Loading...
2004 09-02 - ~ Meridian Planninq and Zonina Meetina September 2. 2004. The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman Keith Borup. Members Present: Chairman Keith Borup, Commissioner David Zaremba, Commissioner Michael Rohm, and Commissioner David Moe. Members Absent: Wendy Newton-Huckabay. Others Present: Chris Gabbert, Jessica Johnson, Anna Canning, Brad Hawkins-Clark, Craig Hood, Bruce Freckleton, Wendy Kirkpatrick, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call X David Zaremba X X Wendy Newlon-Huckabay X X Chairman Keith Borup David Moe Michael Rohm Borup: We'd like to begin our regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for September 2nd. We'll begin with roll attendance. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of August 5, 2004 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: B. Approve Minutes of July 15, 2004 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: Borup: We would like to begin with the Consent Agenda, which consists tonight of minutes of August 5th and July 15th. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I have a change that I would like to -- actually, two changes that I would like to request on the minutes of August 5, 2004. They are on page 98, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen -- the sixteenth line down, the first words are Council reminded. I would change the word reminded to remanded with an A, instead of an I. And on page 99, the very bottom paragraph, credits a statement as being made by our Chairman Keith Borup and, in fact, that statement was made by me. It should be Zaremba. We didn't continue the annexation. Those are my only two changes. And I have no changes for the July 15th one. ~ . Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2,2004 Page 2 of 81 Borup: Do we have a motion? Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we accept the minutes as amended. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from July 1, 2004: AZ 04-012 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 1.82 acres from RT to C-C zone for proposed Wrinkleneck Project by Wrinkleneck Partners, LLC - northwest corner of East Overland Road and South Locust Grove Road: Borup: Thank you. Okay. The first item on the agenda is a continued public hearing from July 1st, AZ 04-012. We do have an e-mail memo on this project from the developer asking that it again be deferred. They are asking for it to be the 16th. Well, I guess we need to decide if that's -- we have seven -- we have thirteen items at that date. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup? Borup: Yes. Hawkins-Clark: If I could just clarify that while that's a different name, Wrinkleneck, it is the same project as Maverick. So, that would technically be opened at the same time and you could hear the -- Borup: That is Item No. 17, then. Hawkins-Clark: That's correct. Borup: For the proposed -- Hawkins-Clark: For the 16th. Borup: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: It was staff's recommendation that they continue that item, so that both items could be - the annexation and the CUP could be together on the same night. Borup: Okay. Yeah. I remember the discussion on that. Zaremba: That's August -- or September 16th? ? Melidian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2,2004 Page30f81 Borup: 16th. Zaremba: Somebody didn't change this calendar. September 16 we are talking about. Mr. Chairman, I move we continue the Public Hearing AZ 04-012 to our meeting of September 16th and at that time that it be coupled with the agenda item for Maverick. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: That was pretty quick. Item 5: Public Hearing: CUP 04-030 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a gymnastics center in an I-L zone for Danik Gymnastics by Viktor Danilovitch - 345 South Adkins Way Borup: Moving right along. Our next item is Public Hearing CUP 04-030, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a gymnastics center in an I-L zone for Danik Gymnastics at 345 South Adkins Way. We'd like to open this hearing at this time and start with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The subject property is located on the southwest corner of Adkins and Kallispell in Medamont Subdivision. The property address is 345 South Adkins Way, just south of Franklin Road and just west of Locust Grove Road. Now here is a 2003 aerial of the site that's in the black there. This picture kind of shows that it's vacant. In fact, construction of the building and tenant space that this applicant will be taking has been underway, it has begun construction, and it's pretty close to completion it looks like. There is a vacant parcel on the upper -- opposite side of Kallispel and also to the south of the subject property. To the west is the Schwans Sales Enterprises warehouse and on the east side that also is shown as vacant, but there are some industrial uses, and Intermountain Woods Products has a building over there, as well as a car shop restoration -- I don't know the name of that, but they are across the street as well. The applicant is proposing to utilize 6,000 square feet of the 16,000 square foot building that is currently under construction as a gymnastics center for children. You can see the applicant has wrote in the lease area on the above -- the picture above representing the building, which shows the whole site for that lot in the subdivision and the proposed use is considered a private school on the schedule of use control, which does require the CUP in an I-L zone. In the staff report staff did ask the applicant to clarify a couple of things, particularly regarding the parking situation on this site and in the general area. There are only about 27, I think, parking stalls on site and 16,000 square feet of building. There was some concern initially brought up by the police department, the police station is not too far away, maybe 200 feet away, and they had some concern with parking along Adkins and that conflicting with emergency vehicles during competition events. Since the staff report has gone out , Melidien Planning & Zoning Commission September 2.2004 Page 4 of81 the applicant has submitted a letter to staff and the Commission should have received that, dated August 31st is the date I have on my letter and the applicant did state in that letter that there aren't going to be any competitive events, the SAG, which is the gymnastics federation, does not allow -- basically, this facility is not regulated to hold competitive events, so it will just be a learning environment for these children. They do expect about 10 to 15 children per session and they will be allotted 13 to 15 of those 27 parking stalls. I haven't received anything from the police department, but based on what the applicant -- and he has dealt with this more than I did and I don't know how much traffic and parking a gymnastics center will generate, but just based on those numbers and the availability and the peak time that the center is going to be open, I think it should be sufficient, but I'll let the Commission follow up with him if they wish and staff is recommending approval of the application. If you have any questions, I will answer. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, Craig, the -- the one discrepancy that I note is in the staff report you counted 24 spaces available to this building as a whole. The applicant's letter states 27 and you just repeated that number. Are you satisfied that 27 is the right number? Hood: I did -- Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, I did go off of the applicant's letter when I just stated 27. The site plan should be reflect that certificate of zoning compliance that was approved for the building -- my eyesight's not that good, but that's how many parking stalls there are, so if someone could count them up real quick. And I think that probably the applicant could clarify if that number, then, decreased from there, 13 to 15, that they are going to be allotted if you take a proportion of the existing building before or -- I really don't know. I think my 24 in the staff report was based on the CZC as well, just reading that I was going off the applicant's letter, so that's why I stated 27. I need to cross-check that. I apologize. Zaremba: Well, you brought up the second half of my question, which would be if he's renting 6,000 square feet of the 16,000 square foot building, if the right number is 24, then, his proportional number of parking spaces would be nine. Does the owner of the building have the right to assign an overage to one tenant? Hood: They can. This is just one -- I mean it's one lot with cross-access and cross parking from all appearance and it can be striped for each -- each business, each use. I don't know if that's how they are going to do it or the two buildings are more industrial in nature and the parking requirements are quite low for industrial type uses, so they may -- you know, if you take how many spots each -- even though it's a high square footage, they may only have two or three vehicles in the operation and no traffic from the general public coming to this business. So, maybe that's -- the applicants probably should clarify that a little bit for you. I'm speculating a little bit there, so -- Y Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2,2004 Page 5 of 81 Zaremba: Okay. Then, I would ask one other question that you mayor may not be able to discuss, but would you go back to the aerial view? I think it was the first slide you had. Yes. Thank you. I guess the main discussion is whether this is an appropriate use in the I-L zone. I believe it is this piece of property which was recently approved for an indoor soccer stadium that had some variation from the traditional use around it and I think not too far away, probably at Franklin and 5th, roughly, there was a dance school in an either commercial or an I-L. Do we know how those are working out? Hood: I personally have not had any complaints from the public or the police department or anyone, for that matter, regarding those uses in the industrially zoned subdivision. The one exception to that is on the south side or -- there are some residents that are in the county that butt up to Medamont Subdivision and we have had some complaints about noise, but those are more from the industrial type uses than these less intense, if you will, uses for school and office. There is some other office leases in there. So, the less intense uses, even though it is industrial, seem to be working a little better than the industrial uses in the industrial subdivision, so -- Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: Okay. Any other questions? Anything the applicant would like to add? Danilovitch: Okay. If you look at the -- Borup: We need to go ahead and have you state your name and address. Danilovitch: Okay. My name is Viktor, last name Danilovitch. I am applicant for Danik Gymnastics and about parking, concern about parking, number. one thing, we cannot do competition in this building, because it is pretty small building for competition. We have to rent some big building, like high school or something like this and it's from my experience, because I'm here seven years already and I do a lot of competition and usually we just rent space, like high school or fairgrounds, Idaho fairgrounds, or something else, for competition. Number one thing, our business mostly is drop-off business, because parents bring kids, drop them off, and they pick them up after one hour, one and a half hours or two hours, it depends how long practice. And that's the one question another one think about this. I talked to -- two days ago this building owner and she say it will be between 13 and 15 parking lots. It's kind of good for me, because I will be not worried at all and mostly our kids coming after school. In morning also we have classes, but it's not big classes. Mostly after school and it is after 5:00 o'clock and both businesses probably will be already to close after 5:00 o'clock. That's why it's not the kind of question for me, it will not be a problem at all about parking. Borup: Okay. While you're on the parking, you had mentioned 27. redesigned the site? Have they Y Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2.2004 Page 6 of 81 Danilovitch: What they say -- no. What they say it is 24, but parking will be available from one side of the building. J don't know which side he mentioned, but there will be parking so that -- Borup: Any questions from the Commission? Moe: As far as employees, how many employees are you planning to have that would possibly be taking parking spots? Danilovitch: Usually -- like I said, usually just two, maybe three classes in one hour, just me and two or three people, two or three coaches will be inside. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: I would comment that for myself and maybe for all of us, we certainly welcome this kind of a business to Meridian. I think it would be a good addition to the community. Danilovitch: I think so. Zaremba: The main question is whether this is really the right location for it or not. The question I would have, children that are being dropped off before class or maybe have completed their class and are waiting to be picked up, how will they be contained and supervised? Danilovitch: They stay -- usually they stay inside the building. Parents coming in and taking them and -- Zaremba: So, they wouldn't be allowed to wonder out the exist and -- Danilovitch: No. Zaremba: -- about the parking lot and -- Danilovitch: They always inside the building. Zaremba: Okay. That's my question. Borup: Okay. Anyone else? All right. Thank you. Danilovitch: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone here to testify on this application? Okay. We had no one sign up. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing. , - Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2004 Page70f81 Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and Second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to City Council recommending approval of CUP 04-030, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a gymnastics center in an I-L zone for Danik Gymnastics, Viktor Danilovitch, 345 South Adkins Way, to include all staff comments and conditions of the staff memo dated for the hearing date of September 2nd, 2004, received August 23rd, 2004, and the letter from Mr. Danilovitch received by the city clerk's office August 31st, 2004 -- excuse me, not city clerk, but Planning and Zoning. End of motion. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 6: Public Hearing: CUP 04-031 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a retail candle and gift shop in an O-T zone for Kathy Hinshaw (Aromatic Sensations) by Kathy Hinshaw - 128 East Pine Avenue: Borup: Next item is Public Hearing CUP 04-031. This is a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a retail candle and gift shop in an OT zone for Kathy Hinshaw, 128 East Pine Avenue. We'd like to open this hearing and start with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Commissioner -- Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is another CUP application for a retail candle and gift shop on Pine Street. The mailing address is 128. It's located on the north side of Pine, just west of 2nd Street, between 2nd and Main. To the north of the subject site is an alley and on the other side of the alley are some single-family residences. To the south are -- is a single-family home directly across street. You can see our city parking lot to the south and west. Directly to the west of this site is a used children's clothing and toys, I believe, also, so used children's items anyway there and that business to the east is the High Desert Construction office. Everything, including this parcel is zoned OT, in Old Town. The site plan submitted by the applicant -- I apologize that this didn'tcome through very well, it didn't scan in very well, but you may have a hard copy in front of you, but there is only one on-site parking stall proposed. That is the biggest issue, I think, probably, with this application. There are a lot of existing homes in Old Town that are converting to retail- office type uses. This is another one, but parking is definitely an issue to be discussed. The city does not have any special regulations for Old Town parcels when it comes to parking requirements and there is only one on-site parking stall and it is a handicapped stall located off of the alley. There is currently a concrete slab with a covered carport, in , - Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2,2004 Page 8 of 81 fact, it will be utilized. And current city code does require retail uses to provide one parking stall for every 200 gross square feet of the building. This is a 924 square foot building, so rounded; they would need five parking stalls. Also there is on-street parking on Pine Street that is utilized quite a bit. They would be able, according to our standards for dimensions, which are 23 feet long per stall, would be able to fit two parking stalls in front. So, it's on site, but in front of this business there are two and, again, the city parking lot is in the general vicinity. Just one other thing of note regarding parking. Last year there was an application, again, for that used children's clothing and/or toys and they asked for a variance. The subject business has also submitted a variance that will be heard by the City Council with this application after your recommendation. That application -- that applicant was allowed to utilize the on- street parking and one on-site parking stall for that business, with those other considerations, because there are on-street and across the street parking for the business. Being such, this is just kind of a little bit more of staff's analysis, I guess, is in the staff report, but oftentimes these specialty retail shops don't generate some of the traffic that a more general retail store may, something just to take into consideration. I believe one of the other things that back in 1901 when this was platted people weren't thinking about parking requirements. There is only 46 feet of frontage and you have pretty narrow lots. It is .18 acres, so just to keep those things in mind, I guess, anyways. I think that's everything I wanted to touch on. With that, I will stand for any questions -- oh, staff is recommending approval. I did want to point out to you, to make the legal department happy, that there is no conflict of interest; the applicant did put down me as the engineer, planner, surveyor for this. I did help the applicant in pre-app meetings, but I am not working on this site consulting, so I did just want to go on record with that and with that I'll stand for any questions. Borup: Questions from the Commission? I noticed that, too, but I assumed that was the case. Zaremba: I would comment on these smaller projects it sometimes speeds it along to have the department provide a little extra help than they might on somebody who can hire their own engineer, so I personally don't have a problem with that. I would have two questions, though. One of them -- and the fire department doesn't mention it, but other than their first point on page seven with the acceptance of the water supply for fire protection will be by the Meridian Water Department, are you aware of any special requirements that they might put on for the storage and making and display of flammable items, such as candles? Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, I do know they have a manufacturing standard condition. I do not know why it was not included here. I'm recalling when the agency meeting was held, Chief Bowers, who used to do this for a long time, was there, but has since turned over the reigns to Joe Silva. He may have just missed it, but there may be some special for a manufacturing -- or a business of this type that may have candles there lit to show their work -- there may be. I do not know that, though. I'm sorry. ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2004 Page g 0181 Zaremba: But having the adequate water supply for fire protection probably would give them the right to introduce that part if they needed to? It seems appropriate to me. I just wanted to make sure that thought was included. I see a head nodding. The other question I had -- on the staff report, page -- I lost the page number, but it's the page before the one that I was just talking about, so it must be page six. Yes, it is. About item number 11, it says the applicant or successor -- maybe I'm wrong, but I was surprised. Does the CUP go with the land, so that it can be sold along with -- there can be a successor owner of the CUP? Hood: That's correct. The Conditional Use Permit runs with the land, not the applicant, so if you don't move your CUP, the approval is for the use, so, yeah, the successor part would be true. Zaremba: Okay. Good. I was thinking differently, but I'm glad to have that clarified. That, then, leads me to a couple other questions, though. Is it limited to this specific use? In other words, it does not automatically turn this into a retail property, as opposed to a residential, it has to remain a candle shop and within that candle shop they cannot on their own set up a booth for Madam Zelda's Taro Card Reading and stuff like that? It's limited to their specific stated uses? Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, we go off of the schedule of use control, so this would be a retail business. You could open up another retail business not specializing in candles and gift shop. If there is not another closer classification, you would not have to gain CUP approval. If they wanted to convert this to an office, that's a different use and they would have to come back in for CUP approval based on the OT zone. But this is approved for a retail business in general, more specifically for this applicant, a candle shop. So, it can be converted to Madam Zelda's or whatever you just said. A clothing store, any type of retail business could move in there, potentially, with this CUP approval. Zaremba: And that leads me to the question of whether that -- if your assessment of the parking situation would stay the same if it were some other retail use -- Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, the existing home, to convert that to anything other than a somewhat specialized -- I don't see it happening. If they were to tear it down and start anew maybe -- some of these homes that are converted, those tend to be of this variety and staff is kind of put in a little bit of a bind when reviewing these, just because of the history of Old Town and what the city kind of wants to see in these mix of uses, but you don't take into account fully -- you got 40-foot wide lots and where are you going to put parking and a structure on site. So, they are -- that is difficult. I think in the next year or year and a half or so we are going to have some specific guidelines for developing downtown and possibly some sites for parking garages and those type of things that can fully address those issues. But I thought about it, I guess, in the analysis and probably will get a little more detailed in the variance application, but it would be hard to recommend anything other than approval, I think, just based on what else has happened in the Old Town with similar situations. -' Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2004 Page 100f81 So, I know that doesn't fully answer the question, but at least that's my perspective on this. Zaremba: It does answer my question and thank you. Borup: Questions from any of the other Commissioners? Does applicant have anything they'd like to add? Is the applicant here? Okay. Kathy. Hinshaw: Good evening. I'm Kathy Hinshaw, owner of 128 East Pine Avenue and I know there is not a lot of parking there and I like the home and would like to convert it over to retail and I guess that's about it. Borup: Okay. Hinshaw: Do you have any questions for me? Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Zaremba: I guess not. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I just had one question. From a manufacturing perspective, can you kind of fill us in on what you will be doing with candles? Are you bringing in pre- made candles and its just retail or are you going to manufacture, to a certain degree, or what? Hinshaw: Yes. I have the -- I buy the wax and I buy the scent and I melt them and, then, I just pour them into containers or molds and that's how I sell them. Rohm: How do you melt the -- is it propane? Is it natural gas? Is it on the stove? Hinshaw: No, it's not on the stove, but it's like a crock-pot. That's what you would compare it to. And you just heat it up to probably about 130 degrees and the wax just melts and you just pour it -- pour it into your containers with the wick. Rohm: So, you're not going to have a big bunson burner sitting there -- Hinshaw: No. Things have changed. Rohm: Okay. Well, that's alii had. Hinshaw: Yeah. And one other thing I wanted to let you know about. If there happened to be a fire and the wax -- the way that you put it out is with baking soda and/or a fire extinguisher. Water just kind of makes it worse. So, I have those. Rohm: So an abundance of water wouldn't necessarily help. J Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2004 Page 11 of81 Hinshaw: No. No. It would just make it worse. Zaremba: But I'm hearing you say you have plan to have plenty of baking soda and some fire extinguishers? Hinshaw: Oh, yes. Yes. I have plenty of that. Zaremba: The concern would be that the age of this building and being a wood structure that you would need to act fast, of course. Hinshaw: Well, it's stucco and lath and plaster, so -- okay. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone to testify on this application? Seeing none, Commission? Zaremba: Mr. Cháirman, I move the hearing be closed. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Zaremba: As we all know, the Old Town area is a transition area and we have reviewed applications next door and around us, which we have approved for this kind of transition and I think all the questions have been answered as satisfactorily as they can be answered and I would be in favor of approving. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of CUP 04-031, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a retail candle and gift shop in an 0- T zone for Kathy Henshaw, Aromatic Sensations, by Kathy Henshaw, 128 East Pine Avenue, to include all comments of the staff in their memo dated for the hearing date of September 2, 2004, received by the city clerk August 27,2004, with no changes. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 7: Public Hearing: AZ 04-022 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4.91 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Redfeather Village Subdivision by Packard Estates Development, LLC - east of North Eagle Road and north of East Fairview Avenue: Item 8: Public Hearing: PP 04-029 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 20 single family residential building lots on 4.91 acres in a proposed R-8 zone Y Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2,2004 Page 120f81 for Redfeather Village Subdivision by Packard Estates Development, LLC - east of north Eagle Road and north of East Fairview Avenue: Borup: Thank you. Next item is Redfeather Village Subdivision, Public Hearing AZ 04- 022, request for annexation and zoning of 4.91 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Redfeather Village by Packard Estates Development and Public Hearing PP 04-029, request for a preliminary plat approval for 20 single family residential lots on 4.19 acres. And CUP 04-029, request for a Conditional Use Permit for -- I'm sorry. That was it. Those two. I'll stop at that. So, I'd like to open those two items, both those public hearings at this time, and start with the staff report. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, as you stated, the applicant has requested annexation and zoning and preliminary plat approval on 4.85 acres, generally located south of Ustick Road, mid mile between Eagle Road and Cloverdale Road. The land is designated as medium density residential on the Comprehensive Plan future land use map. The applicant has requested that all of the property be zoned R-8. To the north, to the east, and to the west of this subject site was the recently approved Redfeather Estates Subdivision No.2. This was the five-acre out parcel platted in Georgianna Milks in 1909 that Redfeather Estates went around. If you recall, Granger comes in off of Cloverdale and then -- Cloverdale is over here and it kind of shoots down and around to service the other part of that Redfeather Estates. To the south are some county zoned single family residential lots in Clovermeadows Subdivision and that is zoned R-1 and there are some -- and you can't see it on this, but there is an existing home and some outbuildings on this site that do take access to Granger currently. And I just mentioned the subject lot is Lot 8 in Georgianna Milks Subdivision platted 1909. The applicant is proposing to re-subdivide that lot into 20 new lots. The proposed subdivision includes road access via one stub street from Redfeather Estates to the west, which was Tahiti Drive right here, so they will be extending the stub street from Tahiti, which feeds up to Granger, which will be constructed with Redfeather Estates No.2. The gross density of the subdivision is 4.0 dwellings -- 4.07 dwellings unit per acre. The 20 proposed building lots range in size from 6,712 square feet up to 12,412 square feet. All housing types are single family residential. The minimum house size is 1,301 and no variance, exceptions, or reductions to the city adopted dimensional standards or uses are requested with this preliminary plat application. I did want to point out one thing in the staff report, just that Redfeather Estates does currently surround this site on three sides, the fourth side being in the county. That annexation has not been -- the ordinance has not been recorded yet. The site is currently not contiguous to the city limits, but we are processing this, because the City Council has approved that application and we are just waiting for a development agreement to be signed and recorded and, then, the ordinance to be recorded as well. So, I just wanted to point that out, that there are some provisions in the staff report that, you know, that has to happen, it cannot fail to happen, since it's approved, and so -- the other thing is the response letter from applicant dated August 30th commenting on the tiling of the ditches. I will let the applicant expand on this a little bit, but there are -- it's my understanding there are two laterals that run along the southern boundary. One -- they may both be concrete -- is a user's ditch for the Clovermeadows Subdivision. The other y Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2,2004 Page 130181 one just to the north of that runs parallel to it, is more fully on the Redfeather site and they will be tiling that one, but have asked to leave the southern most user's ditch for Clovermeadow open, so that those people can continue to utilize that. I will let -- like I said, I'll let the applicant expand on that a little bit. Just noting that, they are proposing a fence on the top bank of that -- of that concrete ditch that does remain. Staff is recommending approval of both the annexation and zoning application and the preliminary application. And with that I will conclude this report. Thank you. Borup: Any questions from the Commission? Seeing none -- Rohm: Just a comment. Borup: Okay. Rohm: It's nice to see an application without significant requests for variances. Borup: I was thinking the same thing. Zaremba: That is true. Borup: Okay. Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Stiles: Sheri Stiles, Engineering Solutions, 150 East Akins Street in Eagle. 83616. Thanks, Craig, for that presentation. He did an excellent job. I don't think you can see this any better than what's already up there. This is a parcel of land that really completes this subdivision for Red Feather Estates No.2. We did run into some surveying issues during Red Feather Estates No.2 and it had to do with the right of way of Granger Street and in order to get rid of the problem, the applicant purchased the property, and that's why we are here tonight. I would like to, I guess, explain a little further about the concrete ditch on this very south border. There is an existing lateral there and also the concrete ditch is used by those property owners with the large lots to irrigate -- to flood irrigate those properties. With that exception, I -- we agree with everything in the staff report and are here tonight asking for your recommendation to the City Council. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Sheri, on your conditions on number two in regards to sidewalks, I guess I'm a little bit confused. You have made note that the city code does not address perimeter sidewalks in this section and perimeter sidewalks are not proposed as part of this development. What exactly did you mean? Stiles: Well, I guess the word perimeter in the report was what confused me, because a perimeter -- perimeter fencing and perimeter sidewalks, we weren't proposing for a sidewalk all around. Moe: Exactly. ! Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2. 2004 Page 14of81 Stiles: That's why I just wanted clarify. I don't think it was really a -- I think it was just an error in the staff report. I just wanted to call it -- I didn't want that to end up in the findings and have somebody try and enforce that at some point. Moe: Well, I got very confused when I read that. I am assuming that we do have a sidewalk, curb, and gutter and everything down through the main street in the middle -- Stiles: Yes. Moe: -- and, then up on top, that is Granger, and there will be a sidewalk up there as well? Stiles: Yes, sir. Moe: Okay. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I just would like to clarify kind of how that made it in the staff report. They are standard conditions. I don't modify these conditions. Some of them mayor may not apply. But they are pretty standard to every subdivision that I write, so, you know, there may be some other ones in here that may not be applicable, but they are that standard condition and if they apply you would have to meet those requirements. If not, you're done with it. So, that's just kind of how that one is -- why it's in the report, I guess, and it's noted that there aren't any perimeter sidewalks required because Granger will be constructed also, so -- Borup: That's perimeter refers to joining any other material streets or any other streets. Hood: Primarily collectors and arterials that are already established. Established streets. Yeah. Yeah. Moe: And, then, the only other thing is in your comments also you talk about Clovermeadows Subdivision No.1. Do you mean number two? Is it not number two? On the south side where those ditches are. Stiles: I'm sorry, Chairman Borup, Commissioner Moe, Which -- where are you referencing? Borup: I think the question is the subdivision to the south, the plat says number two and your note just said number one. Moe: I wanted to make sure that that's the one you were speaking of. Stiles: One of them is correct. I'm not sure. Moe: Okay. It is the one that's south you're speaking of right? , Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission September 2,2004 Page 15 0181 Stiles: Yes. Moe: Thank you. Borup: Any other questions. Mr. Zaremba? Zaremba: Ms. Stiles, it's nice to see you again. On the same subject I believe I'm understanding correctly that there actually is a prior agreement between your developer and the property owners adjoining that ditch that it be left open. Stiles: Chairman Borup, Commissioner Zaremba that is correct. We met at the site and discussed it with Mr. Gary Piva, who was representing that subdivision, and that was the agreement that was made as part of the previous Redfeather Estates No.2. Zaremba: Great. Thank you. Borup: So, did that agreement also include who would take care of maintenance between the fence? The developer's putting up a fence, it sounds like, on -- in from their property line and so to accommodate the ditch for the other subdivision. So, would Clovermeadows be maintaining that area, then? Stiles: Chairman Borup, yes, I believe that it was just going to be part of the backyards left open. I imagine they're already maintaining it now to some point. Borup: So, whatever has happened has -- Stiles: I don't know what shape it's in, but -- Borup: Okay. Okay. Any other questions? Thank you, Ms. .Stiles. Do we have anyone else here to testify on this application? Now is the time. Seeing none -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move the hearing on AZ 04-022 and PP 04-029 both be closed. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close both hearings. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval AZ 04-022, request of annexation and zoning of 4.91 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Redfeather Village Subdivision by Packard Estates Development, LLC, east of North Eagle Road and north of East Fairview Avenue, to include all staff comments of the memo for hearing date of September 2, 2004, received by the city clerk August 27th, 2004, with one change and that is on page six, under annexation and zoning '. .' Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission September 2,2004 Page 16of81 conditions of approval, there is a paragraph three that begins on that page. I would follow over to paragraph seven on the end of -- on page seven, paragraph three, on the end of that I would add that we will accept the applicant's commitment to leave the portion of the ditch that they have already agreed was Cloverdale Meadows Subdivision, either one or two, to leave open, that we are agreeing that that would be left open. End of motion. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of PP 04-029, request for preliminary plat approval for 20 single family residential building lots on 4.91 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Redfeather Village Subdivision by Packard Estates Development, LLC, east of North Eagle Road and north of East Fairview Avenue, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of September 2, 2004, received by the city clerk August 27, 2004, with one change. And that is -- Moe: Page nine. Zaremba: On page ten, actually, site-specific conditions of approval -- I'll come back to that in a second I think. And site specific conditions of approval on page ten, the bottom paragraph, page seven, again, as it carries over to page eleven, we will add a sentence that says: As agreed between the applicant and the subdivision to the south Cloverdale Meadows Subdivision, that that ditch may remain untiled and clarifying that the applicant has offered to build a fence on their side of it. And was there something -- Moe: Well, I was looking through special considerations under six as well, brings it up again for the ditches. Zaremba: Okay. The -- on page nine of the staff note, paragraph six has the same discussion, which later was turned into requirements and we will include in the discussion on paragraph six that there is a previous agreement to leave a portion of that named ditch unliled. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT, Item 9: Public Hearing: CUP 04-029 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a daycare facility for 30 to 40 children in an R-8 zone for Condra Steeves Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2,2004 Page 170f81 Daycare Center by Condra and Donald Steeves - 1258 East Cougar Creek Drive: Borup: Okay. Thank you. Next item is Public Hearing CUP 04-029, request Conditional Use Permit for a daycare facility for 30 or 40 children in an R-8 zone for Condra Steeves Daycare Center by Condra and Donald Steeves at 1258 East Cougar Creek Drive. I would like to open this hearing at this time and start with the staff report. Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, this application is for a daycare facility, but I wanted to go ahead and point out that what the applicant is going to actually be running out of the existing home will be more of a preschool and we'll go ahead and address some of the details, including the operating hours and the schedule for that -- for that preschool. I wanted to go ahead and point out that for you information that the facility is for a preschool. That subject property is located in Cougar Creek Subdivision, which is south of Ustick and just west of Locust Grove Road. And I wanted to go ahead and show you -- this is where the subject property is located. It sits in the middle of Cougar Creek Drive and there is an aerial of the property. And this is the site plan. Let me know if you have any problem seeing that. We also have -- you should also have a printed copy in your packets, if you have trouble reading that site plan. And I wanted to go ahead and point out, before I got started, the packet that the applicant had submitted for this project and I have been working as a planner for five years and this is definitely one of the most amazing pieces of homework I have ever seen an applicant put together -- put together. The -- when we initially met with the applicant we told them one of our primary concerns was going to be the impact of this daycare potentially on the neighborhood and we told her that it was going to be critical that she not have opposition from the neighbors if there was going to be any chance of this application being approved. And the applicant has submitted both a petition from the neighbors of the subject property saying that they are in favor of the project and she's also submitted another petition for neighbors who are neighbors of an existing daycare facility or preschool that she's operating in another neighborhood. And there is one letter of opposition to this project and I think the applicant will speak -- or the applicant's representative will speak to that. They have, from what I have been told, have recanted and submitted another letter, saying that they are now in favor of this application. Just want to say this is a very impressive piece of homework that they have turned in and if I had had this last week when I ran the report, I would have rendered a different report. But I still want go through some of the concerns that I initially had when I was working on this report and I will tell you how some of those concerns were addressed through -- through the submittal the applicant has brought in today. Our primary concern was that this daycare operation -- here is another site plan. It's in a residential setting. It's surrounded by single-family homes in an R-8 subdivision. I have found out, since I originally wrote the staff report, the subject property immediately to the west of the home is, actually, a group home. Those aren't registered and they are not permitted through the planning department, they are considered to be a single family home, but it is a commercial use that is immediately to the west of the subject property. But our main concern is that potentially we have 30 to 40 children and the traffic that is going to be generated by that -- by the daycare facility with that volume and the noise impact on Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission September 2,2004 Page 180f81 the neighbors, but the applicant is -- the submittal that the applicant has brought in shows that they have support from a large enough number of the neighbors for this project. So, a lot of my concerns have been alleviated through this submittal and the proof that they have done a lot of homework, had a meeting with the neighbors, and gotten their approval on the project. I believe there is a number of neighbors who are going to speak in favor of the project this evening. I do still want to go through some of the site requirements for this project. But the first of these the applicant is not able to meet the landscape requirements for this site due to site constraints. They are not able to meet the required landscape buffer, because of an existing home, and they are asking for alternative compliance and we are asking for the applicant to go ahead and give us some more details on what they are going to do in exchange for an alternative compliance request, if they are going to put in some additional trees, bushes, fencing, we need some more details on what the alternative compliance will consist of. And, then, the second main issue -- this was an interpretation I went for -- for the Commission to make, if you want to make a recommendation on this, is the parking in the driveway. They are requesting to use two parking spaces in the existing garage and two compact parking spaces. And the one in use, three parking spaces in the existing driveway. Now, the issue that's opened up to interpretation is for you to make a recommendation is what -- what should the setback be for those required parking spaces. The code for the R-8 Subdivision has a setback of 15 for living areas and 20 feet for garages. This parking in the driveway doesn't clearly fit into either of those two. So, there is an interpretation for you to make whether you believe it meets the intent of it being closer to the living areas, with a 15-foot setback. If you decide that it really needs a 20-foot setback, they'll need to go forward with the variance when they go to City Council with this application. So, go ahead and keep that in mind. So, those are my two primary concerns about this site and I did also want to point out that while this applicant has done a lot of homework, that when this application is permitted, a conditional use on this site wouldn't -- it doesn't -- wouldn't transfer with the owner. It runs with the land. So, if someone else were to come in with a daycare they would be able to move in and just kind of do a change of ownership and it wouldn't go through the same process again. So, I just want you to keep that in mind, too. That this -- this permit would run with the land. So, with that, do you have any questions of staff? I know I have kind of flip-flopped a little bit, but on my original recommendation for denial they have presented a very strong case and done a lot of homework with neighbors. Borup: Okay. Any questions for the Commission? Or from the Commission? Zaremba: This may be a question to the applicant, but do we have knowledge of the state required ratio between students and workers? I guess my question is is two workers enough for 40 students? Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, I will have the applicant address that. From what I understand, they will be receiving state licensing. We don't enforce the state daycare requirement as part of this permit. Zaremba: But it affects the parking -- the number of parking spaces. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2,2004 Page190f81 Kirkpatrick: It does affect the parking. They -- in order to meet parking requirements, they can only -- they could have a maximum of 30 students. Zaremba: Okay. Kirkpatrick: And two staff members. Borup: And, Commission, maybe the amount on that line with whom the applicant can address here, but some of the letters we have stated they are going to not have the students there continuously, there are only 10 to 15 students per session, in four sessions a day. Zaremba: And the original letter, I believe, from SNL or SLN planning only states 30. Borup: Right. Yeah. They didn't explain the session, so we can get some clarification on that. I'm assuming that if that was the case, then, the ratio would be a lot less. It would just be the number of students in there at that time. Zaremba: Then, I would add one comment. You referenced that we had one letter opposed and in our packets we have a letter from Dave and Wyn Wildeman stating some objections to this project. That letter is dated August 30th, 2004, received by the clerk August 31, 2004. In the packet provided by the applicant there is another letter from the same people. Dave and Wyn Wildeman, dated September 1st, 2004. So, two days after their original letter, in which they state, just to summarize, that they have met with the applicant and applicant has made some promises that overcome their objections and so they are, essentially, writing this letter that -- they don't reference their earlier letter, but they are writing this letter, I believe, essentially, to come down on the side of agreement with it. That's alii had to say. Borup: Okay. Anything from any other Commissioners? All right. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Nickel: Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. For the record, Shawn Nickel, 52 North 2nd Street in Eagle. I am representing Condra Steeves for this application this evening. Thanks to Wendy for her staff report. I think we are really close to having her change her recommendation once she did see that packet that we did submit and I do compliment my client as well, they did go out and I think by -- they held a neighborhood meeting first in which they sent out 54 letters to the surrounding neighbors and, then, they went and walked the neighborhood and met with everyone that would talk to them on the street to explain in more detail exactly what this use was going to be. As you know, we have to post the site, so there is a humungus white sign right out in the middle of the property that -- and to correct that, there is going to be a maximum 30 students on the site and that's what that sign said and I also had the sign maker put Condra's name and phone number on the sign, so if the people wanted -- had more questions they could contact her directly. So, she talked to some people that ~. Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission September 2. 2004 Page 20 of 81 way, but mostly it was by just walking and canvassing the neighborhood. She had 49 people on that petition that are immediately adjacent to the property and, in addition, she has 103 signatures from past and existing parents of her other facility that she operates. In addition to that, if you look at the last page, she has got a nice letter from the state senator and also from a restaurateur here in town, which I thought doesn't hurt the cause. Again, she did meet with the neighbors, she did give them some assurances regarding parking, drop off, noise. If you notice in the application, the hours of operation are 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. So, with regards to traffic and people in the neighborhood leaving for work in the morning, I don't think there is going to be too much of a conflict, because the earliest time that parents would drop off their kids would be 9:00 o'clock and they are staggered throughout the day depending on those -- the times that those sessions start. They are two and a half hour sessions each. As far as the ratio -- and the state does regulate how many teachers per student and it's one teacher per ten students. So, with 30 students we'd have three parking spaces, plus the spaces for the teachers. I also want to point out that one of the teachers lives in the neighborhood and she's actually going to walk to the school, the preschool. Her teachers are licensed by the state. They are -- they do have the background checks that are required by states -- the state. There is not going to be a sign on the property, so what we are trying to do and what Wendy suggested very early on is that the character of the neighborhood is what's going to be important and that's why we are not proposing a sign in front of the property. As far as the location, if you look at, again, that map that Wendy put up there of the subdivision, this is right in the center of Cougar Creek Subdivision and the intentions of Condra are to draw from that subdivision, so moms can -- or dad's can walk their kids, if necessary, or it's convenient enough where they can drop them off on the way to and from work or whatnot. So, again, the location I think is appropriate. I think the use is appropriate. Again, the neighborhood has a couple of other commercial uses, more specifically is that group adult care center or facility, which is immediately to the west of the property. So, I think that that alone makes it a little more compatible than say your standard subdivision where it's all single family residential. And, again, that -- those hours of operation, I think, are very important to understand, because of that overlap. Most of the people are going to be at work. I also asked Condra to explain to me how many kids would be outside at one time, because, again, you're in a residential neighborhood, you're going to have kids out playing, and keep in mind that this is a preschool more so than a day care center and so Condra told me that the kids, on average, are outside about 45 minutes a day is what they average outside at any given day and, then, during the winter months they are not out there at all, because I guess the state regulates temperature and how long the kids can be outside. So, I thought that was kind of interesting. Regarding landscaping -- and stop me at anytime if you want to ask me questions, I'm just going to keep rambling on here. Regarding landscaping, the code requires a 20 foot buffer for this type of use and as you can tell, because of this type of subdivision, because of the size of the lots, it's impossible to do that. So, what we're asking for is the alternative compliance with that ordinance. I didn't really put on the site plan any specific landscaping. I wanted to kind of get a feel from the Commission and from staff to see what they would recommend. However, we met with both of the neighbors on each side and the neighbor to the east doesn't care if we have any . Melidian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2004 Page 21 of 81 landscaping or not along the side. I think what we would like to propose, as a minimum, is to have -- plant some new trees, a minimum of 35 feet from each other, along the boundaries -- I guess it would be the eastern boundary and the western boundary of the property, just to provide some sort of landscaping. As far as the rear of the property, there is a lateral on the other side of the fence and there is an existing chain link fence. What we propose to do is to slat that fence to provide a little bit of a visual buffer from the people across the canal and also to keep children from being able to climb up that fence and provide a little more safety for that. Regarding the parking setback, we didn't meet with Anna Powell before we submitted this application and. she was, actually, the one that gave us the idea to request the 15-foot setback that the R-8 zone requires and if we apply the 15-foot front yard setback, our parking would be within that setback, we wouldn't have to ask for a variance. Also, so you know, that .the way that it's laid out right now, none of the cars would be encroaching near the sidewalk, they would be completely on the concrete driveway. And the last thing -- and I just talked to Condra very quickly about this -- if you see it fit, she would agree to a condition of approval that if she was to relocate or leave, the daycare center would go with her. In other words, it would stop with her, it wouldn't be continued on, and I don't know if that's something that you are interested in doing, but she would be willing to do that, because of the promises, I guess, she's had to the other neighbors that she is going to do these specific things. I mean she feels that if she was to leave that, you know, rather than hoping someone else would continue that, those promises, she would just stop the facility once she is gone. I will just stand for any other questions you have. One other thing. You were correct, Commissioner Zaremba, that one letter was kind of recanted and that was the only letter that we received in opposition. I think there is a couple of people here that want to speak in opposition, but the majority of the neighborhood, once Condra got out and explained exactly what was going on, were very much in favor of this application. So, thank you for your time. Moe: One question I have for you, just so I -- I get the -- you said there is going to be two or three sessions a day for the school and at any given time there is going to be 30 kids in each session or -- or I heard somebody say 15 kids at one time or whatever. I'm trying to get an idea of just how many kids we are going to have in this -- Nickel: Thirty total at any given time. Moe: At any given time. Nickel: The applicant has told me that they come ten at a time. Moe: Well, the reason I'm asking that is we have a 1,390 square foot facility and 30 kids in there, you're giving them 45 square feet to deal with and this is a house, walls,. bathrooms, everything else, we are starting to squeeze a lot of kids in a very small area. Thirty kids. And so I just wanted to get an idea of what we are talking about session wise, because 30 kids in that little small house is going to be pretty tough. Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission September 2,2004 Page 22 of 81 Nickel: That would be the maximum and I will have Condra get up and kind of explain. She runs another facility and she can kind of tell you what that -- Moe: Thank you. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: I did have one comment, if I may, and it's a fairly minor thing, but I noticed on your original letter of July 1st, 2004, that one of the features of the play area is a sand box and I know that the parks department prefers to use some alternate substance other than sand, because, apparently, it attracts cats who think it's a litter box and that wouldn't be healthy for children. So, is there any alternative that you can propose? Nickel: She just -- Condra just stated that she does cover that at night -- Zaremba: Okay. I agree that -- Nickel: -- when it's not in use. Zaremba: Okay. Nickel: If you forget it once, the cats will use it. I agree. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Borup: Okay. Does that conclude? Commission, questions? Did you say Condra had some -- Nickel: Yes. She will get up. Just some more questions for her. Thank you. Steeves: Hi. Condra Steeves, 7035 North Linder Road. To clarify, my classes come ten students at a time. One class might come at 9:00, one class will come at 9:30. We would have two classes, two teachers. It is 1,390 square foot, though our intention is to turn the whole thing into a preschool, which we have done at our other location. The state does have requirements of square footage per child, so we have to stay within the state. Is the house plan up there? I guess not. The house, when you come in, is a big room and, then, there is a bonus room and a master bedroom. All of them have been inspected by Central District Health. Those are our main classrooms. That's where the 30 children will be. It is a preschool. It is not a daycare. The kids are four, sometimes you have three year olds, but we have them potty trained. We don't do anything like that. And it is a teaching environment. They have their teacher. They are doing structured activities. So, you don't have them running through the house just trying to pick up -- and we have centers around the rooms that the children are actively engaging in projects. There is also two rooms off to the side. One will be used as a computer lab and one as a circle time room. So, we have used the entire house plan as part of our preschool setup that way. Also, our parents come in car pools. There is not one class Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2. 2004 Page230f81 that doesn't car pool. The people who -- I already have people who want to move there that are at my site right now and would love to move over there. That was why I targeted that area is I have so many children who live near there. And from when class -- I can tell you right now -- which could change next year, but I always do encourage car pools. For one class at 9:00 o'clock when they drop off for the ten children, there is going to be four cars coming in and dropping off the children and leaving. Half hour later we are going to have six cars come in and drop of their children and leave. Monday, Wednesday, Friday, there is only two classes there. But on Monday through Thursday afternoon we have a pre-K class and also will run to Monday, Wednesday, Friday classes. So, on Monday and Wednesday you may have 30 kids -- you will have 30 kids there for an hour of the day. On Tuesday and Thursday you will only have 20. So, that's how we stagger our classes. It's very much an educational program. It is not a daycare, but for licensing we have to do that, because the state does not provide any means to have a preschool be considered school. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Any questions, Commissioners? Zaremba: I would only comment, as has been stated, we. appreciate your putting together the packet of support and certainly from some impressive people that are supporting you. To reconfirm what Mr. Nickel said, though, I -- it looked like a scary project when I was reading the report and I personally am much comforted by the packet that you have supplied, but I have a feeling that my comfort applies to you only and not to a successor. Steeves: And that is -- Zaremba: And are you comfortable with what Mr. Nickels said, if we apply the condition that this conditional use would not survive your -- Steeves: I am more than comfortable, because a daycare of 30 children would not work in this home. I have seen daycares and they are not preschool. And I agree with you, a daycare center where 30 kids are dropped off at one time and stay all day, there is not cooking places, there is not eating places -- so, yes, I am very comfortable with that permit going with me. Zaremba: Thank you. Canning: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, code is actually a little unique in that respect, that we don't allow transfers of conditional use permits for daycares. It's specifically called out that they need to come and get permission to transfer a daycare to a separate owner. So, it would come back before the -- I guess, it's Commission and Council, I believe, so -- Borup: If ownership changed that would automatically require a new -- Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2004 Page240f81 Canning: Right. It's the only CU that doesn't run with the land and the owner. It doesn't run with the land, it runs with the land and the owner. Zaremba: So, your statement is that we don't need to add that condition. Canning: Yes, sir. In a round about way, yes, sir. Borup: Okay. I think that would add some comfort to any neighbors that may have some concern, too, that that was understood. Okay. We do have an opportunity here for public testimony. We do have petitions and letters from quite a number. And with this -- I'm not sure how many are still going to want to testify, but we do have an opportunity for up to three minutes. But let's -- and I may not go through this on everyone, may just let some come up, but is Karen Finholt and Elaine Ackerman, do you still want to testify? Okay. Come forward. One at a time is fine. Finholt: Hi. I'm Carolyn Finholt and I live in the neighborhood -- Borup: Address? Finholt: My address is 1197 East Cougar Creek Drive and I have lived there for two years. It's a lease purchase and I'm seriously considering purchasing the home next summer. If this goes in I definitely will not purchase the home. There is the group home that's next door to where this daycare preschool is supposed to go in and the group home takes up all of the parking on the street almost every day and when they have their monthly staff meetings they take up every single space down the entire street. There is no leftover space for anyone else to park. Not to mention the fact that we have police calls there considerably quite a bit, because as in most group homes, sometimes the people that live in them get a little unruly and I don't think I would want my preschool child or grandchild to be going somewhere that's right next door to a group home that's got violent characters in there and I don't think anybody's thought about that, the safety of-the children that are in that preschool next door to that group home. There are many times when the staff members are beaten up by the people that live there and the people that live across the street from them, which they went out of town on a vacation and left, they are always worried about their children's safety and they are across the street from the group home. Another thing I am very concerned with is the fact that the woman came to my home and she told me that everybody on the street, except for me, signed and was approving this and I thought that was kind of odd and she told me that my neighbors two doors -- yeah, two doors down to the right of me had signed it and would approve it and that they were going to send one of their daughters there, when I knew very well that was not to be true and I spoke to both of them today and found that was a blatant lie. I also found out that the people -- several of the people that she told me that had signed this petition had not signed this petition and are still against it and for one reason or another could not make it to this meeting. So,. if they are going to lie about one thing, I'm wondering what all are they going to lie about. Are they going to lie about the sign? Are they going to lie about not putting a fence around the property? I mean it worries me when people start lying to -- Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission September 2,2004 Page 25 of 81 Borup: Well, those are conditions that would be part of the application -- part of the -- those would be conditions as part of the -- Finholt: And it also worries me when I know for a fact that realtors do say that the price of the property will go down and Elaine will bring that up. And that's all. Borup: Thank you. Okay. Ackerman: Thank you. My name is Elaine Ackerman and I'm at 1210 East Cougar Creek and I don't know what I can say in three minutes, other than I'm pretty upset about this. I live directly next door to the group home and I can tell you what goes on next to the group home. I have teenagers, so they pretty much -- they know what goes on there, too, and I have talked to them and there is broken windows and like Carolyn said, employees that get hurt, there is lots of traffic, very, very, fast traffic that goes go down there. And if you look at the other ones you had up there, if you look at the street it's -- actually, our point is -- and a lot of the petitions that she got signed and including when they came to me last night and told me even the president of the association signed it. Well, of course, he would. I asked the president to come down and see what goes down on our side of the street, because we are towards the very end just about and they don't -- they aren't impacted like we are. And the neighbors that could not be here tonight, because they are going out of town, we are directly impacted by the traffic and it gets really narrow right there, right where Condra wants to buy that house. And, in fact, the lady that's selling the house doesn't want to be there, because of the group home next door, so there is more concern than what you might think having that next door. And the other thing is -- my main thing is that you can say -- we can present it, whatever you want, and you can have this good plan and I know you have to abide by laws and such, but things can change. You can end up having, you know, how many student cars at one time. My understanding -- and this is what I heard from one of the neighbors, is that they are going to try to get the moms to car pool. That's not for sure. I don't appreciate all that traffic coming down there and I don't appreciate the value of my house going down in value and I am going to sell my home if this gets approved, too. So, I am very concerned about putting those kids there. And also for the group home, not only for anger and rage and employees that get hurt, there is also, you know, not meaning to, because they are not all there, exposing themselves. I mean that's pretty traumatic for a young person see that, too. So, I just have got a lot of concerns. And, then, also not residing in the house and it's going to be a business, right, it's not -- they are not going to reside in there, it's just a business, it's not our neighborhood. So, I know that I'm just one and -- here tonight, but I just wanted to present how I feel. And it sounds like she's just trying to put a good effort for everybody, but I still have my concerns and those are them. And thank you. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Maybe just -- I'm not sure how many houses are on Cougar Creek, but I count about 27 signatures on Cougar Creek. Hold on. We need to address up here and so we'd like to -. anyone else that would like to come up and testify come on forward. , Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2004 Page 26 of 61 Irish: My name is Christy Irish, 5313 Joe Lane in Nampa, and I am actually here to assure all of you that Condra runs a very first class operation. This is the third year for my children to be going to her operation and she has been in this neighborhood that she's in now operating in and it's a very very controlled environment. She does an excellent job. Never ever would she ever put children at risk at anytime. As far as car pooling goes, it happens everyday, every year since I have been there. Everybody is very good about it, because no one likes to have 50 cars in the driveway at one time. As far as I'm concerned, the concerns that are being had at this point aren't really concerns, they can be put at ease very easily. She is an excellent operator. She's very organized and she does a very fine job at what she does. And she will make sure that everything is very well kept and kept up well and the children will be safe. Borup: Thank you. Irish: You bet. Borup: Anyone else? Kendric: Santha Kendric, 1076 East Cougar Creek Court, and my son has also gone to this preschool for three years and it is very excellent. They never have to have any kind of -- people just flock to them. The preschool is so good that by word of mouth everybody -- and they have huge waiting lists and it's just -- it's an awesome preschool. I have six spots at my house if parking is a problem. There are six spots that teachers, parents can stay and walk to that preschool. I live only one, two, three, four, five, six houses down from it and I walk down that street very often with my three little kids and I do not worry about a group home there. I see the people very often. They walk right by my house, they often -- and I don't -- I don't say there hasn't been a problem. I have never heard of a problem, but, obviously, I don't live next door. So, something could have happened, but I do not see any kind of problem there. I will still have my son go there next year. Hopefully, it's right there, so it's really close. Like I said, I offer my parking, I have got plenty there, and I am very for this preschool and think it's a wonderful program and I endorse it. Borup: Thank you. Kendric: Thank you. Borup: Okay. Who is next? Perry: Stephanie Perry, 458 East Cougar Creek Drive. We are the current homeowners of the residence we are talking about. We lived there for eight years. We, actually, built the home there and we want to come and say that we fully support this. But our children have gone to the Small House preschool for -- this is the fourth year and we also have nothing but the upmost respect Condra and Small House preschool. She runs a wonderful facility. We have no complaints whatsoever. We do live next . Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2004 Page 27 of 61 door to the right of the group home, to the east, and the way that it's laid out, you have the group home and the garage. is setback to the right and so it has a very long driveway for sufficient parking of the group home. They do park on the street. But being to the right we do hear -- you know, see the most of the group home. We have lived there eight years and my husband and I have never seen anybody expose themselves. It may have happened, but we have never seen it. We see them walk up and down the street and go to Fred Meyer. There -- we feel that this will fit in perfectly in this neighbor. We would not -- like I said, we have been there eight years, so we do not want to just leave and have the subdivision go downhill. We want something that's going to be just as good as a residence or better for the neighborhood. There is several children that are coming from surrounding areas that will be walking. We have a fully fenced back yard with a locking gate. The children are allowed to play in the backyard, so they won't be allowed to go out front if there is any issues of the children getting hurt in the road. Let's see. We have tried to sell our home twice with a realtor and once for sale by owner with no success and I think that with the preschool there -- it's only run from 9:00 to 3:00. A lot of issues that we have with the group home are after 10:00 o'clock at night with the noise ordinance, with the basketball playing, the stereos, and in the evening while the employees would smoke, we would smell the smoke -- you know, never in the day, but in the nighttime with the windows open. So, I think also we have a lawn care company do our lawn care. We just purchased the lawn section of it May 1st and so currently we have two trailers, a business truck, two of our own vehicles, along with two employee vehicles that come everyday Monday trough Friday. All of that will be alleviated, it will be gone, so -- along with the equipment that comes with the company. So, we also have a contract signed with Condra with our lawn care company that the front -- that the landscape of the whole area will be maintained on a weekly basis. Also shrub pruning, lawn care, weed eating. So, we will maintain the look of the residence. I guess that's everything. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Zaremba: May I ask you one question? I'm sorry, Stephanie. There was a comment made about cars parking on the street, theoretically, for the facility next door to you. If I am interpreting the aerial view that's displayed now correctly, I see one car, I think, parked in front of that and no others on the street. Could you describe your experience with your ability to park or cars up and down street, if you would. Perry: The 15 passenger van that they have for the facility is always parked in front of the facility. The employees pull in and out of the driveway. There is probably -- probably could fit six or eight total, so like three or four deep double parked and so, you know, you will get people moving out to get new cars in and stuff, but -- but I didn't know they had a monthly meeting, but there are times when there are more vehicles than others, but not everyday, not even -- you know, probably once a month. But I didn't know that was why that was there. But to answer your question, you know, there is -- there is also other businesses like a -- that are run out of the homes, so some of the vehicles are there. There is also a rental property with a few families living there. So, there is a lot of parking from that home. So, to tell you the truth, I don't know where the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2004 Page 28 of 81 parking is coming from. I don't know if it's from one of those businesses also or just the group home specifically, so -- Zaremba: Thank you. Perry: Okay. Thank you. Davis: Paul Davis, 1315 East Cougar Creek Drive. I live three doors down and across the street. I am one of the early birds in the subdivision when it was being built and developed. What they are talking about, all the cars also have their families of these group home residents come visiting, too, besides the staff members. We have had problems with staff members drag racing in and out of that subdivision. We have called the police a few times about talking to them and stuff. But one thing I'd like to ask is if you go talk to the owners of the group home that run it, the development or corporation or whatever, to straighten up the individuals that are there attending the residents, to have them, you know, obey the speed limit through there at least. In the morning time when people are -- at 6:00 o'clock in the morning, there is a lot of drag racing in and out of there. Also there is a 25-mile an hour speed limit sign. We have had a deaf child and in the same individual in a wheelchair. I have myself called to try and get the speed limit lowered. We did get Locust Grove totally rebuilt where the canal runs. They put in a whole brand new bridge. Countless times I called the cops because it's a drag race through to get to Ustick and I am not going to have drag racing through the subdivision. We all have kids. We have animals. I like to have my animals out in front with me. My neighbors do, too. We all grew up together with our animals and we know each other. We play ball. Run around. I don't have a problem with it, but parking -- there is a big major parking problem, because there is an angle in there and it's hard to see, especially when the sun is going down in the west and it's a blind spot through there. People running through there 30, 40 miles an hour, there is going to be a big accident one day. So, you need to do something about the speed limit. That's what I would like to request. Lower the speed limit to at least 15 miles an hour. It's 25 right now. Borup: Thank you. Appreciate the comments. Appreciate your comment, but you realize that we have got no control over -- Davis: Oh, I have called everybody under the sun to try to get the speed limit lowered when the rebuilding model was on due to the fact that -- Borup: You talked to ACHD? Davis: Oh,everybody. Borup: All right. They are the ones that -- Davis: Nobody would do nothing. Borup: Okay. , Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2. 2004 Page 29 of 81 Zaremba: Well -- and I would also comment that I do know they put deaf child area signs around places, so they should be reminded that that should happen. Unfortunately, that's not within our -- Borup: Is there anyone else? Bodily: Hi. My name is April Bodily, I live at 2728 South Simms Place in Meridian, and I just came here tonight in support of Small Hands preschool and Condra Steeves and from what I heard a little bit, I did feel like I should probably come up and take a minute to alleviate maybe some of your concerns. My children have been going there for three years and I also have a baby and I can't wait until he's old enough to go as well. Condra puts children first always. And I guess the hardest thing tonight is to sit and listen to so many people who seem to have more of a problem with the. group home than the preschool. So, I just want to make sure that that is seen, that problems will not come from this. And perhaps maybe as, you know, new people in the community, we can make sure that maybe some of that is changed, because it sounds like they have not gone through the right channels to do that and perhaps that shouldn't be there. I don't know the law. But I do respect Condra for getting a permit, a use permit, trying to go through this. I know there is many people who just open this up and do this out of their home and just, you know, create more problems and she would not do that. It's a superior preschool, it's a learning environment, and I must say as a mother of small children and children who attend preschool, that you will not find safer drivers either. We are there dropping off our prized possessions and leaving them in the care of teachers and staff who love them just much or more than we do sometimes. So, I just wanted to go on record tonight and support that and ask that you, please, look at her separate from that group home, that I think this will do nothing but add good things to the neighborhood. The home will be maintained beautifully. As I mentioned, the hours our small, you know, parents come in and drop off. It's a short time. They drive carefully. And, you know, their main concern is children as well. So, thank you. Borup: Thank you. Is there anyone else that has anything new to add? Young: I am Amy Young, I live at 2690 North Milder Way, which is near the subdivision. I'm ecstatic that the Small Hands preschool is coming so close it's walking distance from my home. We walked it just last night and we found that I think the neighborhood will be presently surprised that Small Hands will actually clear a lot of the parking problem on the home. As the homeowner stated, she has several vehicles that are parked there and I -- it's very congested as it is right now and I think they will find that in the evening hours when there isn't any parking, because it is very brief when the parents come and go. I will be walking my child to preschool and we -- I've also got a car pool that right now we have to take them out, we have three moms that take them, we are walking the three children, so -- Borup: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2004 Page 30 of81 Arnell: I am Corina Arnell at 2647 North Caribou. I'm also just connecting to this subdivision, so I am also very excited for it to get there, but I want to come and personally vouch for Condra and the kind of person that she is. My children -- this will be the third year that's she's going and like you have heard, she runs a very organized, concise, strict preschool. She expects a lot out of her teachers. I have never seen a teacher not know where each one of her children are in her classrooms. They expect a lot -- she expects out of her teachers, she expects a lot out of the parents that come. There is specific rules and I think being a home it just will go smooth. Condra, as you have seen, has lots of set rules and stuff for it. But she is very very organized and runs a great great preschool. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Brown: Todd Brown, 623 East Cougar Drive. My children have also attended Condra's preschool and I just wanted to come and vouch for her also. She runs a very professional organization and everything she does she does by the book. And also for the kind of person that she is I want to vouch for, because I know that from what it sounds, maybe the things aren't so great in the neighborhood right now, but -- and maybe the group home needs to work on their manners a little bit, but there will be nothing like that from Condra. In the past I've had dealings with her as my children were going through and everything she does she documents really well and she takes care of it and I think that the neighborhood will actually be better with her there. She has a calming effect on a lot of people and I'm sure that if there are issues, maybe with the group home, that Condra will be able to -- if anyone, to be able to help them to control their environment a little more. That's alii have to say. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Commissioners, do you feel you need anymore testimony or Zaremba: I personally feel that we have a pretty good understanding of the balance of opinion. Borup: Okay. Anything final that the applicant would like to say, either one of you, to do your concluding remarks? Nickel: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman. And I know Condra wants to get up and explain one thing to you. Very quickly, again, I think the key to the concerns with the traffic and the parking is -- are the hours of operation. Again, 9:00 to 3:00, Monday through Friday. You're not going to have any weekends. You're not going to have any evenings. I don't know if you got a full size copy of the site plan, but if you look at the parking that's in this driveway, we can actually get three -- you can actually get three vehicles side by side on that -- in front of the garage and that's just to meet the standard parking requirement and you can actually get four wide if you wanted to. So, I feel that -- because Condra stated that probably no more than five vehicles would be there at one time, that we can probably handle the majority of the drop offs in the driveway and, then, maybe there might be one that would be out in the street. And when Condra and I talked earlier, one , Melidian Piannlng & Zoning Commission Septembar 2,2004 Page 31 0181 of my suggestions was -- she can put some rules to the parents that are dropping off, one being no parking in the street or you can drop -- typically she has the teachers come out and escort the kids inside, unless the parents get out and drop the kids off, and so she can -- she can put some rules on her parents as far as parking in the street, that do no parking -- the parking would be in the driveway and that would also allow for back up and turn around and exit of the subdivision. As far as the speed limit, you're correct, only ACHD can mandate that and if you look at your packet and see how many signatures Condra can get for support of the subdivision, I bet she would be the one that could help petition ACHD, if need be, to try to lower that speed limit and I'm sure she would volunteer her services for that. And, finally, with all due respect to the neighbor that spoke initially, I guess I kind of question the danger aspect. If it's so -- if that group center is so dangerous, why would she want to purchase the house. It's something that, if anything, a regulated day care center or preschool, compared to I guess an unregulated group home, I would rather have a daycare center that's going to be regulated by the city and know that those conditions will be met at all times. So, I just wanted to point that out. Condra wants to get up and say a few things and if you have any other questions, I can address a few. Zaremba: While you're still there I actually have a question of staff. On page four of the staff comments, under special considerations, number two addresses the chain link fence. Mr. Nickels has proposed that they make it less climbable by slatting it. Is that a satisfactory solution? Kirkpatrick: That would work. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Kirkpatrick: I believe that since they are next to the canal, they can't put up vinyl or wood fence, because when they come in and do the burn, they want to make sure that it's chain link, so I think the slatting should take care of it. Well, you might want to place a condition that we get approval from NMID prior to City Council on that. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Steeves: I will be very short, because I know that there is other people waiting, I feel okay with the group home, probably because my background is in special ed and I taught in the school district and I did have special ed classes. I know what these people are like. I know that they can be violent. I also know how to handle it. I talked to Tim Moss today, the administrator of the group home; .1 talked about some of the concerns the neighbors had brought up. We had a good conversation. We talked saying that we would work together to try and make things better. He also told me that they take those guys out in the community normally around -- from 9:00 to 3:00 or 9:00 to 5:00, so that they wouldn't be there a lot of the time I would be there. That's what he told me. Also, I wouldn't put children in a situation where they would not be safe. The yard is fenced. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2,2004 Page 32 of 81 They stay in the back. Their parents walk them in. We walk them out. There is fences between the houses. So, my -- what I heard, the primary concern was the group home. I am not concerned. I have researched it and I feel it will be okay. Borup: Thank you. Wendy, do you have any final comments on anything? Kirkpatrick: No, I don't. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Commissioners? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move the Public Hearing on PZ 04-029 be closed. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Zaremba: I think I have already stated that when reading through the prepared documents I was alarmed and that I am greatly comforted by both the written presentation and the testimony tonight and the satisfaction that the CUP would expire if this applicant were not the owner and I think they have addressed the issues that have been raised and expressed a willingness for ongoing solution of problems. I'm inclined to recommend approval. Moe: In regard to the landscape buffer, are you in agreement with the change that they are requesting? Zaremba: Yes. I have no problem with that. Rohm: Okay. I think my only comment on this that lends support to this applicant is the fact that they are only going to be open from 9:00 to 3:00. If it was something where they were dropping kids off at 6:30, 7:00 in the morning and staying through 6:00 in the evening, I would have a little bit of reservation, but these shortened hours seems to be in keeping with the lesser traffic flow than what you have in the morning and in the evening. Borup: That being said -- Zaremba: Okay. In that case, Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of CUP 04- 029, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a daycare facility for 30 to 40 children in an R-8 zone for Condra Steeves daycare center by Condra and Donald Steeves, 1258 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2004 Page330f81 East Cougar Creek Drive, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of July 29, 2004, with the following changes -- or, actually, additions. On page four, under special considerations, paragraph one addresses the landscape buffer and we will add a sentence that applicant agrees to work with staff on whatever alternative compliance may be needed. On paragraph two, we will add a sentence that the applicant has agreed to slat the chain link fence to make it more difficult to climb. And a second new sentence that says there will need to be approval from Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District to do that. And that's it. End of motion. Rohm: Do we want to-- Kirkpatrick: Excuse me, Chairman, Members of the Commission, I wanted to go ahead and make sure we verified the parking setback for the driveway. We didn't cover that. We covered the landscape buffer, but we didn't cover that driveway setback. Zaremba: Okay. This is discussion, not motion. Are you satisfied that the 15-foot setback is appropriate for this zone or do you need it to be 20 feet? The 20 feet, apparently, would not allow long enough cars. Borup: I would say the 15 feet setback is now for building in an R-8 zone; is that correct? Canning: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, it says in resident -. that for living areas the setback would be 15. I guess my thought is that no portion of this building is really a living area at this point. It's a commercial area. And, therefore, the 20-foot setback is really the appropriate setback. Zaremba: Would it require a variance application -. Canning: Yes, sir. Zaremba: -- to get the 15? And if we make that suggestion, is that -- the suggestion that the variance be applied for before this goes to City Council? Canning: Whichever way the Commission wants to go on that. You can make a recommendation either way and, then, when it gets to Council they can decide if the variance is warranted. At that time you could follow up with the variance application is what I'm trying to say, if it were a condition of approval, yes. Zaremba: If we don't make that a condition of approval, then, they need 20 feet. Canning: Correct. Zaremba: Which knocks five feet off of the length of the cars they can park there. Is that correct? Fourteen foot long cars. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2. 2004 Page 34 of 81 Canning: If you put in a recommendation that they get a valiance, then, I guess, then, you would be recommending that they have a variance. If you don't put a recommendation that they get a valiance - or a condition of approval that they get a variance, then, you would be saying that you're comfortable with the 15 feet. So, those are your two options, I suppose. Zaremba: I personally am comfortable with the 15 feet, which means we don't need to make further remark; is that COITect? Canning: Correct. Borup: Okay. Moe: I would agree. Zaremba: In that case, I was previously finished with my motion. Rohm: Were you going to say anything about the trees that Shawn had mentioned that they are going to put on the east - east and west side of the - Zaremba: I did mention that staff would work out with the applicant the alternate compliance to the landscape ordinance. Rohm: Fair enough. Second. Borup: Motion and seconded. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Borup: Okay. Thank you, Commissioners. Thank you, everyone, for coming. Are we ready for a break? We will take a short break at this time also. (Recess.) Item 10: Public Hearing: AZ ~21 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 1 0 acres from RUT to R-B zone for Arcadia Subdivision by C7 Development - 3665 Jericho Road Item 11: Public Hearing: PP 04-028 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 33 single family residential building lots and 3 common lots on.1 0 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Arcadia Subdivision by C7 Development - 3665 Jericho Road: Borup: Okay. We'd like to reconvene our Planning and Zoning meeting for this evening. Next item is Arcadia Subdivision. I would like to open Public Hearing AZ 04- 021, request for annexation and zoning of ten acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Arcadia Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2. 2004 Page 35 of 81 Subdivision. And also request for preliminary plat, Public Hearing PP 04-028, request for preliminary plat approval for 33 single-family residential lots and three common lots on the same project. Okay. Now, both public hearings will be open at this time and start with the staff report. Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, this application is for Arcadia Subdivision. It's a residential subdivision on ten acres. It's currently located in the county with RUT zoning. The applicant's proposing 33 building lots through a preliminary plat application. So, that the applications we have here tonight are annexation and zoning and the preliminary plat. There is no planned development associated with the application, which is unusual. I haven't done one of these in awhile. The subject property is located approximately a half-mile west of Locust Grove Road and a half-mile south of Chinden. And we have a number of recently approved projects and projects in the works surrounding this. Just to the west of the subject property we have Saguaro, to the south we have Leeshire Subdivision, which is going to go to City Council next Tuesday. And at the northeast corner we have West Burough Subdivision, which is a residential subdivision located in the county with a proposed school site. So, I just wanted to go through some of the surrounding areas. There area a couple of considerations for the preliminary plat I wanted to go through. And here is the site plan. The first of these -- and we definitely wanted to make sure it was changed, is a common drive accessing Lots 5 and 6 of Block 3. They propose sort of an angled common drive and we wanted that to be straightened out and also per the recommendation of the fire chief. We want to make sure that is changed. The second preliminary plat consideration I wanted to bring up -- and this is something that we really want to leave up to the Commission or the Council to decide how ultimately they want to deal with this, but I wanted to kind of address some of our concerns. The subject property -- so, unfortunately, for them they are, you know, a relatively small site, just ten acres in size, and they are providing three stubs and staff is going to request that they do a fourth one. That's -- we want to leave up to you. And realize it is a small site. They already have three stubs. I think there is a -- there is a good potential the subject property -- I am going to put the overhead of the site plan up. That there is a good chance that the properties located to the east of the subject property will develop. Currently, there is two homes on those three parcels, almost 19 acres in size. So, I think there is a good chance that that will be developed and it would improve connectivity if we had a stub street to the east. Initially, when I wrote the staff report, I wanted the support for wanting that stub street to the east was that we wanted to run a sewer line to access the development to the east through there. Since I have wrote the staff report, they have changed the location of the lift station, so that's no longer as pertinent as it was when I originally wrote the staff report. Actually, as I look at this again, yes, it is. And I will let Bruce talk about that. I thought that had changed. This is something I want to leave up to the Commission and the City Council. They have definitely provided a lot of connectivity with the three existing stubs and it is a small site and it is a lot to ask for, for them to provide four stubs. The applicant is asking for alternative compliance for their landscaping. I will put up the landscape plan. Let's see. I think that's it. Through their proposed site plan they are preserving a number of trees at the northeastern part of the subdivision and in exchange for that they are asking for the standard mitigation plan to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Saptember 2, 2004 Page 36 of 81 be waived and to go ahead and come up with an individualized mitigation plan with the parks department. And staff is in support of that. Let's see. There were a couple of changes I wanted to make to the staff report. Let's see. Under special considerations -- let's see. Under -- let's see. Actually, site specific number one, under preliminary plat, the intent there was to make sure that for the micro-path -- what I called the micro-path area is actually -- our code has a restriction on how long a micro-path lot can be and after it reaches a certain length it's no longer a micro-path, it's sort of this undefined open space area. But I wanted to make sure that those areas -- and I will go through the lot numbers here. The first of these would be -- just a second. We are getting the lot numbers, so we can reference it. So, it's at the southern leg of Block 4, Lot 6, so it's technically not -- not a micro-path lot, it's just a leg, kind of an extension of the open space lot. I wanted to make sure that the fencing along there wouldn't be -- would not be six feet in height. I'm suggesting that it be either a four-foot solid fence or a six-foot open vision fence and, actually, the appropriate place for that recommendation would be under annexation and zoning, to do that through the development agreement. So, I wanted to go ahead and suggest that change. And related to that, the fencing along the open space lots, while the applicant is proposing to not do fencing, I wanted to make sure that if they did fence the area, one of the open space areas, that it's either a four foot solid fence or a six foot open visual fence. And this is not regulated by our code, it's a suggestion by staff and I would recommend that it be done through the development agreement for annexation and zoning. Let's see. The last thing I wanted to sort of clarify and make sure this was taken care of before City Council -- this is under site specific condition number two. There are several of these lots that don't meet dimensional standards. They don't have the required frontage for the R-8 zone, which requires a 65-foot frontage. She wanted to make sure that the applicant went through and revised these lots and provided a plat, which met dimensional requirements ten days prior to the City Council hearing. So, those are the main issues that -- what I think is the largest issue up for discussion will be whether we are going to require a stub to the east. The staff is recommending approval of this project. Do you have any questions of staff? Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Seeing none -- okay. Okay. I'd like to turn the time over for any presentation by the applicant. As we are trying to implement some of our new rules, you will have 15 minutes and that would be for total time for the applicant, you and anyone else on staff. Mr. McKinnon, go ahead. McKinnon: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. Dave McKinnon, 735 South Crosstimber. Wendy, if you can move forward to another slide. I think you have got a slide in there that shows the overall site. There you go. That one. As you well know, Commissioners, there is big mega subdivision just off to the west here, Saguaro Subdivision, a very large subdivision. To the south of us you recently saw Leeshire. I'm trying to develop this little 10-acre site. We tried to do something a little bit different than your basic cookie-cutter design, instead of just putting in a couple of cul-de-sacs and calling it good and matching up with the stub streets. I, actually, tried to create something that's more of a small neighborhood in and of itself and we have a problem with that in the fact that we have got a number of streets that have to run into Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2004 Page 37 of 81 this one mega subdivision to the west and, then, the smaller subdivision Leeshire to the south, trying to keep this as contained as possible. So, when you come in off of Jericho, which is a road with five acre lots and with a one-acre lot that's been recently approved in the county, and you come down and you enter into the subdivision. As Wendy pointed out, the large number of trees in the subdivision, we are trying to keep all the trees that we can. In fact, we have brought the sidewalk in around the trees in order to help keep all the trees that we can. So, you come in and you have a nice park setting coming in through trees and as you come into the subdivision you pull in and see that we have a large open space area. Throughout the subdivision there is over 12 percent open space. That's a lot of open space for a ten-acre subdivision. The minimum is five. So, there is actually a little more than twice as much as would be required. Stub street into Saguaro. As you remember, in the Saguaro Subdivision discussions, there was a lot of discussion as to the need for that to connect all the way through to Chinden. This subdivision provides that connection up through Chinden, as well as providing access through Leeshire Subdivision all the way out to Locust Grove. So, within a quarter of a mile we have access to Chinden and access to Locust Grove and access into Saguaro, which would give you access all the way down south to McMillan. So, there is a lot of stub streets into this site already. Wendy pointed out there were several items that we had discussion that needed to be made for this project tonight, the first of which -- and I guess the most important one that Wendy stated and we agree with, would be a discussion of the stub street in this location. Wendy, if you could go to that handout I gave you and put it on the overhead, we will be able to discuss this a little bit more clear. You can see all the subdivisions and all the stub streets that, actually, are provided. Especially, in light of all the developments that are around it. For those of you who don't know, just recently there was an elementary school that was approved just to the northeast of this site. There is a 50-foot wide easement that goes from Jericho Road right to the northeast corner here, all the way over to the school. A stub street right next to an existing access, you have a 50-foot easement there for access to the school, plus a stub street there to the school, it seems like overkill. We'd have a hundred feet of right of way, essentially, right next to each other and there is no need for an additional stub over to the school to gain access here. The stub street in this location -- Wendy, if you will -- okay. Thanks. Well, a quarter of a mile from here there is a stub street coming out of Leeshire right at this location, one mile in depth coming to the north. So, there is already a number of stub streets here and in the ACHD staff report, if you have a chance to read it, there is some interesting language in there, they called it a quasi-stub street. And a quasi-stub street, that kind of threw us for a loop trying to figure out what a quasi-stub street was and what they said is this isn't a true stub street, it was an area that would have the right of way extend down the property line. Thanks, Wendy. This is the piece of property we are talking about. Leeshire Subdivision, the property line, the stub street I was just mentioning is right here. Elementary school right here. The 50-foot easement off of Jericho going to the school. But for the stub street built right here will be right next to the 50-foot wide easement going into the school, so you would have an awful lot of pavement right there in that location. This is less than a quarter of a mile in length to this stub street and same to right here. If this stub street is placed right here, what you would have to do is immediately take it along this property line and jog it south in order bring the property Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2,2004 paga 38 of 81 into here. With the stub street already being connected to the north and Locust Grove being a quarter mile -- less than a quarter mile away from this location, there is no real need for a stub street. Therefore, ACHD said make it a quasi-stub street. If there is a need for it, we can extend it in the future, but there is no need to have a true stub street here. ACHD is not requiring that that be noticed with a sign that says this street to be extended in the future. There was just something put in there to say there is access if there needs to be access and we don't believe that there is a need for access at this time. School children within the subdivision with Saguaro Canyon can access the school site via the 50 foot easement that's already located and there will be a stub to the north and some sort of pedestrian pathway and access to the school site through the nine acre parcel located right here, as this area develops. So, I don't believe there is a need for a stub street in these locations. If I could get you all to pull out your staff report really quick. Wendy went through a number of items that she wanted to change within the staff report. I'm not sure if those are all noted. Well, if you could all turn to page seven in your staff report, just a couple of items that I would to like hit on. Wendy touched on each of these, but if you could turn to page seven, item E, within the staff report, it's the second paragraph down, talking other health and safety concerns. And I found that the common angle driveway -- Wendy, if you could go back to the first overhead. The common driveway, how they wanted that straightened out. We agree to straighten that out and we have no problem straightening that out and we agree with that condition. That was one of the things that Wendy wanted answered. We have no problem making that correction, as we agree with that condition. That is condition number one at the bottom of page seven -- I think it's condition two on seven -- page eight. Excuse me. We do agree with that. We will straighten out Lots 5 and 6. That's, again, item number two on the staff report. If you can go with us, the common drives for Lots 5 and 6, preliminary plat special for considerations, we agree to make those changes. We just talked about the stub street, which is item number two. Wendy touched on the alternative compliance. Again, the alternative compliance was the trees that we are trying to save here. Staff is in support of that. And in talking with the parks department they, too, are in support of it and we will receive written documentation from Elroy Huff and Doug Strong saying how we can meet this alternative compliance. There is some large old growth trees. The site is small enough that there is really no place to plant as many trees as would be required within this site, so, therefore, we are looking for alternative compliance and we agree to work with the parks system for that. Bottom of page seven, item number one, has to do with fencing, fencing adjacent to the micro- path. As Wendy pointed out, this really is not a micro-path lot. The section of code that she refers to Meridian City Code 12-13-15-9, it references only pathways. This isn't a micropath system, this is an open space area. We'd ask that there be no requirement for fencing, other than meeting City of Meridian requirements and we agree to meet the City of Meridian requirements for this area. We don't believe that there should be any special considerations placed on this. as this is just open space. We are not dealing with the Conditional Use Permit tonight, we are just dealing with the subdivision, to make sure it meets subdivision standards. Onto page eight, item number two. As Wendy pointed out, there are several lots that don't meet the dimensional standards and we agree to meet those dimensional standards. In the past on the outside of the 90 degree turn in this location, the City of Meridian in the past - and when I worked at the Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2004 Page 390f81 City of Meridian and recently, they have found -- public works believes that the outside curve radius of this 90 degree turn, they have measured that at 40 feet, like they would for a cul-de-sac, and there is some discussion with Anna now as to whether or not we should be measuring it that way. Regardless of how it's measured, we agree to meet what the minimum requirements are for that. So, we agree to that condition as well, regardless of whether it's 40 or 65, and we will work that out with staff. Item number three on page eight. Again, this is per Ordinance 12-13-15-9, a six-foot fence for open vision. Again, we would like this condition dropped. We will go ahead and meet the requirements of the code, but this isn't a micro path lot, this is an open space lot. There is no requirement for fencing around the open space lots. In fact, we would just like to see that condition dropped from this, as that section of ordinance does not apply to the open space within this subdivision. Just a footnote to that. The requirement for it to either be six feet or four feet, those are just minimums. You can have a three-foot solid fence or you could have a five-foot open vision fence or four foot. The way it's written right now it says that it has to be a six-foot or a four foot. In the future that's just something to consider in the changes of the staff reports. Other than that, we agree to all the conditions that staff has recommended. There were several changes that you received in my letter. One of those comments being that on item number six on page eight, that the wording in the second sentence be changed to the homeowners association shall be responsible for the operation and maintenance, rather than the applicant. And on number six that's the second sentence, just scratch out applicant and put homeowners association. The homeowners association will contract with the operator and the maintainer of the lift station, rather than the applicant, so that in the future they will be able to control that, rather than the applicant. And as you well know, once they -- once the lots start to sell, the applicant tends to go out and the homeowners association takes over. Other than that, we think we have tried to accommodate all of the stub streets within the subdivision. We agreed with ACHD to place the quasi-stub street there. We don't believe that that stub street will ever extend in the future. So, the elementary school that will be going up there, we don't think additional traffic in front of the elementary school is a good thing. We think it would be better for those elementary school students to be able to access it with the existing 50- foot access. We ask for your approval tonight and ask if you have any questions? Borup: Okay. Questions from the Commission? Zaremba: I do have one. Just clarify for me the 50-foot access that you were just talking about. McKinnon: Okay. Wendy, can we go back to the overhead and toggle that real quick? Zaremba: Does any portion of it really abut your property line or is it actually north of your property line? McKinnon: It is -- right here. It is just north right there and it's 50-foot right here. Can you zoom in on that, Wendy? Can you hit the zoom button? It's this piece right here, Dave, that's -- , Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission September 2,2004 Page 40 of81 Zaremba: So, it doesn't run into your property? McKinnon: It doesn't run into -- Zaremba: It does run into Jericho north of the property. McKinnon: It runs into Jericho just north of the property. If there was a stub that it would be extended, it would be immediately south of a 50-foot wide easement already. Borup: And they adjoin each other? McKinnon: And they adjoin each other. They are smack up next to each other. The 50-foot -- bring this stub street in 50-foot wide right here as well and it doesn't seem to make sense to have a 50-foot and a 50-foot right next to each other. It seems to be a waste of land. There you go. There is the 50 feet. This has been set aside for access to the elementary school site. So, there is great access, pedestrian-wise, to be able to get into the school site from here without the need for an additional stub street. Borup: Well, I think the other concern was access to this parcel here, though, isn't it? McKinnon: This parcel -- you're doing it in a quarter mile stretch and you guys all remember when we were going through the Comprehensive Plan, that they said if it's less than a quarter mile people are going to walk and this is less than a quarter mile for people to take this down and run into these people. There is no need to drive that distance. This is a really small lot in comparison to what you see, you know, for Saguaro. I think Saguaro has got, you know, a quarter mile between these two. You have got one, two, three all within a quarter mile. This site will have access from the south, probably another stub street in between here, with access out to Locust Grove. There is not going to be a need to go north here, because there is an elementary school. Borup: Okay. Anything else? Any other Commissioners? Back on the quasi micropath lot. McKinnon: Okay. Wendy, can you toggle again? Borup: Is that 15 feet in width? McKinnon: It is 15 feet in width. Borup: Now, I understand -- was your concern about requiring a fence or just not restricting that fence that's there. Or you stated that the fence is not required. McKinnon: There is a fence that's not required. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2,2004 Paga41of81 Borup: But right now the homeowners can put anything -- they can put up a six-foot solid fence. McKinnon: They could. If you had a chance -- I did submit a letter that said we don't mind, you know, having that limitation to meet the Meridian requirements, but, rather, at this point we don't want to have the restriction placed on that. We don't have to fence that right now. And if they do do it, it would have to be according to Meridian requirements. . Borup: Okay. That was what I was trying to clarify. So, you're fine with the four and two or-- McKinnon: Don't have a problem with that. Borup: Or whatever. McKinnon: But we don't think that it needs to be discussed at this point, because there is no requirement in the ordinance for a fence there. But if one is put there, it would have to meet the requirements. Borup: Okay. I misunderstood that. Rohm: I would like staff's opinion on that, just -- Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, the intent is to make sure that we don't have a six-foot fence around the open space areas and around the micro-path type lot. We -- I want to make sure there is visibility, eyes on the park, I think it creates a much better feel for the subdivision. I think it's safer when you have more visibility. So, the intent is just to make sure we don't have the six-foot solid fences. And I know that we don't have a section of code that directly applies to this, so it's a staff suggestion, which I would like to have incorporated into the development agreement. McKinnon: That's not a problem. Kirkpatrick: And Dave -- yeah, Dave agrees with it. Borup: I think he was just concerned that there was not a fence required. Kirkpatrick: We don't want to require a fence. Borup: And no fence at all is even more visibility. Kirkpatrick: That's even better. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2004 Paga 42 of 81 McKinnon: Item number three, the last sentence says the developer shall construct a fence prior to release and there is no need to require him to construct that fence at this point. Borup: So, you're saying strike that whole -- McKinnon: Strike all of item number three, because if it's not required, then, it shouldn't need to be installed by the applicant. Borup: And, then, in place of that saying if fence is put in, you comply with -- McKinnon: Well, that's understood, because every fence in Meridian has to meet the ordinance regardless. They would have to get a fence permit for that. Borup: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you. McKinnon: Thank you. Kirkpatrick: So, Chairman, Members of the Commission, I just wanted to kind of reiterate all this stuff again. I do want to make sure this requirement is put in the development agreement and I also want to make sure that the southern leg of the open space lot in Block 4, I want to make sure that there is a four-foot fence installed, rather than a six-foot fence. But I wanted to do this prior to -- to permits being issued for that area. Borup: You're saying if a fence is installed or are you saying -- Kirkpatrick: I think we want to have that four-foot fence. Borup: And why is that? We have not required that in other subdivisions. Kirkpatrick: Yes. We are just talking about that area. Borup: Right. No. I understand. But that has not been a requirement in other subdivisions. Zaremba: I'm comfortable with the idea of saying if anybody puts a fence there; it has to be, you know, non-sight-obscuring or less than four feet or something like that. But it doesn't sound like we are agreeing. You are suggesting that there should be a fence there no matter what? Borup: Baldwin Park would be an example. And Baldwin Park did not have fencing along their micro-path. Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, the difference between -- you know, when I think we typically -- we would require -- that would be for an actual micro- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2,2004 Page 43 of 81 path lot. But the length of this lot exceeds the lot -- maximum lot of a micro-path, so it's -- it cannot be defined as a micro-path and we can't apply that section of the code to this. But our suggestion is that a four-foot fence be installed along the edges of the micro-path type lot, which is the southern extension of Block 4, Lot 6. Now, the applicants were proposing that no -- that we do a restriction that no fencing be placed there ever, I guess that's an alternative. I'm assuming fencing will go in, I just want to make sure it's a four foot fence. Borup: I think the Commission agrees with that. The applicant has stated that that is regulated by the fence ordinance and I'm not sure if that is the case. Kirkpatrick: Because of the length of this lot, it's not technically a micro-path lot, so that part of the code does not pertain here. But I think the same intent as I would have with a traditional micro-path lot is I want to make sure that we don't have a six-foot fence there. We can do that through the development agreement and I think the applicant's agreeing to the concept. Borup: Okay. The fence would apply to just a micro-path lot. Kirkpatrick: Right. And this is not a micro-path lot. Borup: Which is defined as -- Zaremba: But there are requirements around open spaces, even if you call it an open space, that it not be a six-foot sight obscuring fence; right? You couldn't do that on any open space. Borup: I am not -- Zaremba: If somebody comes in with an application for a fence, they are going to be told it's an open space, it's got to be either four feet or it's goUo be six feet non-sight- obscuring, because it's an open space. Kirkpatrick: And, typically, this is addressed through the planned development application as a special consideration. Zaremba: Okay. So, we do need to make the requirement -- Kirkpatrick: And we don't have a planned development application to tie this to, so we wanted to put in the development agreement -- Zaremba: But we are still phrasing that if anybody puts a fence there -- Kirkpatrick: Correct. We don't want to require the fence. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2,2004 Page 44 of 81 Borup: Mr. McKinnon, you're fine with having that wording in the development agreement? McKinnon: As long as it says if a fence is installed it has to meet Meridian's requirement, that's fine. I don't think it should be a requirement that you build a four-foot fence, because if we want to come in and build a five-foot wrought iron fence, then, the development agreement would prohibit that and I don't think that's what the development agreement's intention is. Zaremba: No. I think our distinction would be four feet if it's sight obscuring and it could be six feet if it's non-sight obscuring. McKinnon: If one is constructed there. Zaremba: If one is -- yeah. It would all be if. McKinnon: Okay. That's just for the throated down area in the open space. Zaremba: I would include all the open space, including what we are or are not calling a micro-path. McKinnon: Commissioner Zaremba, Members of the Commission, there is a requirement in the staff report that this area as well has a limitation on the fencing heights. There are no micro-paths. It is open space. It's on the perimeter of the lots. We would like that same language there. Zaremba: The same if -- McKinnon: Well, I don't know if we want the- if language there. This is a perimeter fence here and here. Why would we want to require a four-foot fence on the perimeter of a subdivision? There are no walking paths through there. Borup: Yeah. I can get some clarification -- I assume that was not intended on the perimeter fencing, was it? Kirkpatrick: Correct. The perimeter fencing can be six feet in height. The intent there was to restrict the fencing along the open space area next to the residences. That should have been clarified. So, we are looking at the northern and the eastern boundary, a six-foot fence is fine. Borup: That's what I assumed, too. Okay. Any other questions? Canning: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, the applicant has been suggesting some specific wording that is not what staff is saying. I think there is a miscommunication going here. He's saying if fencing is proposed, that it should be in accord with the standard fence provisions. And what we are trying to say is that our Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2,2004 Page 45 of 81 code right now does not require the four foot sight obscuring and/or it doesn't have that micro-path fencing for open space as well, so we are asking for the four foot, two foot, difference for all open space. Is that clear? It's not the standard fencing provisions. Borup: I understood that. Just stating that in compliance with the city ordinances does not really address the concern here. Canning: Yes. Thank you. I just wanted to make sure we were clear. Borup: Unless it was stated that it would comply with -- to have the standards as an open space. Canning: As a micro-path. Borup: Same standards as a micro-path. Canning: Yes. Borup: But-- Canning: That will work. Zaremba: That all open space, except the perimeter, have the same standards as a micro-path for fencing. Canning: Yes. That would work. Thank you. I just wanted to make sure we were all clear on that. Borup: Okay. You're still fine with that, aren't you, Dave? McKinnon: To an extent. I think that we have people's side yards here and right here that back up to the open space. I think -- because we are doing it in the people's back yards, there is nobody walking through here, there is no micro-path, there shouldn't be a limitation on the interior here to be able to put up a six foot fence if they so choose. Borup: That has also been the case in other subdivisions. Canning: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, there is a path on the south side of the entrance road. There is not a walking path on the north lot. So, probably a six-foot fence along the north wouldn't be -. I mean it would be okay. The idea is to make sure that there is no dark spaces back there where people are lurking. That one is fairly open. But on the south side there is a path there, so the four-foot -- let's see. The micro-path fencing would be appropriate along that one. Zaremba: And trees that might obscure vision from the road. , Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2004 Page 46 of 81 Canning: Yes. Zaremba: So, vision from the adjoining house would be appreciated. Canning: Yes. Borup: And I don't know that that's in the ordinance specifically, but we have been approving normally four-foot with a two-foot lattice, so still do a six-foot fencing. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, we are dealing with a subdivision that's just dealing with just the straight subdivision ordinances. I mean we are adding conditions to a subdivision without a Conditional Use Permit. There is no special requirements that we are requesting on this plat that you can place conditions on. The question is does this meet the requirements of the code. The fencing of this entire area would meet code right now, without putting any fence requirements on this. Striking all of item three meets the requirements of the Meridian City Code. All people that live in subdivisions have to meet by that code. When you approve a subdivision, you're approving whether or not this meets the subdivision requirements and this does meet the subdivision requirements. They are asking you to apply a section of code that deals with micro-paths for the rest of the open space. It does not address that. We would like the requirement for the fencing -- we agree to do the fencing, if it's installed it would be to that requirement, but the perimeter, these people's back yards and side yards, I mean you have got people coming down Jericho, if you have a four foot fence -- there are some trees here, why wouldn't they be able to have a six foot fence in their back yard. You have got a long distance through here, it's a large area, it's open, the fencing requirements are met by this application. Adding additional conditions to this -- this is not a Conditional Use Permit, this is a plat. The question is does this or does this not meet the requirements. And I guess Mr. Gabbert could address that, but we are not adding conditions typically to a plat. It's -- this is what it is. This is what the ordinances are, do we meet it. I believe that this does meet it, if we drop item number three from that. Zaremba: If counsel would care to comment, the way I would rephrase it is that we would make this a development agreement attached to the annexation and zoning, as opposed to the condition attached to the preliminary plat, and I feel that is within code. If you'd care to confirm or object to that -- Gabbert: Chairman, Members of the Commission, I believe that the -- you have stated it correctly. We would just make it as the -- as the staff originally suggested and make it a condition attached to the -- excuse me -- the application. Zaremba: Part of the development agreement. Gabbert: Development agreement. Thank you. I lost my train of thought. I think that would be appropriate. I mean the staff has some legitimate concerns here, at least Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission September 2,2004 Page 47 of 81 regarding this micro-path ish section. They don't want a narrow alleyway, essentially, that would be sight-obscuring fences, at least for that provision. I don't believe -- Rohm: You're referring -- Gabbert: Right. The extension of lot -- well, Block 6 that was just highlighted up there. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Mr. Gabbert, we don't have a problem down here in this area, we have agreed to that, that if one is buill, we will build it to that. I think the question is for these houses right here, we don't have a micro-path in these areas, these are people's back yards, and we have got a detached sidewalk that runs through here, granted, but this is not an enclosed area that's an alleyway, this is right off of the road. We don't think that there needs to be a limitation on these people's fencing in their back yards. I think that's the issue of contention. Canning: Chairman Borup, you may want to continue with the rest of the Public Hearing and address this in your comments or in the rebuttal section, just to get moving. Borup: Okay. Yeah. I think so. And that's really -- it looks like that's really the only concern. Thank you, Mr. McKinnon. McKinnon: Thank you. Borup: Okay. Do we have anyone else who would like to testify on this application? Now is the time. McClure: My name is Mike McClure, I live at 6055 Jericho Road, and that's the piece of property directly adjacent on the north perimeter of this. One of our primary concerns in here is the traffic and you're talking about connecting all of the stub streets going in there. Due to the size of the subdivision behind us, that Saguaro Subdivision, and the elementary school that's going to be going in across from us over there behind those one acre lots, we are really concerned about the amount of traffic that's going to be funneled onto Jericho, which has typically been a little short dead end rural road, you know, for 30 years and now are -- you know, it wasn't even a paved road until about ten years ago, it was dirt up to that, and right now that street -- all it is is two layers of chip seal, with two inches of asphalt on top of it. It won't stand up to any kind of traffic. So, it's going to have to be required to rebuild that road and, you know, when I moved out there 19 years ago, my intent was live in a rural setting and, you know, the developments are going, the city is growing, everything going along like that, but to take, you know, that amount of traffic that could potentially just be funneled right down that street, if you start tying in all those stub streets, and that being an easy route directly to Chinden out the backside of some of those subdivisions, is just going to develop just a horrendous amount of traffic on there I'm afraid and it really concerns me. The subdivision itself, I don't really have any contention with. I need to have some discussion with the developer about the perimeter fence, the type of fence we are going to put up. It needs to be something that's going to be a low maintenance fence, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2004 Page 48 of 81 because, typically, people don't maintain the fence across the back of their property and I run livestock in there, I have got horses and cattle that I run back on that five acres, and, you know, whatever fence we decide to put in there, it's got to be a durable fence and a low maintenance fence, because I know people in their back yards just aren't going to maintain it. Rohm: So, am I to understand that you're not in favor of requiring an additional stub street? Is that what you're -- McClure: No, I do not want an additional stub street. Rohm: Okay. That's-- McClure: If any, I would like to eliminate at least one of them. Rohm: Well, that's kind of -- I was -- that's what I was asking. Thank you. McClure: Because you have got Saguaro on the back and Leeshire, which was the -- you know, it was a horse property until recently down there and when you funnel all that, you know, through there and, then, people are going to use that as a shortcut to bypass the traffic light on Chinden and Locust Grove there now, and, you know, need to come up with some place -- some way to restrict or cut down the amount of traffic that is going to be in there. Borup: Thank you, Mr. McClure. L. McClure: Hi. Lynn McClure. I live at the same property as he does, at 6055 Jericho Road, and I just want to make sure that I make the same statement, that your -- if you could put that one up where you're putting all of those nice, wonderful subdivisions -- The overhead. The next one. That's the one. If you take a look, you have got all of these properties here, you have got all of this property here, you're all funneling these kids to school at the same time that we are trying to go to work, over to two schools. Actually, there are two schools back here. When they proposed that,. they told us that this would be a road that had bollards in it or -- bollards in it and now I'm being told that they are not going to do that. So, right now what happens is we have teenagers come down here and they stop, they can't go flying through -- and they travel pretty fast even at that. So, you start opening up an opening here, an opening here, then, when this comes in an opening all the way over to here, and, then, you have got this going back over into here, all the way into Meridian Road, you have not only tripled, you have quadrupled -- I mean the amount of traffic that's going to go down that road is going to become outrageous for a small barely 50-foot wide road, that, as my husband says, hasn't been maintained. In fact, we maintained it for many many years, until I called and we started arguing about this, then, they came in and they put in two inches of tar over the top of that to comply with doing something with our road. But in the past we have plowed it, we have cleaned it, we have taken and kept the weeds down. So, you know, all of a sudden, from a nice quite dead end road, we now have all these , Melidian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2004 Page 49 of 81 subdivisions that are going to be dumping people -- and I understand, they have got to get their kids to school, but I got to get to work, too, and I have got to be able to take horse trailers out onto this road and I just feel like there is too many connections here. I don't think that it's necessary to have all three of these openings into this one little road here, especially adding a fourth one. I mean I think we are getting carried away with how much connectivity we have on a little tiny -- well, except quarter -- well, no, it's not even a quarter, I think it's the eighth mile mark. I feel that we need to cut back on it. Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else that would like to testify? Miller: Mark Miller. I live at 1906 East Dunwoody Court. I just had a couple of comments and a couple of questions, I guess, for the Commission, just as a -- kind of looking at the overall general growlh of the area. I have kind of had some concerns about designating this as R-8 zoning. We already have an R-4 zone with 6,000 square foot lots that are being proposed just to the south and although you can see that in Dunwoody and Larkwood, we are kind of concerned about the transition between what's coming into the area and what things have been like and we would sort of appreciate at least acknowledgment of an appropriate transition zone between these types of subdivisions that we already live in. You realize that there is some type of concern that if we make these lots small and make an R-8 zone, then, what's the -- as they develop closer in towards Locust Grove, as they ask for R-8 zoning in the same way, are we going to get town homes and just as we step down, you know, more dense type of population and lot size, kind of creates -- it creates a problem for the transition that we have all lived out there for -- you know, for the years that we have been there. So, that's my concern. I was hoping that you would be able to designate it R-4 and just make some exceptions if they need a couple for some lot line or whatever they need, but designating it R-8 to me sets up kind of a cascade of potential events in this area that may be detrimental to the way an appropriate transition would be and that's basically it. I'm also a little bit concerned about just these little tiny slivers of development, which I was just thinking in the greater scheme of things it would be better to get everything together and develop it all, so it all made a little more sense. I look over there and I see these little slivers of potential development and even though I can completely understand why the McClures are concerned about traffic in their area, obviously, we are concerned, too, about how they are going to develop streets and develop these little strips of land, if they don't have access from a couple of different ways. So, in some ways it may be reasonable to at least try some stub street or at least some potential access there if there is a problem with the way these other homeowners try to develop down the road. Also, just on those -- on those side streets and fences, it just seems like there will be a lot of kids, probably, walking to school now, instead of riding buses, and sometimes in the winter it's dark and going along those pathways and things that -- make sure there is enough visibility for the kids as they are going through our area, because my kids eventually -- I don't think they will walk that way, but it looks like if that's their school, they will probably be walking to school, too. So, that's all I had. Thanks. Borup: Thank you. Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission September 2. 2004 Page 50 of 81 Porter: Darwin Porter, 5780 North Locust Grove. I have some of the same concerns that Mr. Miller has and that is the transition. We have got a lot of one-acre lots in that area. We are within a half-mile from Eagle, where we have the one acre lots along Chinden and we are concerned about the long-term development of this particular area. While this particular subdivision has lot sizes that I'm pretty happy with, I am concerned and I would oppose the R-8 designation and I would prefer to see it as an R-4, just because of what might attach down the road. And I am in favor of the stub street just for traffic flow purposes and further development. Thank you. Borup: Mr. Porter, just a question. You say you're satisfied with the lot sizes, so you would be proposing an R-4 and, then, ask for a variance from the R-4? Porter: That's correct. Just because I'm concerned about what R-8 might designate if -- if this is designated as R-8 now, what might come down the road, and this is certainly not within the current flavor of the way it has been developed up until now. And so I would like to see, you know, that R-4 with some variances and approve those, so that it would be more difficult to obtain R-8 down the road for other developments and townhouses, that kind of thing. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Lee: Grant Lee, 5603 North Locust Grove Road. If I could learn how to use one of these things. This is my home right here. We butt up right against the subdivision. At the time we built our home we purposely located it where it was to prevent Larkwood from eventually joining with Jericho and they have kind of bypassed us here, which is better than what we had to start with. In fact, we obtained a letter from the highway department stating that it was not their intent to connect those two streets and I know the people in Larkwood are extremely concerned about a stub street that has been required for us to go into their property. In basic terms, I am in favor of this development. I think that the circular street with the green open space in the middle, I think they have done a good job of trying to funnel what traffic is going to go down Jericho Road. I am a lazy person and I know I'm going to use that street just as much as I know people over here are going to funnel through and head out this direction. I think that's one of the purposes of all these stub streets connecting everything, is that I think it's going to balance out and there is going to be as many people going each direction as -- people are going to cut through our subdivision as much as we are going to cut through theirs and I think they have done a really good job. I would like to see a Pizza Hut right there in the middle, so I don't have to go so far at night when I get my need, but I think they have done a pretty good job of dealing with the size property that they have. I feel for the people that have these long sliver strips that may only have one road going all the way and one row of houses, which does not allow a whole lot of creativity, but I am supportive of the efforts that they have put forward for their subdivision. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2,2004 Page 51 of 81 Borup: Thank you. Any other testimony? Mr. McKinnon, any final comments? We probably could kind of handle a lot of that with our last discussion; but -- McKinnon: It's always nice to go up after Mr. Lee. I think there were just a couple of unanswered questions and there were a couple of nice things that were brought up, just to cover those that Lynn didn't really want to see anymore stub streets. We really don't need to see one either. We would like that to go away as well. You know, we will work with the landowner to the north, Mark, with his property with the fencing. We have no problem working with him on the fencing. As he mentioned, thaI was one of the things he was concerned with. I know that we have talked out in the hallway with him and there was some discussion on that already. So, we have no problem working with him on that. As far as the comments made by Mr. Miller and Darwin Porter, there were, you know, the concerns about this being R-8. As you know, the lots in the subdivision actually average larger than an R-4 subdivision. The request for the R-8 was because there are some lots that are smaller. We wanted to have a mix type of subdivision. Not everything big or everything small, just a mix type of products within the subdivision. And so we asked for the R-8 zone to allow for that to happen, as well as for the reduced lot frontages. The Comprehensive Plan, which guides the development of the city, is mixed use already. That has been determined -- is medium density, excuse me, for this area, which would be three to eight dwelling units per acre. We come in at 3.3 dwelling units per acre, 33 units on ten acres, it's pretty simple. So, we are coming in on the low end of that. And we feel that this is the appropriate zoning designation for that, to allow for the mix of different types of housing within this project. Onto the fencing issue. Lot- - Wendy, can you go back to the other overhead? I will make my comments really brief, as I still have a green light; it's not yellow yet. This has to deal with the fencing. We have no problem including in the development agreement wording that would include fencing on Lot 6, Block 4 here, saying that if fencing is provided adjacent to this lot, it shall be subject to the same requirements as noted in MCC 12-13-15-9, that's the four foot, two foot -- the four foot, six foot requirements. We have no problem agreeing to that. We believe that these two lots should stand alone on their own and not be included in the development agreement, as those are people's back yards and large open space lots, plus the perimeter fencing. And so we would like to see it. We agree with staff that this project should be approved and recommended for approval to Council by you tonight and I end my testimony at this time and ask if you have any additional questions. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Okay. Thank you. McKinnon: Thank you. Borup: All right. Commissioners, any discussion before we close the hearing? I think as far as the applicant -- and the only concern from my understanding is really the fence up in the northeast corner. Rohm: And that could be addressed in a develop agreement, as opposed to -- Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2004 Page520f81 Borup: Well, either way. It would be -- I mean I think the fence in this area would be addressed in the development agreement, so the whole thing. So, the question would be is -- this Commission needs to decide how we feel about the fencing up there, as far as what the recommendation is going to be. Moe: I guess my point would be I would somewhat side with the applicant on those two lots as far as putting fencing in, so that the back yards to those properties are enclosed. You're still going to have open space to be able to see anything that's going on in that corner. Rohm: You're saying allow a six-foot fence here, but not - Moe: That would all be open. Rohm: That's all open. Moe: That's what I'm saying. The same thing on the lot on the other side to the north there, yeah, you would have the fence there, but the rest of it is open as well, other than the perimeter would be fenced as well. Rohm: Makes sense. Borup: Oh, I agree. I'm very -- I feel very strongly about the importance of having the appropriate fencing around the open areas, because of the safety concerns, but this -- these lots, basically, parallel the road and they are open completely to the road, so it's not -- it's not of the same concern. And what Commissioner Moe said, that -- maybe that should be included in there, too, not allow any fencing on those lots, then, other than that perimeters and the-- Rohm: Parallel to the roadway. Borup: Right. I don't think there was ever any intention of doing that anyway. Mr. McKinnon, did you have a comment? McKinnon: My comment would be strike item number three on page eight, just dealing with the fencing issues. Change that, put it in the development agreement saying Lot 6, Block 4 right here, the fencing in this area would be subject to the same -- if any fencing ever is constructed there, it would be subject to the open space or -- the open space or micro-path ordinance, that's the 12-13-15-9-1 that they keep mentioning. Do it for that, but don't put any limitations of these two, they should be able to up a six foot fence here and a six foot fence here and I think that's what everybody is getting to, so if we just strike item number three and move the language to the development agreement, it would be item number five under the annexation conditions. The development agreement for this site includes language-limiting fencing, if provided in this area, to be limited to the same requirements as MCC 12-13-15-9. Does that make sense? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2,2004 Page 53 of 81 Freckleton: Mr. Chair, for the record, staff concurs with what Dave said. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Well -- and I think it made sense for me as well. Let me ask just one clarification, if I can. The trees that would line the roadway on both sides, most of those are existing trees now; is that true? McKinnon: Yeah. There is a lot of trees there and most of them are existing. Zaremba: Are most of them deciduous trees? McKinnon: I have been out there a couple of times and I'm blanking on that. Zaremba: I'm trying to interpret from the landscape plan. McKinnon: It's about half. It's about half. Half and half. Zaremba: And the reason I'm asking that is you usually have better visibility through deciduous trees, because they don't start their canopy until above the height of children, whereas evergreens often start right at the ground. So, you know, if I'm satisfied that enough of the trees that are in there are deciduous, the visibility from the road back to the back of these open spaces would satisfy me. If they are all down to the ground evergreens, then, I would want visibility from somewhere else. But as I look at the landscape plan, I think I'm interpreting correctly that many of them are deciduous and that there would be visibility. Anybody have a confirming or alternate opinion on that? Rohm: I think you're right on. Zaremba: In which case I would accept in that common area six-foot fence anywhere around that it needed to be put, both perimeter and the two lots. It wouldn't be a problem for me. McKinnon: Thank you. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the public hearings on items AZ 04-021 and PP 04-028. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: Okay. There is too many changes for me to go forward. Maridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2,2004 Page 54 of 81 Moe: There is still the issue of the stub street. We haven't made a decision and I guess what I would say is I think three is more than enough on this development myself and I can somewhat concur, I'd just as soon see it stay as it is and not require another one. Zaremba: Well -- and I'm comfortable with the existing easement that's just a hair off of this property. I'm not sure it needs to be a public roadway up there and I'm sensitive to the idea that was behind ACHD's request. They did not actually make it a requirement, but it was just a suggestion. And staffs agreement with their request, I also understand why they went that way. But for myself, I would be satisfied, when you look at the projects that are around it, the potential development of the properties on the east, which I do hope all come in as one plan. I can't speak for them all being close neighbors with each other, but I hope they would get together, that the stub streets that exist out of this and other properties off site, and the easement that's just off of this property would satisfy me without an additional east stub street. Freckleton: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, if I could talk about the sewer a little bit. The -- and Commissioner Zaremba touched on it that is the fact that, hopefully, those parcels will all develop together. We can't guarantee that, of course. These two narrow parcels, hopefully, you know, when they do develop, they will develop together and they will have access to sewer and water through this stub. This parcel, however, is large enough that it could develop without needing to have one of these others tagged on with it. Sewer flows westerly in this area and if we don't get sewer up to this location stubbed to this property, they are going to be high and dry. And so as you are considering this stub in here, if you do decide that you're not going to do the stub, please, do at least require an easement for sewer to get across that common lot and I know Dave has written something in his staff -- or in his rebuttal for that, but I just wanted to reiterate that for your benefit as you're discussing the stub street. Zaremba: My personal opinion is that would be a good solution. It's common area, it would probably be landscaped, unless it, actually, does need to be used for an easement, at which time it would probably have to have a solid surface, but I think as long as that easement exists across the few feet that it would need to exist, that sounds like a good solution to me. Freckleton: Well -- and you're correct. If we are going to run the sewer up there through an easement, we are going to have some restrictions on landscaping over the top of our sewer and that sort of thing. We can't have trees and, you know, just lots of extensive landscaping over the top that we might have to deal with some day in the future. Pathways are a good use over the top of our sewers, if you wanted to consider at least a pedestrian pathway type use up through that corner, it might give children from this subdivision a route to the elementary school if that were to develop out. Borup: So, what is the sewer situation at the school? Freckleton: The school currently gets their service off of Locust Grove Road. The school sits approximately here and they are sewering out to Locust Grove. Gravity. Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission September 2,2004 Page 55 of 81 Borup: Okay. Freckleton: But they are the end of the line. We have got a main that comes up Locust Grove and it is very shallow by the time it gets clear up here to the school. Westburough Subdivision that Mr. Jewett developed here, pumps back up to Locust Grove -- or they will pump up to Locust Grove. Same type of situation for this development. They are proposing a lift station here and on the plan that you have, they were going to pump up to the same spot where Westburough was going to pump to, but Dave tells us that plans have changed and they are actually going to pump back to Leeshire, where they can, then, gravity -- or they are going to pump back up to a point where it does gravity out to Locust Grove, until the sewer gets built through Saguaro Canyon and that lift station can go offline and everything can gravity out. Borup: So, you're saying the parcels to the east are going to have to sewer to the west? Freckleton: Correct. Borup: Once the new trunk line goes in. Freckleton: Correct. Zaremba: Unless the three develop together, in which case they could sewer to the south. Freckleton: If we want to take that risk that they would develop together. Zaremba: Well, our risk is we wouldn't annex them unless they do. Borup: Well, wouldn't the concern be if the large parcel to the north tried to develop first? If the ones to the south developed, they are going to have to bring their sewer through -- Freckleton: Right. Borup: -- anyway. Freckleton: And if the one to the north develops first, that's precisely why I'm concerned about getting sewer service up into this corner. Borup: If he develops first he's -- Freckleton: Exactly. I don't want to leave somebody high and dry. Melidian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2,2004 Page 56 of 81 Zaremba: Well, now, here is the question. They would not need, for their own purposes, to put sewer anywhere on Jericho Road that would connect to the easement that we are talking about -- Freckleton: Actually, they would. Zaremba: Why? Freckleton: As I stated before, these home sites in Westburough Subdivision, the concept that they have right now is each home will have an individual grinder pump that will pump by pressure back to the line at Locust Grove. The developer of Westburough Subdivision put up monies for the installation of an eight inch diameter main in Jericho Road that would flow back to the south and connect up with an eight inch line we are going to -- we are going to have these guys install in this stub street that basically would connect up with Saguaro and get down to the north slough trunk line. So, the big picture is everything up here is going to gravity once sewer gets up to the point where we can. Borup: So, all we are talking is just a sewer easement in the northwest corner -- northeast corner? That's all you're saying is just a sewer easement in the northeast corner of the property? Freckleton: Correct. And the applicant has stated in their report and Dave just reiterated that they are fine with granting the easement. Borup: Sounds like it's time to move on. Zaremba: Help me understand the way the properties on Jericho are an issue to us. Are they required to annex when we make sewer available to them? They are. in the county now; right? Freckleton: Commissioner Zaremba, I believe that the requirement for them to annex is when they are contiguous. Currently they are not contiguous to the city limits. Zaremba: But is that their choice or it's a requirement somewhere? Borup: I don't remember that one, but all that we have done so far -- it's been almost automatic. It's required as soon as they are. Canning: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, the properties on the east side of Jericho Road were done as a non-farm subdivision and there is a requirement that they put a note on the face of the plat that says that they will hook up to sewer service as soon as they are available. The question of annexation would tie to the agreement they made with the city when they -- they got that service and, generally, there is a requirement that they also annex. So, there is probably -- that requirement is there. Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission September 2. 2004 Page 57 of 81 Borup: And we'll have our first one next month. Zaremba: Well, the reason I was pursuing that is that it makes a difference to how I feel about requiring this applicant to take the sewer up Jericho and I think you satisfied me that - I mean normally it's to and though and I was wondering why it's going through this direction and you have satisfied me that that's a legitimate requirement for this applicant, because there is a pre-existing condition off site, but that does place that requirement on this applicant to a least provide the sewer to edge. So, you have satisfied me. Borup: Okay. Are we ready to move on? Rohm: I just have one more question. The development agreement, does it go with the preliminary plat or does it go with the annexation? Borup: Annexation. Rohm: Annexation. Okay. Okay. Zaremba: Did you get the note under preliminary plat on page six I mean on page eight, paragraph six, to change applicant to homeowners association? Rohm: I got that. Borup: Okay. Rohm: Okay. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward on to the City Council recommending approval of AZ 04-021, request for annexation and zoning of ten acres from RUT to R-8 zones for Arcadia Subdivision by C7 Development, 3665 Jericho Road, including staff comments, dated August 30th, 2004, for the September 2, 2004, Planning and Zoning meeting, with the following change: Trying to find -- under annexation and zoning we would like to require a development agreement addressing the fencing along Lot 6, Block 4, matching the micro-path requirements. And I believe for the annexation that's the end of the motion. Zaremba: The easement doesn't need to be addressed in the annexation, that's a plat issue; right? Okay. I'll second the motion as it is. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Borup: Okay. Melidian Pianning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2004 Page 58 of 81 Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion recommending approval of PP 04-028, request for a preliminary plat approval for 33 single family residential building lots and three common lots on ten acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Arcadia Subdivision by C7 Development, 3665 Jericho Road, including all staff comments dated August 30th, 2004, for the meeting date of September 2nd, 2004, with the following changes: On page seven, preliminary plat special conditions, omit item number two. On page eight, as. opposed to omitting item three, I think we should go ahead and restate that the required development agreement addressing the fencing along Lot 6, Block 4, matching micro-path requirements be inserted in its place. And item six, second line, replace the applicant with homeowners association. On page nine add a 10th item, require a sewer easement in the northwest corner of the development to exit the subdivision -- oh, excuse me, northeast corner so the sewer can exit the subdivision. End of motion. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor. Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 12: Public Hearing: AZ 04-020 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 43.18 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for proposed Bellingham Park Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC - east of South Locust Grove Road and south of East Victory Road: Item 13: Public Hearing: PP 04-027 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 164 single family residential building lots and 13 common lots on 43.18 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Bellingham Park Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC - east of South Locust Grove Road and south of East Victory Road: Borup: Thank you. That concludes that application. Okay. The next Public Hearing is AZ 04-020, request for annexation and zoning 43.18 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Bellingham Park Subdivision by Gem Star Development and also PP 04-027, request for preliminary plat approval of 164 single family residential building lots on the same project. We would like to open both hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. Staff has prepared about a two and a half hour presentation, if that's okay. Just kidding. Borup: Well, we have started before 11 :00, so I guess that means that we can just keep going. Hawkins-Clark: No. I will try to make the staff presentation to the point here. The application before you -- this first one is an annexation and zoning request and the property is on the east side of Locust Grove Road, about a quarter of a mile north of Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2004 Page590f81 Amity. The Ridenbaugh Canal runs along the north boundary. The Ten Mile Creek bisects the property over here on the east. The property is designated in the Comprehensive Plan -- and this is a correction to my staff report. This was, actually, pointed out in a letter that was given to you by the property owner to the south, but this -- all of the property is designated medium density residential, with the exception of this approximately five acres, which is south of the quarter mile section line, and that, actually, is designated low density residential in the Comprehensive Plan. I think we have a Comprehensive Plan map. Yeah. You can see here the differentiation between the yellow and the green was made -- and this is the 2002 land use map -- was basically just made right across the quarter mile point within Section 29. You can see also on this Comprehensive Plan that there are -- there is quite a convergence of water facilities in this section, with the Ridenbaugh running east-west, the Ten Mile Creek, Eight Mile Creek, so those are issues -- excuse me -- issues will come up a little bit later on, but I just wanted to point that out to you. So, to go back, the property is contiguous to the city limits on the north side here in the northeast corner. Tuscany Lakes Subdivision is what's shown in yellow here. They are developing from Locust Grove to the east. They also have started Mecena Heights from Eagle Road building to the west. The area that is actually immediately north of this has not been final platted yet, but it has been annexed and it is zoned R-4. This map does not reflect it, but the property that is located here, this flag L-shaped property, came before you a couple of months ago -- or maybe last month I think it was, as Chatsworth Subdivision. That is going before the City Council September 21st, I believe. So, that has not been annexed yet, but this body has recommended approval of that, so those are the general developments in the area, as far as city developments. This would be, obviously, the furthest south that the City of Meridian would annex throughout the area of impact. This is -- we have not gone south of the half-mile point between Victory and Amity. So, the annexation findings are outlined in my staff report. We do, for the most part, find that the finding for annexation and zoning can be met. The R-8 request does comply with the medium density residential designation that's there. The portion that is designated as low density residential is three dwelling units or less in the Comp Plan. The applicant does have the option to ask for the low density residential to be bumped up to medium density residential. They did not do that in the Comprehensive -- I mean in their application and, as I mentioned, I neglected to address that in the staff report. But I think you will be hearing more about that from public testimony. So, I think that kind of hits the highlights on the annexation and zoning, other than we have one outstanding issue with the annexation and that is that this Ten Mile Creek is a separate parcel, fee simple ownership, by the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District Bureau of Reclamation and we did not receive notarized consent from them for that. I asked for that in the staff report. The applicant has submitted a letter that is from Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District, which, basically, says that at their staff level they don't see any issues with their board saying that we don't mind consent, but their board has not acted yet to say that they agree to consent. So, that is up for this Commission tonight. If you have concerns about passing this onto the City Council without that, that is for you to discuss tonight. On item number 13 is the plat. This is a colored rendering that was submitted by the applicants recently. There is a couple of changes, slight modifications from what the original preliminary plat was. The two main ones are that here at the entrance off of Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission September 2.2004 Page600f81 South Locust Grove Road, Ada County Highway District did ask for that to be moved up slightly during their review. This does reflect that change. The other change is the configuration of the lots down on the south side of their entry collector road. They have now proposed a common driveway coming off of the knuckle and that will serve two flag lots that are here and that is slightly different. They did not have that common driveway originally. This stub street is located here. There are eight lots in this area. There is an existing house on the lot that is closest to Locust Grove Road. There are two other existing houses, actually, on the property. One is located on this large lot here, which is about three quarters of an acre in size, and they have accommodated the existing house there. There is another residence -- existing residence that I believe is down here in this area, which is proposed to be removed. The other features of their preliminary plat, the -- there is a hundred year flood plain, which is also addressed in my staff report, which you can kind of see grade out here. It is a fairly sizeable portion of the site. As you can see it's -- it's really created here at this point where the Ten Mile Creek crosses -- intersects with the Ridenbaugh Canal. There is a 60 inch culvert at that point where the Ten Mile Creek all kind of funnels in and has to go through that culvert and it appears from FEMA's research that they're showing that that's going to cause, you know, some potential backup in the one percent chance that there is a flood. And this is the general formation. And we have asked basically for some hydrologist input and study on that, which we have not received yet. But I will let their engineer talk a little bit more about that. If I could just draw your attention to page eight of the staff report. That's where the preliminary plat special considerations begin. There is about six or seven issues that staff felt needed to be pointed out. The first one there is the street side yard setbacks for this large existing house here. The residence side setback would be 15 feet. They would need 20. They are asking and have explained in their staff report they are submitting a variance. Their argument is that they -- as designed, they cannot meet the 20-foot minimum side setback on a street, because if they did that these lots on the south side of the street would go below the minimum 6,500 square feet and they have to swag this street to the south, obviously, to accommodate that. So, they are arguing that -- that the variance is the way to go, since it's at 15 feet and the street needs to be that wide in order to accommodate the highway district width requirements. So, they are proposing a variance for that. The special consideration B is the double frontage for that lot. The original application had this lot to have frontage on both of these streets. You can't see too well on this, but they have now proposed a new common lot on the east side of this, so the front will be to the west. The side setback is here. And, then, on the east they now back up to a landscape common lot and not a public street. So, that issue is taken care of. Then, on page nine of the report, item C is -- deals with the hundred-year flood plain and I have already addressed that. D is the regional pathway location. As you may recall from the Comp plan slide that I had up earlier, there is a regional pathway that's shown along the Ten Mile Creek. Tuscany Lakes Subdivision has been approved with the pathway on thè east side of the Ten Mile. The applicant has met with the city parks director about the crossing of the Ridenbaugh, as well as Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. They have concluded that there will never be a bridge, a pedestrian bridge in that crossing. As I have mentioned, there is a number of facilities -- these are two fairly large irrigation facilities and, besides that, the Irrigation District owns about a five acre parcel right here, which they use for -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2,2004 Page 61 of 81 as I understand it, dumping of their tailings and other maintenance things and they really do not want pedestrians in that area. So, what they have proposed is that the pathway would only be constructed down in this corner in this common lot and, then, I will just go back to this slide here. So, again, we are talking about this location. The pathway, not being able to cross the Ridenbaugh, the question is where would it go? And what the parks director -- and Ms. Wildwood is representing them tonight -- have talked about is that the -- it could continue over to the east and, then, cross the Ridenbaugh over in this general area where there will be a street -- a bridge in the future. And, then, it could make its way over and continue on at that point. So, I guess the Commission's comments on that location are certainly welcome tonight. Staff, given the unlikelihood of that crossing, it does make sense to probably just preserve the future location when we see development to the east. Then, the last one of the special considerations I wanted to mention is the sanitary sewer and, actually, Bruce, do want to touch on the sanitary sewer? Freckleton: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, the sanitary sewer situation out in this area is we have a -- kind of a split. We have a main line that comes down Locust Grove. There is a main that is proposed to come on down Locust Grove. We also have a main trunk that goes into Tuscany Lakes and will come through this portion of Tuscany Lakes and punch out somewhere in this vicinity here, that will continue on down generally in this location of the Ten Mile Drain. The subdivision as designed, they had -- they had designed everything to -- to generally sewer everything west of Ten Mile Creek out to Locust Grove and everything north of -- or easterly of Ten Mile Creek would sewer out to the trunk line coming through Tuscany Lakes. Our facility plan that was developed by our consultants, which we use for sizing trunk lines, shows a line pretty much at 650 feet paralleling Locust Grove. That is the service area boundary. Everything west of that line sewers back to Locust Grove. Everything east of that line sewers back to this trunk line here. Like I said, the facility plan is developed based on those service areas and the volume of sewer that's generated from those service areas to set the line sixes and so as designed or as they had proposed originally, taking all of this area, dumping it over here, they are jumping over those service boundaries and we have -- we have basically come against that and have limited them to roughly 650 feet. Now, I have talked with the engineer for the project and that 650 feet can be -- we can work on that line. It doesn't have to be exactly parallel. We can follow -- more or less follow the contours of the land. Their phase line -- I was just in the process of trying to count up the number of lots they have in phase one and I think they exceeded the 50 lot maximum that the fire department has placed a condition on and it looks to me like -- like if we stuck to the 50 lot maximum, that we would be pretty close to where we want to be with the sewer coming back to Locust Grove. So, when you get to that point of formulating a motion, public works department would be fine with taking a maximum of 50 lots to Locust Grove. Everything else has to go back towards the Ten Mile trunk. Any questions? Zaremba: So, in the way it was originally planned and that you're proposing to stay with, at some point the -- what probably would be phase two, this area, whatever sewering they do has to cross Ten Mile Creek? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2,2004 Page 62 of 81 Freckleton: Correct. Zaremba: How do you do that? Bore under? Freckleton: Correct. Just like we have to bore underneath Ridenbaugh Canal up in this area. Zaremba: Yeah. Okay. Freckleton: The applicant's engineer did tell me that they have had some talks with the developer of Tuscany and they have some verbal agreements for getting access to that sewer through there, so I think they are well on their way of getting that line through that area. Hawkins-Clark: Just two other quick items. One is I wanted to clarify that the police department has a condition in the staff report which states that all of the lots on the east side of Ten Mile Creek are prohibited from building permits until one of these two stub streets provides a permanent secondary access out to the east. The applicant did meet with Chief Musser and 'lIlet them go further into detail on that, but what I -- I received a voice mail message from the chief, I did not talk to him, but he did leave a voice mail and stated that he is comfortable with the lots that -- that are fronting on this first roadway being allowed to be developed without that permanent secondary access, so they would still only have the one permanent access, which would be this culvert crossing of the Ten Mile, but he felt the number of lots that was here that front on this street, they could sufficiently provide service to with just the one access, so -- the other point I wanted to make is that we did receive written comments in the public record from a Mr. Jason Wolfe and Mr. Michael Gray, who have both outlined their concerns there. And I think unless there is any questions at this time, that ends staff's comments right now. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Zaremba: Yeah. I did have one -- actually, one comment on one of the most recent things you said. I think the police department said that there would be no certificate of occupancy, as opposed to no building permit on those. At least that's what I'm reading on page 14, which means they could build them, they just couldn't be occupied. Hawkins-Clark: Good point. I guess if the builders want to exercise that right, they could do that, but we would probably want to change that. Zaremba: You would prefer that there be no building permit? Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2,2004 Page 63 of 81 Zaremba: Okay. Then, the Sanitary Service comment about the -- the one private drive that they won't go on to pick up trash, should that actually be a note on the plat that that private drive will not be served by trash service and that they need bring -- haul their stuff out to the street? Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Zaremba, the county engineer has given pretty strong indications that he supposed to have survey documents, plats, being used to enforce those kinds of issues. So, no, probably the plat is not a good place for a comment that is more of a servicing, maintenance kind of issue. Zaremba: Development agreement on the annexation? Or do we just leave it as a concern and -- I'm just thinking of notifying the two potential owners of that lot that this is not something that's a surprise. Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. The covenants, I guess, is one way to do it. It could be, you know, a deed restriction, covenants, you know, certainly the Sanitary Service company has the authority under City of Meridian ordinance to -- Zaremba: Well -- and that's their standard requirement everywhere, but -- Hawkins-Clark: And that's their standard. Right. Zaremba: These two owners might be surprised and because of the length of their private driveway they might expect otherwise, but you're saying they need to learn that some other way, besides the plat or the annexation development agreement? Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Anyone else? Moe: Yeah. I'm just curious, have we seen anything yet in regards to an easement for - - through the Tuscany Lakes Subdivision for that sewer? Freckleton: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Moe, no, we have not seen anything. I know they have had some discussions, but we have not seen anything in writing. Moe: So, I'm sure they will be more than happy to tell me where we are at when they get up here; right? Borup: Okay. Would the applicant -- Zaremba: Staff did leave a question hanging, actually, about whether the P&Z Commission even wanted to. proceed without seeing Nampa-Meridian's agreement to the annexation of their piece of property and I think the information given was that Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2004 Page 64 of 61 Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District's board of directors meeting is on September 7. The likelihood is that they will approve that portion be annexed into the city and I would comment I have no problem with going ahead under the assumption that written response to that will be provided prior to the City Council hearing. Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Zaremba, yes, that would be ideal. We would -- if we could have your recommendation on that, should you get to that point tonight, then, we would make sure that probably -- we wouldn't even notice for the City Council meeting until we get that, because, obviously, if they don't get that, they can only develop east of the Ten Mile Creek. Zaremba: Okay. But I guess my question is to other Commissioners, are we comfortable going ahead on that kind of assumption? Rohm: I think so. And the developer full well knows that that has to occur, so -- Moe: Exactly. Borup: Well, there is more than just that question, too. Zaremba: But I don't think that question requires us continuing it right at this moment. I think we can move whatever direction we are going to go, including hearing testimony and -- Borup: Oh. Right. Zaremba: -- and make some decisions that -- Borup: Kind of wait and see, then. Zaremba: -- that includes that being brought to a successful conclusion before it goes to City Council. Freckleton: Mr. Chair, there is -- staff has -- this is an issue that staff is a little bit hazy on as well. Where it is, actually, a simple right of way -- or not right of way, fee simple ownership, state code, as far as annexation goes, you're required to annex in adjacent rights of way, ditches, highways, railroad right of way, and things like that. Where this is a simple owned chunk of land, that's where we are a little bit vague on whether we can just do it without their consent and so it's kind of a legal question and -- maybe Chris has some input on that. Gabbert: Thank you, Bruce. Commission -- Chairman, Members of the Commission, it's my recommendation, from looking at this, since the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District had not given consent for approval, it might be stated at the staff level that they are going to, it would be my recommendation that we go ahead and have the Public Hearing tonight and, then, continue the final decision until we get the results by -- and Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2004 Page 65 of 61 that actual decision by them, so we can go ahead and take testimony and we wouldn't have to notice it, but we would actually continue the actual decision. It could be bumped to the Consent Agenda at the next meeting or whatnot. But we don't actually do the annexation until we have that notarized consent. That was the recommendation of counsel. Borup: Thank you. Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Wildwood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is Susan Wildwood. I'm an attorney. My office is in Boise. I'm here on behalf of the applicant and if I can very quickly answer some of the questions that I think are hanging out there. I had had discussion -- several discussions with John Anderson and, actually, John was trying to figure out a way that he could sign the consent and I said, well, I -- unless you're a chairman of the board, I think we are probably going to have to go to the board. He has recommended it. He's had a tentative discussion with one of the Commissioners and it looks like it's a go, but we certainly understand what your concern is, simply because it's one of the most unusual situations where we, instead of a prescriptive right, we have fee simple for both the Ridenbaugh and the Ten Mile in this area, which is -- it sort of leads me to the very brief discussion about the regional pathway. And I'm going to bounce around. I think staff did a great job of walking through what this is and I'd like to just tap on sort of the major questions and, then, if you have any other questions hanging out, then, we will get to those, if that's all right. In this location of the Ridenbaugh and the Ten Mile, this construction season the district is actually going to be constructing two electronically controlled spillways and they are adamant that there not be any sort of access across those waterworks in that location. One, it's a liability issue, but, two, more importantly, it's all the equipment that they are going to be having in that vicinity and they don't want -- it would affect all of this property here. Then, the bridge is off of the property and that's why when I went in and talked with the parks department, we debated where in the world are we going to be putting that pathway. If you look at the preliminary plat that I have down here, it's sort of -- we discuss several different items. One, because the Ten Mile actually comes in at an angle, would it be appropriate to take a pathway in part along the Ten Mile, out the common area, where, you know, I said we will be happy to do that. It didn't make a whole lot of sense. Since you're going to have the pathway coming in here along the Ten Mile, to have it come in here and, then, go back out to the property on the east and this didn't seem to make a whole lot of sense, but if that's where you want that pathway, we aren't going to have an objection, but it did seem more appropriate to come along the Ten Mile and, then, curve up to the east to go over to one of the bridges, which is, actually, going to be placed across the Ridenbaugh somewhat east of the property. So, we did have that discussion. We spent a lot of time talking about other alternatives, come up the Ten Mile, out through the subdivision and out. The parks department also that it might not be a good idea to try to take your recreational traffic through the subdivision, simply to come back into the pathway and go east, and so after spending probably an hour talking about every possibility we could think about, it appeared the most appropriate to go ahead -- the properties to the south and east of us will be developing along the Ten Mile and have them cut -- bring that pathway in an . Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission Septembar 2,2004 Page 66 of 61 appropriate location back out to the -- out to the east, so that you would still find a way to connect, but we simply can't figure a way to get you across the Ten Mile in any of those locations. As Brad pointed out, the district also has the property in this location, they don't want anybody over there either. So, we are sort of stuck on the regional pathway, not that we would have resisted it, but it doesn't seem like we can get it in there any further than what you are looking at. With regard to the comment from the police chief, the -- on this little document I have sort of marked in the lots and I have available to you -- we tried faxing it over, but by the time you fax a fax, a fax, a fax, you end up with Amtraks, but have the chiefs signature on the letter indicating which of the lots he would agree could be developed and perhaps even occupied, plus the building permits have been issued, so we'd kind of like to have that language changed, too. But he did agree that his concerns would be allayed, because all of these lots would, in fact, front along -- and I believe it's south Bradcliff and there would be a cul-de-sac access on either end that would have to be constructed in any event, so those lots would come in and they would have visual access along the backs of those lots, it wouldn't be a situation where you would have all of these lots hidden back in and you couldn't see what was going on with a single entrance. So, that was the background of that discussion with the chief. Moe: Has that been submitted? Wildwood: I was going to submit the almost readable one that I have. So, that would take care of the issue sort of on the regional pathway and the issue of the police chief. With regard to -- there is one correction I would like to make in the staff report and I am not really sure how we all missed it, but there is, actually, a statement on page -- page 11, item number eight, any portion of the flag lot for Lots 12 and 15, Block 3, beyond the 16 foot wide driveway surface, shall be landscaped, but I think that might have accidentally made its way in from another staff report, because the only two flag lots we have are actually down here. There aren't any other flag lots. on here. So, that does need to be stricken from the staff report, because we have never had any flag lots in that area. With regard to the sewer sanitary access, as Mr. Freckleton has pointed out, we have agreed not to violate the sewer boundary. Mr. Bailey, the engineer, is here and he's available to answer any of the questions on the sewer of -- together with the issue as to whether or not what the discussions have been with the developer up in Tuscany. The initial discussions are -- will give you -- when you -- when you are ready to connect, we will give you the easement coming through. They have started doing the work up here, but it's going to be awhile before we are ready to go in and do this development here. As you can tell from the discussion, we've got some fairly complex things going on here, the issue of where the sewer is coming in versus this boundary on this side, you have the request from the fire department not to have more than 50 lots developed, so you have sewer coming in this direction, we have -- we want to be sure that we have the annexation of the Ten Mile, because, otherwise, then, we would annex a piece of ground we couldn't get sewer too and we couldn't annex a piece of ground we could get sewer to. So, all of those pieces we are trying to work together and bring them to fruition at the same time. The common areas that we have here, I provided a packet for you, so if I could just leap ahead a little bit, there wasn't much discussion by Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2004 Page 67 of 81 Brad. The common areas that we have here, there are photography of the types of amenities that we will be having in here. You will see a basketball court. This will be available for lacrosse, soccer -- there isn't going to be an organized field, but it would be available for those kinds of games. We would be meeting the fencing requirements. This gives you a sample -- the middle recreation area where they have this sort of amenity, this would be -- this recreation area, basically, in phase two, pool, a little clubhouse, tot lot, and, then, the area on the east side would have available a gazebo type area and those photographs are in your packet with a listing of the various kinds of amenities that we are proposing in that particular location. With regard to the secondary access, if you look at the plat, we have the connection here on South Netman, either this connection to the south or this connection to the south would be going in in order to do the full development of the project. We have this section of this property here under contract, so we will be working on that, that will be coming into you at some point, but that will be a connected access in order alleviate the concern of the fire department. So, we will be picking up the fire department access question going down to Amity and it's going to be roughly -- it's this piece of property, but we would be connecting down to Amity, so that we can provide the secondary access that the fire department is looking at. We, obviously, will not be able to connect to the east until the property to the east develops. And, again, that's the area where we were talking about the regional pathway. The -- we had submitted a letter indicating our concurrence or responses to any of the concerns that the staff had and we are right sort of down to the questions that staff had. Staff had recommended approval with resolution of the hundred-year flood plain. That is shown probably a little bit easier on the gray map. Mr. Bailey is going to address that, the studies that have been done, and, then, the discussions with Nampa- Meridian. That's shown roughly on the preliminary plat. And the -- we talked about the frontage setbacks and access for Lot 13, Block 5. Brad discussed that. You can see a little bit better on the larger map where the new common area will be, showing the access going toward the front of the house, then, Mr. Bailey is going to be discussing the hundred year flood plain, as well as the sanitary service lines. If I could direct your attention -- excuse me. I need your head just a little bit out of the way. I didn't want to laser you. I apologize. Okay. Sneak up on that puppy. Okay. The subject property is in green, it's a little bit hard to see in this section of the map. Mr. -- Brad talked about the fact that there is this small section that is down in the R-4, rather than in the R-8, but there is a significant amount of development that, actually, has occurred in county development outside of that impact area. So, while this would be probably the farthest south, there is a significant amount of development that's already out in that area and the -- with the development of Tuscany and the sewer coming -- the plan bringing it down along the Ten Mile, you will be seeing more applications coming in. There was a comment about -- the question as to whether or not this constitutes urban sprawl or are you actually developing the way that you're intending to do. Keeping in mind that you have done your sewer studies, indicating that the sewer connection will be coming down the Ten Mile, as well as down Locust Grove, you have filled in this area here. Tuscany is filled in. This piece of ground is undeveloped, but as far as we can tell nobody has been successful in convincing the owners of that land to even consider any sort of development. Most likely you will be seeing, with the extension of sewer, the reasonable development headed south in an organized direction. It is within your Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2004 Page 66 of61 Comprehensive Plan. It does follow along with moving outward from the center, while you have this section of land, which belongs to the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District, the rest of the properties are filling in in a reasonable, orderly manner coming out from the city services and we think that this does fall in with the correct accommodation. I apologize; we all missed the section of ground here that's in the R-4. Otherwise, you would have seen the request for the R-8. And I'm not exactly sure -- tonight was the first night we heard about it after the reading the letter of protest. So, that does need a resolution. I can tell you that Mr. Gray is here and he would be testifying and he is -- they had some brief discussions outside. He was requesting that these eight lots be reduced to five. Now, his property is -- let me make sure I have got the correct piece of ground here. This is kind of difficult. This is Mr. Gray's property; is that right, Mr. Gray? This piece right there. Right there. And his -- his house and shop are located here. His shop is between his residence and the edge of the property. He had requested that this be reduced to five properties, five lots in this area. Now, the way it's planned, there would be exactly five lots immediately adjacent to him anyway. There would be three other lots that are closer into the roads. So, his request -- and I'm sure that he will discuss this with you -- we would already be having five lots at his boundary, so that would actually match that part of his -- what I think he's going to testify to. He also requested a solid vinyl fence along this area. We are completely happy to do that. We would even suggest putting it on perhaps a one or two foot berm, so that what he would have is a higher fence. The other thing is is the residence on this lot closest to the street is a single story house. We would even -- actually be willing to restrict Lots 5 and 6 to single height dwellings, no two story dwellings, so that there would be three single story dwellings. His house actually faces, if I recall correctly from the aerial photo -- and I have it for you if you would like to see it -- his residence appears to face east and west. So, we think that that would do everything to buffer any of the concerns that he has. With that, Mr. Chairman, I would stand for any questions. We do have -- Mr. Nickel will be talking to you about the Comprehensive Plan. Dave Bailey is here to answer all your engineering questions. I'm a lawyer; they don't let me do any of those numbers and any of that engineering stuff. I have got lots of ideas about it, but it doesn't mean I can get you those kinds of answers. So, with that, sir, I would be happy to answer any of your questions. Thank you. Moe: One question I guess I would ask. You're saying the lots that are on the far south, the three to the west would be single level, but the other two you would anticipate could be two story; is that what you're telling me? Wildwood: Yes. This -- let's see. Oh, that's not me. I'm going, oh, dear has -- this particular lot -- they would have to be building closer to the street, so a two story house in that location is not going to impact a view. It would be significantly farther away from here. Again, the same thing would be true on these houses. This is -- I think that this is the property line. Let me see if that's correct. Let me guess. So, the property line -- his property line is right here. And, again, his house and shop -- if I may just step over and turn the aerial photograph around, maybe that would help. I will even hold it up. I will play Vanna White here. Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission September 2,2004 Page690f61 Moe: I wouldn't be able to see it if you didn't. Wildwood: I'm going to bring it over. I'm going to bring it over, but I have to do it at the microphone or I will get in trouble for not making a record. Mr. Gabbert is going that's right. Okay. This is that south boundary. Please -- this is an old old old design, but this is the aerial photograph that we had. Here is Mr. Gray's shop. Here is his residence. And this is the visual line. So, let me bring that over to you. And I am happy to report that is not our current design. In fact, the hidden map may give you a better idea. I hadn't realized that on that particular map it would show his property in relationship to those other lots. Moe: Thank you. Wildwood: If there is no other questions, thank you very much, gentlemen. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Bailey: Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. I'm David Bailey with Bailey Engineering. My office address is 1500 Iron Eagle in Eagle. And I will talk real quickly about two of the issues that Susan -- I think must have fooled her and convinced her I know something about and so I'll tell you what I do know about them and -- Borup: Okay. Before you start I might just mention, this may be a good test of our new guidelines. You have got 77 seconds left. But we thought to be fair that since the time was already -- most of the time was used up, should allow you the same three minutes anybody else would have, so -- Bailey: All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very quick, then. On the hundred- year flood plain, it is shown on the map there. That's a zone A, which means that there have been no base flood elevations determined for that, which means there is no detailed study in effect. When the detailed study was done to the north, you can see how narrow it gets there and Paul Koonz of Koonz Engineering did the study for the Tuscany Subdivision to the north, we have retained him to work on the study, I don't have any results from him yet, because he gets backed up, because he's so good at what he does, he gets lots of work. So, we have got him working on that and I'm hoping that we are going to have some results here probably within about a month. So, hopefully, that's before we get to the City Council meeting that we will have the results from him. And the outcome of that, I couldn't predict what it is, that's why we hire engineers to do it, so they can do the calculations, but I'm suspecting that we are going to find that either the culvert, which is at the northwest end of this, which is, actually, an 84 inch culvert -- I was out there today walking around and measuring that, as opposed to a 60 inch -- either that culvert there is an issue that's causing this backup of the water or it's -- or the actual -- with a detailed study, can be shown to be within the area there. We don't want to build houses in the flood plain. While it's technically feasible to do that, we don't want to do that, and the developer doesn't want to do it and so we are going to correct the map, basically, and if we have to do modifications to the ground to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2004 Page 70 of61 correct the map, we will do that. Or if the study shows that it's contained within that channel, then, we would have the map corrected based on that. So, that's our intent to - - as we move forward here. The second issue is to the sanitary sewer and we don't have any problem -- we do need to bring the sewer line down Locust Grove from the southwest corner of Tuscany Lakes, I think it's called, on the east side of the road, about 1,500 feet to the entrance of this project here and bore underneath the canal. That's the sewer and water we are going to be bringing down Locust Grove there. I kind of shutter when I think we are bringing that all the way down and we are only going to serve 50 lots off of it, because it's going to be quite a lopsided construction project to get that there, but I think we can probably work on a latecomers agreement with the city for the portion that's not in front of our property. Secondly, I met with Kent Brown of Briggs Engineering, so I haven't had any discussions with Greg Johnson at all directly, but I did meet for awhile with Kent Brown and he told me of their plans for Tuscany and somewhat -- I hope I'm not giving anything away that he didn't want me to. He didn't tell me not to -- of the plans for the property to east of this, okay, and so we have talked about what we can do there and we told him that we had probably made some deals with the parks department on the way the pathway would go and he wasn't jumping up and down and screaming, at least, you know, when we told him that. Borup: Thank you. That was your time. Bailey: That is my time? Borup: Yeah. Any questions from Commission? Moe: I just want to make sure that I'm clear in regard to the easement from Tuscany Lakes. Have you had discussions with them in regards to getting that easement? Bailey: Commissioner Moe, we have had -- I had a general discussion with Ken Brown, who represents him with Briggs Engineering, and even if we don't get the easement, they have promised to bring the sewer to the end of that phase and we would have to wait until that phase was built to get it, if we couldn't get the easements, but in our discussions it appeared that we could get the easement to bring that down. Moe: Okay. Zaremba: I would like to ask a flood plain question. Back to your subject one. If your engineer determined that the flood plain was fairly similar to the way it's depicted, your solution would be to provide fill, so that you brought those properties up above the flood plain line? Bailey: Commissioner Zaremba, there is, actually -- there is, actually, three potential solutions of actual work to be done on site to fix that. One would be to -- to replace this culvert with a larger culvert and that would allow the water to flow through, instead of backing up in this area. The second would be to widen the channel in this area and provide that storage volume within that 110 or 112 foot wide area there. And so the Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission September 2,2004 Page 71 of 61 third solution may be to do fill in this area to raise it up above that area. We still have to provide that volume of storage for that water or move it downstream. One of the two has to be done. So, just filling these lots may not solve our problem, it might cause a worse problem upstream, although that may be part of the solution. Zaremba: So, my next question while you're still there, though, would be to staff. One of the concerns was that solution that would be made to the problem here would push the problem upstream or downstream. Is that still a concern? The solution that he is -- solution choices that he's suggested? Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner, it is a concern in terms of pushing a flood -- potential flood problem further upstream or downstream, yes. But I think the question remains up in the air at this point, since we don't have the study back, and I mean that's why I put that as one of the main outstanding issues tonight and if you don't feel comfortable moving it on, then, that's your prerogative, but -- Zaremba: Then, back to Mr. Bailey. Would your engineer, when he's doing the study that he's going to do for you, in analyzing probably those three options, also address the issue of moving the problem somewhere else? Bailey: He would. Absolutely. That's part of what you do in a study is you got to store the volume, move the water, and not increase the problem downstream or upstream, for that matter. Zaremba: Okay. Bailey: We can't create a worse problem anywhere else, we have got to work within the constraints of what we have. Zaremba: So, we would learn about an answer to that question at some point? Bailey: We will learn an answer to question at some point. Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you. Bailey: And thank you for the extra time. Borup: Okay. Mr. Nickel, did you want three minutes, too? Nickel: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. I will be very brief. Shawn Nickel, 52 North 2nd Street in Eagle. Regarding the Comprehensive Plan -- and staff did state that the majority of the property is within the medium density residential designation. It is true that we do have that small portion that lies within that low density. It's always been my understanding of the review of comprehensive plans that, you know, while they Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission September 2,2004 Page 72 of 61 do designate certain areas, they aren't necessarily site specific, and so I think that the fact that this is a 1.8 acre parcel that we are trying to develop that's outside of that designation, it's not like we are asking for like this whole piece right here to be considered -- well, it's close enough where it touches the boundary, let's include that in the medium density. We are only talking about this smaIl1.8-acre area. If you average out the lot sizes that we have there, they come out to 8,668 square feet each, which would be in line with the R-4 -- an R-4 zone, if we were to rezone that property. The overall density is 4.4 dwelling units per acre in that 1.8-acre area. So, I just wanted to point that out as a point of clarification. I think that it's appropriate what we are asking for. I will leave that to your staff to make that determination or advise you on that. Other than that, your Comprehensive Plan does call for proper transitioning. I believe we have done that with those five lots that are immediately adjacent to that -- to the gentlemen who is probably going to get up next and talk about that. So, with that I will stand for any questions you may have on those specific issues. Borup: Questions? Zaremba: While you are there, I would ask staff a question, actually, on the Comprehensive Plan subject. Is this request for R-8 within the one step up or step down from the Comprehensive Plan designation that would be allowed? The Comprehensive Plan establishes what we would like to see in an area, but, then, allows a step up or step down. Is the R-8 within that? Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner, it is. Zaremba: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: The R-8 is within the one step. Zaremba: So, in fact, it would comply with the Comprehensive Plan? Hawkins-Clark: Right. I mean, you know, that is -- I guess it is an issue for discussion. I mean our goal is not to see every parcel that's designated low density to automatically be bumped up to medium. I think that would defeat the purpose of diverse housing sizes and lot sizes, but -- but the opportunity to request that bump is there and I think the purpose that we need look at -- the goal we need to look at is the compatibility being accommodated through the plat, because as Shawn pointed out, the density is -- is technically there. I mean it meets -- it meets the low density, so -- Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Okay. This is the time for public testimony. Do we have anyone who would like to testify on this application? Gray: My name is Mike Gray. I live at 4460 South Locust Grove Road, the property that has been discussed here the past ten or fifteen minutes. I also have left you guys - Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Septamber 2, 2004 Page 73 of 61 - excuse me -- the Commission a copy of a revised letter that was -- that has a September 2nd date on it, that supercedes the one that we had written on September 1st, as a result of looking at the revised preliminary plat that I saw at the Planning and Zoning office yesterday. I would like to correct one statement that was made relative to R-4 zoning. In the low density residential, the Comprehensive Plan identifies an R-3 or less, not an R-4, and in this particular case we have two noncompliance issues relative to the Comprehensive Plan. The first of which is that the area that was in question that has been discussed lately, that area is within the low-density designation in the area use map. The low density -- that low-density definition means R-3 or less. And they have eight houses -- eight lots in there currently and I suggest to the Commission that that number of lots be reduced to five to bring it in line with the R-3 density. And the second point is that the Comprehensive Plan also establishes a requirement for screening and landscape buffers for developments more intense than the adjacent residential properties and I think you can all agree that the subdivision that's proposed is more intense than an RUT subdivision with two lots, each lot being almost six acres in size. As a result of that, that means to me that there should be an adequate buffer built between the Bellingham Park Subdivision and the Terrier Subdivision, and in my mind reducing the number of lots from eight to five is integral in obtaining that buffer, because it allows those homes to be built off the property line in an adequate space to provide some buffer. So, I request that -- that there be a solid six foot fence -- six foot fence built along the property line on Terrier -- on the northern boundary of Terrier Subdivision, limit the homes in those five acres to one story in size, and increase the setback and make it consistent with the existing home that they are intending to leave in that Bellingham Park Subdivision. There was also a comment made in the staff report relative to compatibility of zones within the area and in that report they said the R-8 was compatible, but they cited other R-8 subdivisions in that and the R-8 subdivisions that were cited are a quarter mile north and on the west side of Locust Grove Road and totally disjointed from this particular subdivision. The adjacent subdivisions to the north, which is Tuscany Lakes, is an R-4 and all of the land to the south is an R-3 or low density housing. So, an R-4 zone would be more appropriate. Borup: Okay. That did conclude your time. Unless there any questions from any of the Commissioners. Zaremba: I do have one question. Would you describe the Terrier Subdivision for me? Is that -- Gray: The Terrier Subdivision is a two lot RUT subdivision. Zaremba: What size are the lots? Gray: They are about 5.85 acres apiece. Zaremba: Each? '. , . Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission September 2.2004 Page 74of81 Gray: I would like to make one other comment and you guys have my recommendations in my write-up, but this is in regards to the posting of this Public Hearing. And realize that the developers had the sign posted in the appropriate amount of time and I included some pictures in there. It was posted on the 20th of August, I believe. On the 23rd of August the sign was down and laying in the weeds and I took that picture that you see in that attachment there a week later, which was this Monday, and -- which means it was down for seven days. So, that sign was, actually, only visible to the public for five days prior to this Public Hearing. I think the ordinance that requires that sign be posted should be modified to also include maintenance of those signs, so that this doesn't occur as in this subdivision and also at the Chatworths Subdivision, in which the sign wasn't even visible -- and I drive up and down that road all the time -- until the day after the Public Hearing for Chatsworth. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Wolfe: My name is Jason Wolfe. I live at 4646 South Locust Grove. I'm the property just south of Mr. Gray's. In looking at the proposed development and the R-4 development immediately north of that, it seems that the R-8 zoning doesn't appear to be necessary in this area. The density that they have, as they have already stated, is, generally, within the R-4 standards. I think that that is -- is adequate. I think that it better meets the surrounding areas. I think putting an R-8 density zone there sets a dangerous precedent for future development, especially that contract land that they have there that's in the low density area. My guess is that when that gets developed you will see more R-8 development out there. As an engineer, the numbers that I'm seeing here have me concerned. The flood plain, that storm c- hundred-year storm flood plain area, there is ways to correct it, but it's really tough to do. You can't just widen the channel, because the flow is a relationship between area and speed. If you make it more wider, you will just make it slower, it doesn't change the height of the flow at all and it's not going to make a difference. You're going to have to do some type of fill. It's the same thing with the culvert at the end of it. You make the culvert bigger, it's just like a stream moving into a lake, essentially, because that -- the Ridenbaugh Canal is more massive. So, that you can make a bigger culvert. However, it's not going to make a huge difference to what's shown there. As a homeowner in the area -- I am needing water. I'm concerned about traffic. I saw the traffic study that was published by ACHD. It says that there is approximately 1,100 more vehicles anticipated due to this development. That's 164 lots. What it doesn't take into consideration is the other six developments in the area, with approximately 1,000 lots coming in. Using a similar multiplier, that is an increase of approximately 9,000 to 10,000 vehicles per day in that area. The infrastructure cannot handle that load. It's a dramatic increase and I don't think that it adheres to the Comprehensive Planning in that area. I am thoroughly opposed to zoning that as an R-8. I feel there is some pretty good arguments for it. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Wolfe: If there is any questions? , Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2,2004 Page 75 of 61 Borup: Questions from the Commission? Thank you, Mr. Wolfe. Do we have anyone else to testify? Come forward. Dalton: I'm Sheri Dalton, I own the property at 2180 Amity, which is directly south of the eastern boundary of the subdivision here. Let's see. Be right there. I have a question to the Planning and Zoning Commission and to the staff as to why there is a midline separation between zonings and why doesn't it fall down to Amity Road. At one time the -- it was only changed about two years ago, I guess. My question is why is -- Borup: That's not a zone. Dalton: -- why is it in that location? Borup: Yeah. It's in the Comprehensive Plan and that's just -- a line had to be drawn somewhere, I guess, is part of it. And that was what came out of the recommendations from the committees working on the Comprehensive Plan. Dalton: Okay. Because as a potential developer myself, I'm questioning why there is a line that doesn't meet-- you know, it's at a mid section, as opposed to an actual section which would follow Amity Road. Borup: Did you put different input in than that at the meetings? Dalton: No. Borup: Okay. Dalton: But that's my question. Borup: That may be part of it. There was no input from anybody in that area. Dalton: Maybe I wasn't notified. Borup: No. It was -- it went on for two years. Dalton: Okay. Anyway, that's my only question, is, you know, you're talking about variances, you're talking about changes, we are talking about one and a half acre parcel here that's falling into a no-man's land, I'm just questioning how the zoning was done the way it was. It's kind of a midline. Borup: So, you would be in favor of the medium density designation to go clear to Amity you're saying? Dalton: Of the higher zoning. Yeah. That's all. Meridian Planring & Zoning Commission September 2, 2004 Page 76 of 81 Borup: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Zaremba: I would ask a question of staff or either other COmmissioners. I knew at one time where the end of our area of impact is as we go south and I have forgotten where it is. If you know, can you refresh my memory? I know our zip code goes all the way down to Hubbard, which is like three miles farther south than this, but I don't think that's where the area of impact is. Hawkins-Clark: Irs a quarter mile south of Amity. Zaremba: Thafs the end of our current impact zone? Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: That is correct right there. That map is the area of impact. Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Borup: Okay. I guess - are we ready for final comments? Wildwood: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, again, Members of the COmmission, my name is Susan Wildwood, I'm here on behalf of the applicant I think this map is kind of - actually, kind of telling and I am appreciative that ifs up there. You will notice that it isn't exactly a straight across line as far as the R-4, R-8 differential. You will see that you have got some R-8 over here, you have got some over here, looking at the various properties, it isn't just as simple to say that the whole area is R-8 or R-4. In looking at this particular project, keeping in mind, again, the cost to extend the infrastructure. When you start pulling - drilling under the Ridenbaugh or when you start looking at those kinds of requirements to bring the sewer in in accordance with the sewer plant, south in these areas, the somewhat higher density again supports the extension of infrastructure and, although, I know that there has been some criticism leveled at Meridian for the density of what ifs looking at, I am going to make a pitch for farmland. And you notice that the city of Boise - I don't know how familiar you are with the insistence on - in Boise, but I can tell you what's happening in the north end, because of the cost of infrastructure is so extraordinary, they are looking at every way they possibly can to maximize the land and when you look at this particular project, it brings in a significant: number amenities, eleven percent of this is usable open space common area, with a lot of amenities. The density herein supports the extension of city services. It is within the R-8 zone. I know we have a little bump down below, but it is within the step up, step down, 3.85 is the gross density on the project. And it is a good solid '. ! , Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2,2004 Page 77 of 61 paper into you from Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. It is like, oh, man, that meeting is a week too late, but we will have that for you. I'm pretty confident. You do have the issues that are outstanding on the flood plain. Again, a bit of a scramble there. We don't have that information for you yet, but I would ask your careful consideration of this and I am sure that you're looking for confidence in any decision that you make and that you feel like you want to have a sufficient amount of information to make whatever recommendation it is to the City Council. We appreciate your time and appreciate working with staff. This is not exactly one of those cookie-cutter subdivisions trying to work around the roads, the amazing canal system out there. So, thank you, again, for your time and attention and I would stand for any questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Borup: Questions, Commissioners? Wildwood: Thank you, sir. Borup: Final comment? Any comments from staff? Zaremba: While staff is thinking, I would ask staff a question. Apparently, the ACHD commission acted on the preliminary plat for this application yesterday. Have we gotten any updated information from them yet? Hawkins-Clark: I'm sorry. From whom? Zaremba: ACHD. Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner, the Ada County Highway District commission yesterday at their noon meeting did approve the revised plat that was shown on the slide tonight. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Borup: Okay. I know I said earlier that the issue of annexing the Nampa-Meridian property, I would be satisfied to move it forward, as long as that was settled before the City Council Public Hearing, but I am changing my opinion on that. I have -- as always, the City Council wants us to solve problems before they get there and I, actually, now that there are two problems in my thinking, one is the flood plain and one is the ownership of that strip. My inclination is to continue this hearing until those are resolved, but it sounds like the flood plain issue is at least a month from now. That certainly would be long enough to get the Nampa-Meridian issue resolved. Apparently, ACHD issues are resolved. But that's my current thinking. Any support or objection? Moe: I, actually, would agree and at the same time I would anticipate at that point we probably have something as far as an agreement in the easement from Tuscany Lakes as well. So, take care of that issue as well. Zaremba: Dealing with the sanitary sewer -- '- . . Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2004 Page 76 of 61 Moe: That's correct. Zaremba: -- boundary issues. I agree with that. Rohm: I think that's as big of an issue as any of the other two. Zaremba: I'm satisfied that the regional pathway is going to be off of this property, no matter what happens, so that really isn't an issue. That resolution is it's not going to go through this property no matter what, so -- that one seems to be resolved to me. Borup: Other than the discussion that it will go through, basically, a corner of it. Zaremba: Whether or not it would go through a corner it? I tend to agree that it doesn't need to do that little two sides of the triangle to get back off of this property again. Unfortunately, that would put the whole burden on whoever the development to the east is to provide that whole pathway. They may do it along public roadways as well. But it may be a case of just asking for a wider sidewalk along the section that's going to connect to an eventual bridge on the north end of those properties. Rohm: Before we move to continue, I would like to have some input from the applicant as to dates specific that they feel comfortable that they could have these issues resolved. It appears that the earliest would be October 7th. Zaremba: In support of what you're saying, it would sound to me that the earliest that they could provide the information would be October 7th. I would like to leave a little time for staff to analyze it after that. Rohm: Well, good point. And just looking at the calendar and so maybe from our side of it, the preferred day would be the 21st. Zaremba: Of October? Rohm: Of October. But I also want their input on this as well. Moe: I would agree on that, too. The 21st. Wildwood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. After some kibitzing in the back trying to figure out when Mr. Koontz is going to be available. We have no promises, but I think it may be a good idea however, so that we don't get into a notice difficulty is to come back on a date certain. We will have information back into staff and if we can meet that 21 st date, having information in early, and, then, giving staff some time, so what I can do if we can have a date certain, so that you don't to have go through the expense the trouble of re- noticing and, then, we can re-notice -- Borup: That was our intention. '. ,. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2,2004 Page 79 of 61 Wildwood: And, then, we can come back with a status report. We have gotten -- and by that time we will know how we are in the study, are we done, do we have the report, et cetera, if we need a second continuance, simply so that staff has a chance to digest it, we can do that. Rohm: Yeah. I think that we have to continue to a date specific and, then, if, in fact, you're not ready we can continue it once again. Wildwood: Yes. Thank you, sir. Zaremba: Well -- and I would include in that readiness that staff should have the three - -the answers to the three outstanding issues ten days before that hearing. Rohm: Exactly. Zaremba: Are you on the motion? Rohm: No. No. I am not. Gabbert: Chairman, Members of the Commission -- Keith, over here. Borup: Oh. How are you doing? Gabbert: I have a quick question for staff, if it's all right. Brad, there has been a lot of talk tonight about -- as opposed to doing R-8, people doing an R-4 and getting a variance for some of these sizes and just in my time here I haven't seen a whole lot of that processing go, the R-4 with a variance, as opposed to an R-8. Could you clarify what the -- just tell me a little bit what the difference in the procedure is -- or why is it that much more difficult to do an R-4 with a variance and that you just go with the straight R-8, even though you're meeting the requirements. Hawkins-Clark: Sure. The difference is that the variance is not an eligible option for reducing the lot sizes or frontages. I mean they really need to use the Planned Development Process in order to accomplish that, so if an applicant chooses to develop with an R-4 and they just draw a plat without a development and they need 80-foot frontages, 8,000 square foot lots. If they do an R-8 they need 63-foot frontages or 6,500 square foot lots. If they do a planned development, then, that gives them some flexibility, but the variance, really, is not the appropriate mechanism. Borup: Yeah. I may have given you the wrong impression. The ones we have seen have all been through planned unit developments. Zaremba: Well -- and I would add to that that when I first came on this Commission we saw a few that apparently were planned developments, R-8 with request for exceptions on the lot sizes, and I vocally expressed my displeasure at chipping away at the R-4 , :~ . Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2. 2004 Page 80 of 61 zone in that manner and ask the question of several developers why are you afraid to ask for an R-4 -- I mean, excuse me, an R-8. You ask for an R-4 and all these changes, why not just ask for an R-8 and I think a lot of them heard that and are responding to the fact that I expressed a discomfort with chipping away at R-4 in that manner. Gabbert: Yeah. Thank you. I just wanted a little clarification on that. Rohm: In this particular case, this five acres that's within the low density is -- Zaremba: 1.9, isn't it? Rohm: Oh. Excuse me. 1.9. Is in support of what legal counsel is speaking to, though. Let's go the other direction, but I can sure see what you're saying, too, Dave. Zaremba: Well -- and maybe that's an issue that still needs to be resolved. Have we had the motion on a continuance yet? We haven't. What -- whether or not we want to ask that that 1.9 acres be an R-4, I mean we have subdivisions where the whole subdivision isn't the same zoning. Rohm: Do all those lots comply with R-4? Borup: No. Zaremba: No. Borup: He was talking about the - if you took an average -- the square footage was over 8,000 feet on an average, but the lot sizes -- Rohm: There are some that are less than 8,000. Borup: Yeah. There is three of them that are over ten and there is several that are under seven, so -- Rohm: It's probably better to leave it just as it is, then. Borup: And I agree with Commissioner Zaremba. All the noncompliance issues -- but I do like the single zoning, especially if there is some diversity in the lot sizes and that's something I have felt for a long time. You know, a whole subdivision full of 8,000 square foot lots is not near as attractive as something that's got some tens and some sevens. Okay. Are we ready for a motion? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue the public hearings for AZ 04-020 and PP 04-027, for resolution of the items that are actually specified in the staff report. I'm sorry. Continue it to the date of October 21st, our regular planned hearing on October 21st, with the understanding that the necessary information will be to staff by ten days before that. . 1 t r Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2.2004 Page61of61 Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Borup: You continued both hearings? Rohm: Yes. Borup: All right. Thank you. That concludes our Planning and Zoning meeting for this evening. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn. Zaremba: Second. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second to adjourn. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. THREE AYES. Borup: Meeting adjourned at 11 :50. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11 :50 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED KE~~ lLLl.LQ! DATE APPROVED