonight and that's 400 residences. W e question the assumption that there will be no traffic impacts. Borup: Whose assumption is that? Noll: We heard it from ACHD and we've heard it from you and we have seen no traffic - Borup: What have you heard from us? Noll: We have seen no traffic studies of EI Gato Lane. Of traffic impacts on EI Gato Lane. EI Gato is not even listed. Borup: Okay. Noll: So, we have -- Borup: You're assuming that they are going to travel west down EI Gato to go to their destination. Noll: We assume that out of 400 residences some will travel west. Zaremba: Can you tell what would attract them to go that direction? Noll: Well, Horace Greeley said go west, but that's not enough. of an attraction. There is the Nampa Center, which is becoming, you know, much more of a commercial location. There is, you know, Caldwell. There is the new -- what, Costco is building something out in Nampa now. I think there is plenty of attractions for people to go west. And, as I said, you know, Ithink -- Zaremba: But the only thing they would gain by going across EI Gato is getting to McDermott instead of Black Cat. They can't go any farther than that and they still have to go somewhere else. Noll: Well, I think that's -- that's a good point. Let's -- we may come back to that. I want to -let's talk about some of the other things, because I think there is a way we can solve all these problems and that's what we are going to get at here. Under the -- another issue that we have is under the proposed subdivision layout, EI Gato Lane will become a de facto residential collector, because it will have a straight line connection into the Pine Street corridor here. Existing EI Gato Lane was not designed or built to the ACHD residential collector specifications and cannot meet the design criteria. It cannot meet it because of the 25 residences, the right of way width, as well as high water table, because this is -it's bounded on both sides by irrigation ditches, by drain ditches. So, during much of the summer the water table is within a foot or so of the road surface. I'd like to say that an in-line connection from a residential collector to a mile Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 19 of 105 long residential street doesn't pass today's design criteria and I think had the stuation been reversed, had Castlebrook and Chesterfield been 30 year subdivisions and I was here tonight proposing the EI Gato Subdivision, you folks would not approve it, because EI Gato Lane would not meet residential collector standards. However, the 30 year history is different than that. We were out there for 30 years and now the in-fill is being developed. My point is that EI Gato Lane does not meet residential collector standards. We think that an in-line connection from a residential collector to a mile long residential street will create traffic and safety problems. And I'm going to say we think that allowing that connection, Meridian Planning and Zoning and ACHD would be remiss in that situation. But we are not -- we are going to propose a solution and we believe it's better to prevent the problem at the design stage, rather than to try and deal with them later on after 400 plus houses get built. As we talked earlier, you know, the developer and as your planners talked, the EI Gato neighborhood is zoned RT or RUT and services as a transition between rural farmland and urban land. We think -- even though it meets the requirements, we think that the appropriate transition from RT or RUT to high density subdivisions proposed here is inappropriate and we'd support lower housing density in these subdivisions. I realize that some of these have already passed through the preliminary approval, so that may be a negotiation point for Chesterfield, but it may not be something that we have leeway on with Castlebrook. I want to say I did talk to every family on the EI Gato Street, except for one that I haven't been able to get ahold of and not one family supports this subdivision as proposed. It's unanimous. So, our recommendations are that we -- we recommend two things. We recommend that the entrance t o t he p roposed s ubdivision -- w e recommend t hat t hat b e moved n orth on Black Cat Road tojust north of the Kennedy Lateral. I think I can s how where that would be on this. Here is -- oh, we've got dueling lights. But, yeah, Gene's got it just correct. Here is the subdivision. This is EI Gato and we are recommend that this entrance be -- the entrance moved north and to follow the Kennedy Lateral up to here. Now, there is a couple of reasons why we think that's a good idea. One is that -- Borup: Let me interrupt you a little bit there. We are only talking about one the subdivision tonight. We can't address anything on the other subdivisions. You realize that? Noll: I do. Borup: Okay. And this subdivision only has access to the Pine Street extension that the other subdivision is building. Noll: I understand that. As 1 mentioned earlier, these subdivisions, our understanding and the developer pointed out here tonight, it's the same developer building all of the subdivisions and as the ACRD documents point out, none of his subdivisions, not one, have been approved - have done the final platting. So, that's an important consideration here. Rohm: Well, Tom, but the final plat, albeit hasn't been completed, but the number of lots and the layout won't change in any of them. That's more of a formality than it is a Meddian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 20 of 105 cast in concrete and just because the stakes aren't there, the number of lots more than likely won't change in any one of these developments. Noll: Well, maybe in the first two, in the Castlebrook ones, but I think we are here at the preliminary stage for Chestertield, aren't we, Mike? Borup: Yes, we are. Rohm: We are. Borup: And that was the point I'm trying to make, you're talking about this Commission addressing stuff in Castlebrook, which that is not something that we have the authority to do, for one thing. Zaremba: Well, there is actually two ways that we don't have the authority. We are here only to consider this application. We cannot bring in previous applications and the roadway is decided by ACHD. If you have a challenge to them, you need to make it to them. We don't have the power to change what ACHD does. Noll: Here is our -- we have a proposal and I would like to work through it. Those are valid questions and -- Borup: No. T hese a re accurate statements a nd I a ppreciate your proposal, but if it's something that we have no power or authority to do, it's not good use of the time here tonight. Noll: We have the -- Borup: And changing Chesterfield's access to Ten Mile or anything else is really a mute point. As was stated, this is a landlocked piece of property. The only access they have is right there at that point. Noll: That's correct. I'd like to finish my testimony, if I may. Borup: Well, yes, but -- I mean you do have extra time, but we don't have all night. Noll: I understand. Borup: Is what I'm trying to say, so -- Noll: I understand. Borup: -- that's why I'd like you to maybe move on to the other points that maybe we can talk about and accomplish something. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 21 of 105 Noll: I'll get to those. I appreciate your concerns, Mr. Commissioner. What we have proposed -- and I'm going to go over it one more time, even though it's very contentious, is that the entrance to the proposed subdivisions be moved north on Black Cat Road to just north of the Kennedy Lateral. This placement is at the top of a small rise which improves the visibility and safety, should reduce the traffic on EI Gato Lane and meets the residential collector specifications by not having an in-line connection from a residential street to a residential collector. Our second recommendation is to lower the housing density in the proposed subdivisions to improve the transition from rural farmland to urban development. What the EI Gato neighborhood's position is -- and I think this is why we are here tonight, because we have the Planning and Zoning Commission, we have the developer, and we have the EI Gato residence, and I think we can all work together. Our position is we will oppose the Chesterfield Subdivision as long as there is a direct in-line connection from EI Gato Lane to the propose Castlebrook and Chesterfield Subdivisions. But we will support those subdivisions, all three of them, with some design changes if that road alignment can be changed. And I think that's an important key. So, what we are talking about here is how we will work with the neighborhood. I said I'd finish this up with just a quick story and I'm going to do that, I'm going to take a few more minutes of your time, because this is our -- this is our chance at the public --this is the first public meeting we have been invited to. Borup: It's the first public meeting that's been held. Noll: What I'd like to -- Borup: It's the fist one that's been held, too. Noll: Yeah. And we weren't invited to any from the developer. What I'd like to say -- I'm going to close with a little story about EI Gato neighborhood and I'm going to close with a Christmas story. EI Gato is a quiet street and Christmas this year -- you know, some of you have children, some of you don't, but you remember what it was like. Well, on Christmas Eve EI Gato is a quiet street and we know where the children live on EI Gato, so about 10:30 Christmas Eve I saddled up my pony, threw the sleigh bells on, him, and rode up and down the street and delivered candy canes to the houses on the street with the children. I don't think you can do that on a residential collector street and I'm pretty sure you can't do it on Black Cat Lane, even on Christmas Eve. When Meridian talks about developing character, you have a neighborhood here that has it, and I think there is some things that are worth preserving and some things that are worth considering. When you make a decision on these subdivisions, when you make a decision on Planning and Zoning, you have to think about things with your head and you have to address the issues with your heart, because you all know that the best decisions are made when you make them with your head and when you make them with your heart. So, what I want to do, I'm going to hand out the sheets to summarize our statements and I'll give one to the clerk -- to the court recorder here, but I want you - -when Ihand them out and look you in the eye and I want you to think about that, think about the decisions you make and think about making them with your head and making them with your heart and that includes my testimony. I may not have covered Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 22 of 105 everything for some of these people, I tried to cover most of the topics, and I appreciate you taking the time to listen to me tonight. Borup: Any questions, Commissioners? Zaremba: While he's passing that out, I would comment that we also have received a letter from Leslie Sargeant, who touched on the realignment and mentioned the peak in Black Cat Road. I travel Black Cat Road and, frankly, I personally agree with you that that would be a better location for an entrance. But I do have to repeat that this is not the forum. We are unable to consider roadways or anything outside of this development and I would recommend that you hustle over to ACHD before they get the Castlebrook plat recorded and make your case to them. Noll: That's a very good point. What I have talked to -- I have tried to get ahold of ACHD commissioners, I have had limited luck in the call back from the commissioners, but that's been going -- ongoing for about a week and a half now, because I want to make the same -- you know, the same appeal to those folks as well. And, you know, it would help me out if the Meridian Planning and Zoning would call the commissioners and say this person has a valid point and we appreciate you listening to them, because I'm not having a lot of luck as calling up as Tom Noll from the EI Gato neighborhood. So, I would be willing to work with you on that and that would be my request. Zaremba: Thank you. Powell: Chairman Borup? Borup: Yes. Powell: Might I -- if I might take a moment just to explain preliminary plat vesting and state law -- Borup: Please. Powell: -- because it's very important to this discussion. Borup: Yes. We'd appreciate that. Powell: For all of you, on the Castlebrook, when Castlebrook was approved at the preliminary stage, the state courts have said that that preliminary plat is the instrument that vests that developer with certain rights and that means that that is -that's where we really have the opportunity to ask for things or to require things or negotiate things at that time. But the court has said that's a vesting document and that's a very important legal term for them and it means that even though they haven't done all their final plats, if those final plats are consistent with the approved preliminary plat, then, they, basically, have the right to do that final plat. So, the city, as much as it may want to think now and say, you know, this is a valid point, maybe we should have had this north Meridian Planning 8 Zoning February 19, 20D4 Page 23 of 105 of the Kennedy, we cannot require that. They would -- I mean I think we have stated that from just a city standpoint, but also so you all know, I mean the state would look at that and just, you know, toss us on our ear. I mean it's just we can't go back and say we have changed our mind, you can't do that. So, even if we wanted to look at that as part of an off-site improvement or something, we could not require that in any way, and I know it's confusing, because you have the same developer, but it isn't something we can do with this one. So, you may want to really try and think about something you could do that's not something involved with Castlebrook, because as much as they may want to, we can't go back to Castlebrook, it's -- if it's consistent with their approved preliminary plat, then, we need to approve those final plats and you need to focus on the project that's at hand and try to come up with some solutions for that. Noll: I appreciate those concerns and that's a valid point. If it came to contention over this, you know, if you made that requirement, what you're saying is that you would have a very weak legal standing to make that requirement. Powell: Absolutely no legal standing. Noll: And so what we have -- but what we are proposing here -- I appreciate that. That's --that means zero, not almost zero. That's -- we are talking zero. What we have here, though, is we have all three parties and some other parties as well that are concerned about this in the same room and I think it would --without requiring people to do something, it seems that in the spirit of cooperation, we should -- if we all mutually agree to do it, there would be no issue. As I said, I wanted to present the case. There is -- it appears that it's not an outlandish claim. In fact, it might, actually be a preferred alignment and perhaps we should -- if we could all agree to do it, perhaps we could achieve a better development here. But, as I say, there is no -- you know, we can't hold anybody's feet to the fire is what you're saying with the legal issues, we can only hold, people's feet to the fire now with can we do something better than what we thought we had in the first place. That's my point and I guess my point is, too, even though, you know, the design has been approved, there are no -there is no steel in the ground and it's not -- this is a better time to change than later and 1 don't think it's too late, but it would entail cooperation from all of us. Does that clarify things a little bit? Borup: Thank you. Okay. Do we have anyone else that would like to come forward? I think we do from what we saw earlier. Wilder: Commissioners, my name is Lora Wilder, 3401 West Pine, and I live on the portion of Pine that is the private road between the development and Ten Mile Road. Now, our property is this parcel right here. It's a 12 acre parcel that's in agricultural use' right now. I would like to address some concerns that my family has and some of the other residents on this lane and, then, some others may have some other points they want to mention. First of all, Wendy did a good job explaining that this is the adopted city's Comprehensive Plan. It's a vision plan for what the city would like to see. However, when we look at new developments, also need to look at the reality of what's there right now and how it impacts the residents who are already there. Now, the Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 24 of 105 property where we are right here, the vision plan is for mixed use. Right now those of us served by the private road, those parcels right here, those are acreages that are all in agricultural use right now. We are long time property owners: I think all of us would like to stay there for awhile and enjoy the privacy that we have. We have large lots, we have large homes, which are quite a bit different than the small homes that are being proposed in this development. So, my concerns are, number one, even though in the vision plan this is medium density and this is mixed use, right now you have the city building around a pocket of agricultural land that's not going to change any time soon. So, you have 215 homes on this right here and you have about eight homes right here. So, it's a dramatic change. I think the lot sizes are too small. I'd like to see less density. I think the home sizes are too small and it detracts from the property value of those of us that have larger, more highly valued homes on the other property. My second concern is the concrete barricades right here. The developer mentioned that they would be putting some concrete barriers there to keep the residents of the development off of the private road. First of all, the private road - I guess it is private, it's owned by all of us residents who live there, and concrete barricades -- it's a little vague to me exactly what those are going to look like. I'd like to know how long they are, how high they are, exactly what they are going to look like and I attended the neighborhood meeting, I wasn't invited, because we are not within 300 feet, I found out about it and I went, and addressed I'd like to see something better than just a concrete barricade, because human nature being what it is with kids and people, we have a nice private road with no traffic and there are no sidewalks and, you know, no access to Fuller Park right now. Where do you think all those kids are going to want to go ,and ride their bikes and people want to walk their dogs, take a shortcut if they are going to walk down there to Albertson's, which is less than a mile and a half away, they are going to want to walk down this private road. No trespassing. I would -- can I have just about 30 more seconds? Borup: Go ahead. Wilder: I would like to ask the developer to install a sign at the concrete barricade that says private road, no trespassing. I would like it in the covenants and on the plat that that is a private road and no trespassing is allowed. I would also like it stated in the covenants a nd o n t he p lat t hat t his i s a djacent to a gricultural I and a nd t hose p eople need to be aware that there is agricultural noise, agricultural smells, and that they need to hot complain. So, I guess my time is up and those are the things that I would like to see addressed. Borup: Okay. We need to see if there is any questions. Wilder: Are there any questions? Zaremba: I can give you some comfort on the agriculture. There is a Right To Farm Act and we will make sure that's on the plat. Wilder: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 25 of 105 Borup: I do have a question. You mentioned on the barricade. Wilder: Yes. Borup: What would you like to see there? Wilder: I would like to see a chain link gate that was locked. I don't know what fire codes w ill a Ilow, b ut knowing t he a bility o f people t o j ump o ver a c oncrete b arrier, i t needs to be tall and it needs to be locked and there needs to be no access, because they will find a way around it if there is and we have livestock, we have sheep, we have Iambs right now, we do not need dogs down on that road, we don't need kids harassing them, we want our privacy maintained. Borup: Okay. Wilder: Anything else? Borup: Thank you. Come on up, sir. Haneke: Thank you. My name is George Haneke. I live at 4600 Quarterhorse Lane. I own -- my wife and own the eight acres just directly to the west of the property here and we own two acres right here on Black Cat. We have looked at the developmeh4 that's been going on here and we are quite pleased with the quality of the homes and the lot sizes. We think the developer's done an excellent job and didn't have any particular problems when the plot plan was provided for this area right inhere. However, if you look at this and look at the 400 homes -- and I'm not going to guess how many drivers are going to come out of there, but they are going to drive right in back of my home and I have a fairly significant home -- not only do I have a fairly significant home, my wife and I raise Alpacas and I don't know whether you know what an Alpaca is or how much they cost, but female Alpacas are pretty expensive animals and I, frankly, don't really relish the idea of a number of neighborhood dogs running through the fields and such. Now, we fenced the area here pretty strongly and knew when we bought the property there was going to be development over here. I don't have an opposition to development and I think the proposal that's before the board is here is pretty nice, but it's, from my opinion, way too dense and the exceptions that the builder is asking for in terms of the lot sizes and the setbacks, I think is going to have an overall detrimental effect to the value of the homes in the area and to the value of the homes that are going to be built in here in this subdivision. I'm very concerned about the amount of traffic that's coming. I'm very concerned about the educational facilities. In the neighbofiood meeting we asked about the capacity of the local schools to handle the additional homes that are going to be put there and the response we got back was that there was no capacity to handle the additional residents that were going to be there, that they were going to have to be bused someplace else. I think it's a very large disservice to a community to go forward and approve the density you're proposing -- that's being proposed here without some adequate address to the issue of the education of the kids Meiidian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 26 of 105 that are going to be in these new subdivisions and I think that you should give consideration to the size of lots in the subdivision going forward. The developer was very responsive in taking our input at the neighborhood meeting. Made some changes. We did express our concerns, all of us, at that meeting to the lot sizes and the size of the homes that were going to be there. It appears that there has been no consideration given to reducing the lot size -- or increasing the lot sizes and reducing the number of homes. So, thanks for listening. I hope you will consider my input in your decision. Borup: Any questions? Yeah. Why don't you come up right after this gentleman. Schweiger: Hello. I'm Gary Schweiger, I live at 3515 West Pine and I border the property -- the proposal -- the proposed development on the east side. And I, too, am concerned about the density of this project. And I'm the person that asked the developer to make those lots larger on that end, which he has stated twice here tonight that they would be 1,600 square foot homes, but he did not say whether they would be single or two story and we have asked him to make them single story. I agree with -- Borup: Where was your property, sir? Schweiger: It's right --all of this. Borup: Okay. Schweiger: I agree with what my neighbors have said here tonight and we are very concerned about the d ensity, we think it's going to be a problem, because we raise cattle and we move a lot of cattle in and out, it's not a -- it's a business, okay, it's not a two or three cow operation, and we spread manure and we have flies and now we are going to have to deal with -- we are going to have to deal with people later on, like DEQ and the Fire Department and the sheriff - I mean we burn our ditches, which we need to do every year, and we have -- we are concerned just like o ur neighbors with the density of this project and feel that it's too -- its too -- it's too dense and have -- my experience in the past has been that subdivision people don't get along with farming or farmers. They don't understand it. And as soon as they have odors to deal with, you know, that's going to come down on us. We would like to see this-- we would like to see this density -- and I would like to know from the developer is those are single story or two story. Borup: Okay. We will find that out. Schweiger: Okay. That's all I have to say. Is there any questions? Borup: I take it your house is on the west side of your property? Schweiger: Well, my house sits -- Borup: This is your lot here? Meddian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 27 of 105 Schweiger: All of this. Borup: Okay. This little parcel here, too? Schweiger: Yep. Borup: Okay. Schweiger: My house sits about right here. Borup: About in the middle? Schweiger: Yeah. Well, it's right on that corner there. Zaremba: I would ask one question. Schweiger: Yes, sir. Zaremba: Would you share -- Borup: Your house isn't on this total, then? Schweiger: No. It's up above. Borup: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm looking in the wrong area. Right in here. Schweiger: Yeah. Borup: Excuse me, Commissioner. Go ahead. Zaremba: I'm sorry, I didn't realize you weren't done. Would you share your neighbor's preference for having the barrier across the roadway be a chain link fence with locked gate in it? Schweiger: Yes, I would. You know, there is one other thing I failed to mention here. The developer talked about putting in a walking path along the ditch and that -- it sounds like that would be outside of the fenced subdivision, which would put them right at us. We would like to see that -- if they want to put a walking path in there, we would like to see it fenced, so that the fence is the last -- is the first thing that we see and the walking path on the other side. We'd like to see a six foot berm with a six foot fence on it. I mean everything -- everything we do these people are going to be looking down on us. It invades our privacy. Also, I want to mention that I have another neighbor that couldn't make it tonight and they wrote a statement, they wanted me to deliver it and I'd like to give that to you. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 28 of 105 Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Give it to the clerk first. Schweiger: Right here? Borup: Yes, sir. Gray: Yes. My name is Jayden Gray and I live at 5654 EI Gato. Have been there for 17 years now. I share Dr. Noll's thoughts. One thing I'm a little confused about and that is that when we look at this -- Zaremba: Sir, you need to stay closer to the microphone, please. Thank you. Gray: When we look at this particular section right here, when we went down and got the preliminary plats or any information we could and there was no information on this particular area right here or where the road was going to go or any sort of neighborhood access roads or anything. So, apparently, this is not -- Borup: Now, where did you go to try to find that information? Gray: This was -- Kathy, where did you get the maps? And so in our bundle of stuff we have everything, except we have no plat -- so there is a preliminary plat on that? Borup: Yes. There has been for a couple years. Gray: Oh. Okay. Well, I was a little confused, because -- Borup: It's not recorded yet, so it won't be at the county recorder's office and on the county mapping. Gray: So, it's cast in concrete, even though it's not recorded? Borup: Well, it's been approved by the city. Gray: Well, I just want to give the Commissioners one -- a little piece of ammunition relative t o t his i ntersection h ere b etween t he p roposed P ine a nd EI G ato and t hat i s there is a visual problem here, because as you go north, you cannot see the cars that are right in this area and so I have had -- made this corner thousands of times in the last 17 years you have to be very careful turning left here, because right at that intersection you cannot see cars from about 150 yards to about 250 yards to the north. You -- and I sit high in my vehicle. I drive a van, I sit very high, you cannot see -- at night you can see the lights coming. So, there is a safety problem at that intersection if you're going to have between 700 and 1,000 car passages a day going in and 'out of that subdivision, because somebody is going to get nailed at that intersection. It is quite dangerous, you have to be very alert. I would make one other comment on the developer, when he was Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 29 of 105 up here, he was sort of bragging about the fact that the -- in these smaller units down here near the railroad track, that the -- there was -- he wanted to reduce the unsightly 20 foot setback to eight feet, so that cars would be in the garage and I guess I would ask the question where are they expected to wash their cars? Are they going to wash their cars in the garage? Any questions? Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Do we have -- come on. Hicks: My name is Dave Hicks and I live at 3725 West Pine. My property is the little square right next to the subdivision, the only piece of property that is on the same side of the creek as the proposed subdivision. Right there. Borup: And your access -- is that an access road that comes along the canal? Hicks: Yes. On the east side of it. Yes. Borup: Okay. Hicks: There is my house and, then, on the other side ofthe -- Borup: There is an access road. Hicks: So, it accesses for two houses. Both my neighbors dealt with the barrier. I would be concerned about that. The houses, two story, because in my case they would literally be looking down on top of me, because they will be right next to me and also the walkway would be a concern on the outside of that subdivision, because that would lead right into my place. Borup: Now, to walk they would have to cross the canal to get to your place. Hicks: No. I'm on the same side of the canal as this subdivision. Borup: Oh, down here you're saying? Hicks: Yeah. And that's basically all I have to say. Borup: So, you'd like to see a barricade, I assume, at the walking path? Hicks: Oh, I'd like to see it fenced off inside the subdivision, so they couldn't -- Borup: Okay. My understanding is the problem of that is going to be is -- well, maybe we will let them clarify that, but I understood the walking path was in ACHD right of way, not - Zaremba: Nampa-Meridian. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 30 of 105 Borup: Or Nampa-Meridian. That's what I mean to say. Yeah. We'll get some clarification on that, though. Hicks: Any other questions forme? Borup: This is your home about right here? Hicks: Yes. Borup: Over on the east side of your property? Hicks: Well, it's actually -- my home is actually almost right in the center of that property, actually, closer to the west than probably to the east. Borup: So, that's not your home there, then? Hicks: It's -- my home is probably about right there. So, it's almost in the center of the property. Mathes: How do you get to your home again? Hicks: There is a road that follows the creek down there and, then, there is a bridge that you cross -- that I actually cross the creek. Mathes: Okay. Borup: All right. Thank you. Who else would like to come forward? Casey: Gary Casey, 4631 Quarterhorse Lane. I live in the -- right there. And I object to the' minimum size lots also or below minimum size lots, because like everybody else has said, we all have five or more acres in here and over here and, then, you put minimum lots right in between us, that doesn't do much for our property values or anything. That's all I have got to say. Borup: Okay. It sounds like you're concerned on the water -- access on the water has been addressed adequately? Casey: Yes. Borup: Okay. Do we have anyone else? Seeing none -- come forward. Pond: I'm Gilbert Pond. I live on EI Gato Lane, but can I get her to bring up the plat of the subdivision again? I'm a plumbing contractor and something just stood out to me. I cah't figure out why that bottom road isn't tied together for fire access, also for extra water line. Mertdlan Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 31 of 105 Borup: Where are you -- Pond: Right there. Borup: You say why it isn't? Pond: Why isn't it? I see only -- I see all these access and people coming this way going this way, they only have that road to get out, that road to get out, it landlocks right here. If something's happening up here and this is all locked up, how are these people supposed to get out of this subdivision? I can't see it. They need to get access both ways. And that's all. I just wanted to bring that attention to you. Just a nuts and bolts type thing forme. Borup: Okay. Okay. One more time. Anyone? Okay. Mr. Amar, you got some -- a few comments I would think and I think we have got some questions, too. Amar: Thank you, Mr. Commissioner - Mr. President, Commissioners. Again, for the. record, Kevin Amar. And I have taken notes and I will try to respond, but if I miss anything, please, let me know. I'm going to try to start in order, starting with Mr. Noll. As far as he had a question about notification. We actually received the notification list from the city, so we notified the same people that they notify and at the time that -- I know we not talking about Castlebrook No. 1, but at the time Castlebrook No. 1 went through, we did notify people on EI Gato, because they are within the 300 foot requirement that the city gives us notification for. 50, there was some notification at that time with respect to that road and some of those actually did come and testify at that time. So, as far as notification of the neighborhood meeting, we d idn't send them a letter, because they weren't on the list to send a letter. With respect to the residential connection to Ten Mile, I'm sure you're aware, but we don't own the property to the east of this. All the neighbors are opposed to driving down their private road. That's part of the reason we are barricading it off from access for these people to get through that. And, then, with respect to the no completed phases, we, actually, have completed and are constructing houses in Castlebrook Phase 1. Castlebrook Phase 2 we have construction materials on site, pipe and things of that nature. The final plat has been approved by the City of Meridian and Castlebrook No. -- am I done? Borup: No. That was left over from the previous one. Amar: Castlebrook No. 3 was approved also -- Castlebrook Phase 3 was approved by the City of Meridian also, so we are in the process of getting those final plats recorded and we have actually started building houses in Castlebrook Phase 1. With respect to EI Gato and a traffic study, we did incorporate a traffic study into not only this project, but also Castlebrook No. 2 and Castlebrook No. 1. EI Gato or Pine, the portion that we are constructing, is designed to have a capacity of 8,500 vehicles trips per day. With this project there is a capacity of 2,500 -- when it's all built out, 2,500 vehicle trips per day. So, EI Gato is well below the threshold. With respect to Black Cat, the city is currently building or in the process of building the lift station and the pressure main and Meddian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 32 of 108 sewer lines along Black Cat. After that construction is completed, ACHD will be rebuilding, I guess, if you will, improving Black Cat Road. That will happen after the Meridian -- o r M eridian c ity completes t hose i mprovements. W ith C astlebrook N o. 1 and No. 2, we are required to put at both the intersection of Black Cat and Cherry Lane and the intersection of Black Cat and Franklin turn bays so there will be additional widening at those points because of the traffic. And that is triggered -- I don't remember the exact time, but I think it's upon completion of phase four of Castlebrook Subdivision. So, that has been looked at and it will be addressed through the process of construction. With Chestertield, the traffic study came back by the traffic engineer and no additional improvements are required beyond what has already been required in Castlebrook No. 1 and No. 2. Mrs. Wilder had -- Borup: While you're still on that -- Amar. Yes, sir. Borup: -- Kevin -- and I realize you said phase one already has homes under construction, but was there any discussion at that time on entrance other than Pine to Ten Mile? Amar: Mr. President -- Borup: Or to Black Cat I mean. Amar: With respect to the location of EI Gato or -- Borup: Right. On having that north of the Kennedy Lateral. Amar: That discussion -- tonight is the first night I have heard of that discussion. Borup: Okay. That wasn't something that was looked at in the engineering designs or did ACHD have input on their preference on - Amar: When we were approved in Castlebrook No. 1, Pine was a requirement to be improved as a collector, so they were looking at that as the collector, rather than putting a collector through the center of the subdivision, if you will. Borup: Okay. And that's what I was getting at. That's what I was remembering. I thought that was something ACHD wanted. Amar: They want Pine, EI Gato, built from Ten Mile to Black Cat and, eventually, that will happen. Borup: Okay. So, in deciding that as the entrance, that was through their input? Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 33 of 105 Amar: That is correct. That was required at that time for Pine to be built. Are there any further questions? Borup: No. Rohm: Before we leave this area, on the barricade on the east end of Pine --well, where you tie into a private road. Yeah. Well, the point is I'd like you to specifically speak to the barricade that you're willing to put up, because there has been a number of people that have testified to what they would like to see and I'd like to just have you speak to it, the specific barricade that you're willing to go with on this. Amar: Sure. Mr. President, Commissioner Rohm -- is it Rohm? Rohm: Yes. Amar: The barricade that we had anticipated with Castlebrook No. 2 was the concrete barricades similar to what you will see on the freeway, so people understand what we are talking about, and that would be from curb to curb, so vehicles cannot get around them. At that time we hadn't discussed a chain link fence, although I guess we can. It's -- I don't know the logistics of part of that with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District and the future removal of the chain link fence and that's certainly open for negotiation or discussion. We were trying to keep vehicles from traveling east to Ten Mile. Rohm: And I think that the concrete barricades do that, but to some of the other testimony, it doesn't keep the human traffic -you know, they jump over the three foot or two and a half foot concrete and I'm not sure that it would be anymore expehsive to put up a chain link six foot fence across that, which would provide the same vehicular barricade, while at the same time address the issues of the -- of the public: Amar: And that's -- we can put a -- I guess a chain link -- six foot chain link fence from - - we have a fence on either side of our landscape berm, so there would be a fence from fence to fence, so to speak. The one concern I would have would be with this pathway, Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District will not allow us to fence across their property, the pathway there, but if were to put a fence this direction, we would have to get approval from Nampa. Rohm: I think primarily it's the roadway barricade that we are talking about here. Amar: I'd certainly be open to putting a chain link fence from our --from one edge of the right of way, including the landscaping, to the other, so people can't walk through there either. Rohm: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2094 Page 34 of 105 Zaremba: And that was going to be my comment, too. I don't know the economics, but it would seem to me that's probably even cheaper than the Jersey barricades that you're talking about. Amar: Uh-huh. Correct. Also, with that Mrs. Wilder requested a no trespassing sign, which is also something that we can -- private road, no trespassing, or something to that effect, so people are already aware of what they are looking at. Rohm: Thank you. Amar: I think it was addressed, but we are adjacent to AG land and we understand that. As a part of the plat we have to put the Right To Farm Act on that plat, so that is something that we have to reference also in the CC&Rs, because the notes will be in the CC&Rs as well. Mr. Haneke asked about fencing. We are fencing the entire exterior of the subdivision. From this point to this point will be a six foot fence. Along the Ten Mile Creek will be a four foot -- what did you call it? Invisible fence, something - Rohm: Transparent Amar: A transparent fence. But it will be a four foot fence. But the entire boundary will be fenced and, then, the frontage along EI Gato behind the landscaping will actually be a six foot fence also. So, the entire site will be fenced. Also, just to note, during the course of construction, should this be phase one, we have to put the exterior fencing, but we also have to put up temporary construction fencing to keep -and that's a city code -- to keep trash and debris from blowing onto the neighbor's properties. Zaremba: Before you leave that subject, can lask -- Amar: Yes. Zaremba: At the south end of the pathway where it would enter the neighbor's property and probably head right straight into his house, can you either stop that pathway short of there or barricade it or somehow work out with him a way to let pedestrians know that they are, again, aiming towards private property? Amar: Yeah. And we should probably do it on both the south and the north end, but put private property, no trespassing signs on those also. They will be able to -- there is a sidewalk along -- I guess they can walk back and forth on the pathway until it's connected to anywhere, but we can put no trespassing signs, private property, on both the north and the south. We can hold the pathway short, so it does not go all the way to the edge of his property, but, again, Nampa-Meridian will not -- we can put a barricade there, but they will not allow that fencing also, they don't -- if they want to get up and down that easement or the property -- it's not an easement that they own, they don't want to move barricades or open gates. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 35 of 105 Borup: You say you can or cannot do a barricade? Amar: Cannot. Borup: A barricade either. Rohm: I think noticing is important. Just say private property or something beyond that, something to that effect. Amar: We can certainly do that. With respect to the schools -- the comment that was made at the neighbofiood meeting -- and it's the standard comment that Wendell Bigham sends out in all of the letters that he sends, is exact school locations cannot be guaranteed and school -- I'm paraphrasing, because I don't remember the exact words, but school location, kids may have to be bused to different locations. What we don't know is if these kids will go to the school -- can you put up the vicinity map, please? Thank you. There is a school located -- it's at this location. We don't know if the kids will go to school here or at a different school, but we are aware of the school situation and, i n fact, B ridgestone, w hich was b efore y ou o f ew m onths b ack, w e a ctually s et aside property within that subdivision for a future elementary school site and so we do meet with the school district and in this instance we met with them and they had indicated that they had a school at this location and don't need further elementary schools here. But I think in reading the paper recently, the schools are building about an elementary school a year in order to try and keep up with growth. It's something that everybody is trying to keep in pace with. So, that was the reference to the school letter. Along Mr. Schweiger, he lives in this location along the Ten Mile Creek. We are putting a 1,600 square foot house, but we are not requiring them to be single story and that is -- or we are not requiring anything, we are not requesting them to be single story. But that is in line with what was required on Castlebrook Subdivision No. 2. In fact, it came up at that time can we allow single story and this body said, well, that you didn't want to allow that or, I don't know, allow that. That was not a condition of approval for Castlebrook Subdivision No. 2. But we are trying to stay in line with what was approved with Castlebrook Subdivision No. 2, again, keeping the 1,600 square foot house, but if they want to be two story they can be. We have made the lots large enough that if they are a single story house, a 1,600 square foot house will easily fit on those lots. I'm sure I have missed something. But Mr. Pond had indicated - I'm sorry. I think -- Wendy, can you go back -- yes, please. This road, why is it not connected, it's simply a function of traffic. With the connection of this road it makes it a very very long straight stretch. As you can see on this side we actually put a little traffic island in the middle. I guess if that's a requirement, we can connect that road and put an island in the middle, but it was determined that with an access point here and here, these people can get out here and out here without pushing the traffic through the subdivision in order to get back to Pine. So, it funnels them back to Pine as quickly as possible, and, then, using that collector to get out to the main roads, trying to minimize some of the interior traffic -- cut- through traffic if you will. That was the notes I took and I'm sure I didn't address them all, so, hopefully, you have questions for me, just as a -- I guess a final follow-up, this project, again, is on the low side of the density in this area. Berkeley Square and Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 36 of 105 Mosser Point and I don't remember the name of the other project, but all of those are within a half mile of this site and have significantly higher density than this project. So, we are trying to -- I know the neighbors want lower density and I know they probably, to be honest with you, would ratherjust have a farm here. That's what they have grown up with for years. Unfortunately, we want houses there and so we are trying to keep on with the Comprehensive Plan and keep on the lower side of that density and we do feel that the fencing and some of the amenities that we are putting in the subdivision, it will be a better subdivision and a better development than it could be. With that I will stand for any questions. Borup: Okay. Questions from any of the -- you hit the ones I had on my list, so I don't know if there is -- Zaremba: Yes, you did mine and we discussed them as you went along as well, except for the eastern border. Would you find it absolutely unacceptable to have a one story height limitation along the eastern border? Amar: I just was really hoping to stick with what was approved in Castlebrook No. 2, trying to keep that 1,600 square minimum that was brought up again at that time during Castlebrook No. 2 and if I remember right -- it was awhile back, but Mr. Borup had indicated why do the neighbors want that. Zaremba: If I remember, the neighbors that were bringing that up were on similar sized lots, not much larger lots, and some of them had two story houses. So, we felt making a requirement that backed up to them be different than their requirement wasn't fair. In this case the situation, to me, is a little bit different. These are much larger lots and whether they are single or two houses on them, I don't know, but I can see more reason to make that limit on this property than on --than on Castlebrook. Amar: Ifthat's--you're the governingbody,soifthat'sa decision that you want to make -- Zaremba: And I may be the only one that has that opinion, but I could support the -- Rohm: I think it basically boils down to how far the existing homes east of the subdivision are from the property line and I think we don't -- I'm sure we don't have any elevations available, but as -- if they are right up against the property line and they have a single story home and you build a two story home right across the property line from it, it's going to be more intrusive than if they are a couple of hundred feet from the property line and so I would be curious about that and -- Amar: Wendy, can you put up the aerial photo? Borup: And Commissioner Rohm was correct, I think that was one of the things we discussed before was distance. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 37 of 105 Amar: With this b eing I aid o ut, t his T en M ile C reek w idth i s 100 f eet and I'm --the location of this house, as you can see here, is in this general area, so it's another 100 feet or 150 from that point. I don't -- Borup: That's probably close enough. Moe: Now, the gentleman --the house in question was right down along there. Amar: Okay. I'm sorry, I was speaking to this generally. Borup: That would be correct for there. Zaremba: Well, I, actually, was thinking about both of them, but the greater concern was the southern one, but the one on the same side of the creek as they are. Amar: I guess I'd say again, if that's a requirement that you're going to make, that's one that we will -- Rohm: How far is the home here from the property line? Hicks: Dave Hicks. I would state that my house is probably no further than away than 75 to 80 feet from the property line. Rohm: And, then, the -- this right here is a hundred foot right of way, this ditch right of way? Borup: No. He's on the other side. Rohm: Well, you're here -- Hicks: It, actually, runs right -- Rohm: Oh, excuse me. Got you. Thank you. Zaremba: Yeah. I think the wide line that you're looking at is just the mark that - Rohm: I got you. Thank you. Zaremba: I would extend one story houses at least along that property line. Rohm: And that seems appropriate. Zaremba: I could give them up on the n orthern p roperty line, since that house is a pretty good distance away. Borup: There is only two lots -- Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 36 of 105 Zaremba: It's just two lots. Borup: And it is the side of the lots also, it's not a backyard that directly -- well, I guess the sides of the backyard would be there. Moe: I don't want to belabor the issue on the fencing again, but I'm kind of curious where -- we are talking about we are going to go through the roadway here, that is going to be an ACHD approved roadway through there with curb, gutter, sidewalk on both sides of the road; correct? Are we anticipating that we are taking the fence from -- to the back of your berms on both sides and connecting into fencing, so, then, I anticipate we will have gates at the sidewalks as well or are you talking about -- then, you have no access back east through there at all. Amar: We can put gates there, but I think that the neighbors would probably object to that. We can put the fencing up from fence to fence, so it will go across the entire right of way, plus the landscape buffers. There will be fencing or sidewalk on this side of the road in front of what is approved as Chesterfield. On the opposite side of the road that project -- or that property has not been developed yet, so curb, gutter, sidewalk will not be on that side of the road yet. So, we can stop them from coming down the road -- or coming down the sidewalk, I'm sorry, on the Castlebrook side, but on the Chesteifield side we can -- we can certainly stop them, but if we put a gate in there it still gives them access to do that. Kirkpatrick: And, Chairman, members of the Commission, I wanted to point out that while the developer has agreed to put in the chain link fence, it doesn't necessarily mean that the Fire Department will also approve that, so we want to -- if you do approve this this evening, perhaps condition -- require a sign off from the Fire Department on that gate. Rohm: Thanks, Wendy. Borup: Okay. Amar: I'm going to speak one more time on the fencing issue. Maybe if it's required we could put a gate in the center of the road, so if the Fire Department needs to get through, they can use bolt cutters and - we can lock it and they can use bolt cutters or whatever they want to get through it, but that might satisfy everyone. Zaremba: Well, if you're talking about the roadway, I think the neighbors were talking about a gated, locked gate and the Fire Department would break through it if they needed to. Amar: That's fine. Zaremba: But the general dog walkers wouldn't. Meridian Planning & Zoning Fehruary 19, 2004 Page 39 of 105 Amar: Correct. Borup: Okay. Anything else for Mr. Amar? Zaremba: Okay. Confirm for me -- maybe staff or you. Just to make sure I'm looking at the latest plat -- the two lots that we are talking about specifying first story -- one story only are Block 6, Lot 22, and Block tt), Lot 65. Is this the latest version? Because that is the numbers off of them. Borup: That's not the latest, but did the lot and blocks change? Amar: I don't know. Let me -- if you will, I'll grab the -- Borup: Okay. They may have changed on the north side, because they reduced --they eliminated the lots -- Zaremba: I just saw the date stamp and this one is not the latest one. Let me find my latest one. Borup: I would suspect the one on the north that the numbers have changed. Probably 21. Amar: On the latest version, the revised entrance that ACHD approved, it is Lots 21, Block 5, and Lot -- and Lot 65, Block 9. It would be -- I guess another way to describe it as the two lots touching the eastern boundary. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Amar: Did you want a copy of this? Zaremba: I have it, it's just that I have all the others as well, so I just grabbed the wrong one. Borup: Okay. Any other questions from anyone? Anything else -you were up -- you have been up twice. Come on up to the microphone. Hicks: Dave Hicks. And the one thing that I don't quite understand on this walkway -- and Iwill show you on the map is -- I don't do karaoke either. If the walkway goes from here, but there is going to be a gate right there blocking our road -- am I correct that's where it's going to be? What is this walkway for if there is going to be no gates to the back of the houses? What's the purpose of it? Borup: A lot of the walkway is for planning -- for future planning. Some day the vision would be that it would be a continuous walkway, as all the properties around develop. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 40 of 105 Hicks: Okay. So, it's just for future -that was on my -- well, who's going to use it and for what? Borup: If we don't do it as they are developed it doesn't get done. Hicks: Okay. That answers my question. Zaremba: But my instinct is the same as yours. At the moment it's fenced off so nobody could use it but you. Eventually, the thought is it will be used. Borup: Okay: Mr. Amar? Amar: I was going to say, just for clarification, there is one point of access from the subdivision, a walkway from the subdivision that connects to that walkway, so just to put everything on the record. Borup: Well -- and I have seen others that way, too. They don't get used, because it doesn't go anywhere. Zaremba: And that's the reason for the fence only being four feet, so somebody can watch and make sure there is no dangerous activity going on there, since it isn't used very much. Amar: Thank you Borup: Do you have something pertinent, sir? Because this is not really a back and forth discussion, but -okay. Dennis: My name is Robert Dennis and live on 5858 EI Gato. Now, on your pointer tonight, I understand Planning and Zoning doesn't control Ada County, but as agencies you work together. All right. This is the developer's property; correct? Borup: Yes. Dennis: And I'm not opposed to development, I'm pro-choice to good comprehensive development. Now, if it's my understanding when we were talking accessing the alignment of the road, my question is from this point to EI Gato whose property was this and who gave the easement? Did Ada County Highway District have that property already tied up? Where did the access come from EI Gato to this plot? Borup: Okay. We can get some clarification on that. It was part of the -- of previous development, though. Dennis: This parcel right there? Borup: Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 41 of 105 Dennis: So, there was no consideration given on this development on the Comprehensive Plan what was going to occur here prior to this development here. Because it's my understanding that the lift station and that -- and correct me if I'm wrong, but -- and I wanted to ask this question -- is you're going to tie in a loop with the city sewer and water and we all know that development goes with city sewer and water. I would suspect -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- that the city sewer is going to pick up somewhere at Linder and Franklin, go west to Black Cat, turn north and head towards the Wastewater Treatment Plant. Am I not correct? Borup: Bruce, could you maybe clarify that? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, members of Commission. You are not correct. Dennis: I'm not correct. That's what I want to know. Freckleton: Yeah. The sewer -- predominately, the slope in all of Meridian flows to the northwest, okay, so everything out of this development is going to be flowing to the northwest. It's going to be going into Castlebrook, Castlebrook -- there is going to be a regional lift station in there that takes it north in Black Cat. Dennis: All right. But what's looping -- I guess what I'm looking at -- Borup: Sewers don't --water loops, sewers don't really loop. Dennis: I'll take issue with you on that, but that's another thing. You can build a loop system in a sewer plan. I just want to know what the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Meridian is south of the tracks over to Franklin, future development. Are we looking industrial, mixed us, or what? Because if we are, the city -that's the main reason for that lift station going in to pick up some of that area, isn't it? Borup: No. Each lift station would service a certain area. Dennis: That's correct. Borup: And I`m not sure what is servicing south of the railroad tracks. But what's the point? Dennis: The point is I'm asking the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian what is in their Comprehensive Plan from Linder Road west to Black Cat south of the railroad tracks. Borup: As far as what the Comprehensive Plan shows? That's what W endy spent about ten minutes explaining at the beginning of her presentation as what the Comprehensive Plan was anticipating for those. South of the railroad tracks was industrial and high density. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 42 of 105 Dennis: Okay. And there is not going to be any provisions for sewer in that area? Borup: If it's developed, there will be, yes. That's a requirement. Dennis: That's my question. That's what I -- Borup: Well, the exact sewer design is not a part of the Comprehensive Plan, what's envisioned for those areas to develop is, and the sewer needs to be designed along with that. There is an overall master sewer plan for the city that's a general outline. Mr. Freckleton would be the one that would need to answer anymore detail than that. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, there is a master plan. The city has a complete sewer master plan that covers the entire urban service planning boundary for the entire city. Dennis: Thank you. Freckleton: It details -- not set in stone, but it details the routing of major trunk lines that we n eed t o plan for i n o rder to s erve a very p arcel within t he urban s ervice p tanning boundary. So, we do have that planning tool for serving those future areas. Dennis: Correct. And that was my question. That should -- if you have a master plan in effect, it should give you some idea on your Comprehensive Plan in what direction you're moving. What I have seen happen here, unfortunately, is with our gravitational flow of sewer, Cherry Lane over the years, from the city core of the old Meridian City limits, has moved westbound on Cherry Lane and followed that accordingly and, then, they have moved back south towards Black Cat and we have an area there that in good comprehensive planning and growth development on Franklin, in my opinion, should have came along systematically with that had we had the funding and the provisions at the time. So, logistics tell me now that in the master plan that's the next area that's going to be impacted for development and it has to incorporate sewer somehow, so it has to be in your Comprehensive Plan. Freckleton: I think it's important to point out that the majority of the sewer and water mains that you see going into the city are not put in by the City of Meridian. Dennis: I know that. Freckleton: Okay. They are put in by development and development drives -- developmentdrives where development goes. Dennis: That's correct. Freckleton: However, you know, we have those documents that control locations and that's our guideline tool, like I said. Sewer is -- I guess in public works' opinion anyway, is a really good way of controlling growth and where you go. Without those utilities you Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 43 of 105 don't have it. So, the development and our planning -- we do the planning so that we can -- we can plan for the areas, but, I don't know, I think I have talked around a tree here and I don't know if I have answered your question. Dennis: You have answered my question. Thank you. Freckleton: Okay. Borup: Thank you. We had one more -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to say that this meeting has been educational, but we are strained from the application at hand and I move that the Public Hearing be closed. Rohm: I'll second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Okay. Do we have any other comments from staff? Kirkpatrick: No, there are none. Borup: Okay. Commissioners, discussion? Would we like some discussion before we formulate a motion? Zaremba: Well, while I'm sensitive to many of the opinions that have been addressed and, actually, the applicant has cooperated with many of the things that have been expressed, either already or has promised to work with somebody to solve many of the problems, the basic underlying premise is that this is very much. in agreement with our master p Ian, t he C omprehensive P Ian. I s ee n othing t hat disagrees w ith t he master plan. How the roadway impacts Black Cat is not really part of this application. The other issues -- the applicant having agreed to work with it, my personal opinion is that I would move this forward to City Council. Rohm: I generally support -- Borup: Okay. The first item is that of the annexation. Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward, to the City Council recommending approval of Item four on our agenda, AZ 03-037, request for annexation and zoning of 46.40 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for proposed Chesterfield Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC, east of North Black Cat Road and north of West Franklin Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of February 19, 2004, received by the City Clerk February 17, 2004, with no changes. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 44 of 105 Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item five on our agenda PP 03-046 and in so doing I'm referring to the preliminary plat received by the Clerk January 23rd, 2004, request preliminary plat approval of 215 residential lots and 34 common lots 46.40 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Chesterfield Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC, east of North Black Cat Road and north of West Franklin Road -- Borup: Commissioner, maybe -- you made reference to which plat? Zaremba: This was the plat received January 23rd, 2004. Borup: Okay. We received a revised plat that was February 4th. Zaremba: Then --okay, then, we want to talk about the February 4th one Borup: And that was the one that's been on the -- Zaremba: Okay. Borup: -- on the screen. Zaremba: All right. Then, we were talking about the new revision from February 4th, 2004, and delete my earlier comments about January. And this motion is to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of February 19th, 2004, received by the City Clerk February 17th, 2004, with the following changes. On page 19 add a paragraph 12 that says the Right To Farm Act shall be referenced on the plat. Add a paragraph 13 -- I'm sorry. On page nine. Page nine of the staff note. That was a paragraph 12. Add paragraph 13 that says on Block 5, Lot 21, and Block 9, Lot 65, buildings shall be limited to one story, meaning a maximum peak height of 25 feet. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Borup: Would this be the spot to include the barricade on Pine? Zaremba: Well, the barricade was, actually, part of the previous subdivision and it was left up to the developer what kind of barricade they were going to put, so I -- we can specify here if we need to -- Meridian Planning 8 Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 45 of 105 Borup: Yeah. The discussion was a chain link fence, rather than the concrete barricade. Zaremba: We will add a paragraph 14 that the previous agreed to barricade will go wall to wall across the right of way and be a chain link with agated -- a locked gate. Kirkpatrick: And, Chairman, members of the Commission, if I can interrupt. We also want to make sure that there is a sign off from the Fire Department. Zaremba: Yes. If agreed to by the Fire Department. Okay. In that same paragraph - this would be of paragraph 14 on page nine. Referring to the fence. Developer will also provide private property no trespassing signs on that fence and at both ends of the walking path. Rohm: I think that's it, Dave. Zaremba: That's the end of the motion. Rohm: I'll second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item six on our agenda, CUP 03-070, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development with request for reduction to the minimum requirements for lot size, street frontage, and front yard setbacks -side setbacks for patio homes for proposed Chesterfield Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC, east of North Black Cat Road and north of West Franklin Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date February 19, 2004, received by the City Clerk February 17, 2004, with no changes. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Thank you. Thank everyone for being here. This will move to City Council. Commission, would we like to continue or like a break? Rohm: Break. Borup: Okay. We will take a short break at this time.