Loading...
2005 06-02 Meridian Planning and Zonina Meetina June 2. 2005. The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of June 2, 2005, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman David Zaremba. Members Present: Chairman David Zaremba, Commissioner Keith Borup, Commissioner Michael Rohm, Commissioner David Moe, and Commissioner Wendy Newton-Huckabay. Others Present: Ted Baird, Jessica Johnson, Anna Canning, Bruce Freckleton, Craig Hood, Joe Guenther, Josh Wilson, Mike Cole, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call X X Keith Borup X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X X Chairman David Zaremba David Moe Michael Rohm Zaremba: Good evening, everybody. We'd like to open this regular meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for June 2nd, 2005, and I will begin with a roll call of Commissioners. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Zaremba: The next item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda and we will take these items in order, but for those of you that are here in the audience, I will mention that Items 9, 10, and 11, all of which relate to Pinebridge, ACHD has not completed discussing that with the applicant and they have asked to delay our action until they have heard from ACHD and can present us with something that may be changed at that time and it's likely that we will continue nine, ten, and eleven to August 4th. Also Items 12 and 13 relating to Dorado Subdivision, there is another item, a CUP that needs to catch up with it and we will not discuss that one today either, it will be continued to July 7th, 2005. So, if you are here for those, we won't talk about those tonight. And let the record show that Commissioner Rohm has joined us. We are all here. So, that being said, we will consider the agenda adopted. Item 3: Consent Agenda: Zaremba: We have no Consent Agenda items, so we will consider that done. Let me discuss our procedure a little bit about the hearings today, if I may. On each of these items, the applicant and our professional staff have spent quite a bit of time together already and we will begin each of our presentations with a presentation from our professional staff, who will describe where the project is and what the project is and discuss any issues that they believe are outstanding or important features that we need to know. Following that, the applicant will have the opportunity to tell us anything else Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 2 of 118 they think we should know about their project, respond to issues raised by the staff in their review for us. The- applicant, including any supporting staff of engineers or architects, has 15 minutes to give us their presentation. After that the general public is invited to comment and we ask that you do a couple of things. One, since we can all hear you, if it was important enough to come down, it's important for us to hear you. So, please, come up to the microphone and only speak when you're at the microphone. When you're there -- and this is for everybody -- please begin by giving your name and address, so that that can be in the record also. Individual comments we ask that you be concise, if you can, and limit your remarks to three minutes. If we have an individual that is representing a group of other people and speaking for them -- an example of that would be a president of a homeowners association, we do allow ten minutes, as long as the other people agree that that person is speaking for them and they don't speak. After the public has had their time to comment and inform us of things that they think we should need to know, then, the applicant is given another opportunity. They will be taking notes throughout and they will have another ten minutes to respond to anything that's been raised and, then, after that, theoretically, we will deliberate and our end result is a recommendation made to the City Council, where, again, there will be probably public hearings on the same subjects. So, that's what our procedure is. It looks like our light system is not here, so we will -- we will guess at the timing on it, but if everybody will cooperate, we will appreciate that. Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from April 21, 2005: PP 05-011 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 12 building lots on 4.31 acres in a L-O zone for Julie Subdivision by Paramount Development, Inc. - northeast corner of North Linder Road and West Cayuse Drive: Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from April 21, 2005: CUP 05-013 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development with reductions to the minimum requirements for street frontage and building setbacks for Julie Subdivision by Paramount Development, Inc. - northeast corner of North Linder Road and West Cayuse Drive: Zaremba: So, we will begin this evening with -- I will open -- or, actually, reopen the continued Public Hearing for PP 05-011, request for preliminary plat approval of 12 building lots on 4.31 acres in an L-O zone for Julie Subdivision, and also the continued Public Hearing I'm reopening for CUP 05-013, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development with reductions to the minimum requirements for street frontage and building setbacks for Julie Subdivision. Both of these are Paramount Development, Inc., and are on the northeast corner of North Linder Road and West Cayuse Drive. And we will begin with the staff report. Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The item before you is Julie Subdivision. It's a limited office development, consisting of 12 building lots on approximately 4.31 acres in the Paramount development. Paramount Subdivision received conditional use approval for a conceptual planned development in 2003, encompassing a large portion of the land between Meridian Road and Linder Road Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 3 of 118 north of McMillan in north Meridian. As part of that conceptual planned development, the applicant was required to come in for a detailed Conditional Use Permit approval for the commercial and office areas proposed with the subdivision. The one that has come in now is as stated on the corner of Cayuse -- I guess Creek Drive and North Linder Road located there. To the south is a future Meridian high school site. To the west is Lochsa Falls Subdivision. To the north is a vacant -- a couple of vacant lots zoned limited office and some vacant RUT land. And, then, to the east is portions of Paramount Subdivision, the first few phases that have final platted and began construction. The two limited office lots directly to the north of the subject lot were included in the annexation of Paramount Subdivision. They were not included in the conceptual planned development approval or preliminary plat approval. The lot we are dealing with tonight was included in the CUP and the preliminary plat for Paramount and the preliminary plat before you tonight is a re-preliminary plat, if you will, that divides it up further into the 12 lots and, then, gets the detailed conceptual -- or the detailed Conditional Use Permit approval. Moving on to the submitted preliminary plat. I'll just raise a couple of issues. We have received a letter from the applicant stating that they are in agreement with the staff -- with the comments in the staff report, with the exception of one small item that I will touch on. The lots -- and it's probably, actually, a little bit clearer from the landscape plan, the layout here. There is one access onto Cayuse and, then, the lots are accessed from an internal drive, reaching to the back lot with trash enclosures at the end of each east-west aisle. And, then, the individual office buildings laid out. As part of the conceptual -- as part of the -- as part of the detailed Conditional Use Permit, they have requested reduced setbacks and reduced frontages. The lots in the rear of the development -- I'll go back to the preliminary plat -- would have no frontage, requiring that modification to the Conditional Use Permit for a planned development to waive the frontage requirements and, then, also they have requested reduced setbacks. For the rear of the building, specifically Lots 1 and 12, this is the rear setback mentioned as two feet, which can be a little bit confusing, looking at that as a rear setback, but that is what it's considered, because the -- the buildings front into the interior of the lot here. And so that setback has been requested to be reduced to two feet, which, with the landscape buffer in front of there, still is a substantial setback from the road and esthetically gives good separation there and that landscape buffer gives the open space between that road and building. I'll touch on some special considerations in the staff report. ACHD has requested 23 additional feet of future right of way along Linder Road. This portion is not in their five-year work program and I don't believe they have funds to purchase the right of way. We have requested that the applicant place those 23 additional feet of right of way in a separate lot, which would be outside of the landscape buffer, which, on this portion of Linder, is 35 feet. The previous staff report issued for the conditioned hearing that was originally scheduled for April 21 st, was continued due inadequate posting of the site. That staff report did incorrectly state that landscape buffer along Linder right here is 25 feet, which it would be for a standard arterial. This portion of Linder is identified as a -- as an entryway corridor in the Comprehensive Plan and Meridian city code states that those landscape buffers shall be 35 feet along the entryway corridors. I did speak with the applicant about this and they did represent that by shifting the buildings a little bit, they can meet that 35 feet and I'll let the applicant address that. Also, on the submitted preliminary Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 4 of 118 plat, that landscape buffer was not shown in a separate common lot. We have requested that be placed in it's own common lot that would be owned by the business owners association. We do like to see those owned by the business owners association to insure maintenance in the future of the project and for a consistent appearance of that along the full length of the subdivision. The applicant in their letter, dated June 1 st, stated they are in agreement with the conditions stipulated in the staff report. The one item that they are not in agreement with was item one, page 15. under other department comments and it was by Sanitary Services Corporation, did have a concern about the length of the drive aisles and getting to their trash enclosures, which are at the end of each of these. The applicant did work that out with SSC and I do have a stamped plan from SSC that does give approval to this layout. So, that has been worked out between the applicant and SSC and I am in agreement with the applicant's statement in their letter. The applicant is in agreement with the -- I will touch on the reduced setbacks that were originally requested around the perimeter of the development. Meridian city code does state that on the perimeter of a planned development the setbacks cannot be reduced. This north property boundary was the extent of the Paramount planned development and, therefore, because that is an exterior boundary of the development, those setbacks could not be reduced. The applicant had proposed to reduce those to ten feet and they have agreed to modify those to the 20 feet that would be required by code. With that, I will end staff's comments and take any questions from the Commission. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Okay. Would the applicant care to come forward? Turnbull: Thank you very much, Commissioner Zaremba. David Turnbull, 12601 West Explorer Drive in Boise. I hope you will forgive me if I don't take all of my 15 minutes, but I just want to state that we have gone through this with Josh extensively and I think we have come to agreement on all the staff conditions and so I really have nothing further to add and appreciate your support and recommendation on this proposal. I will stand for any questions if you have any. Zaremba: Thank you. I have one -- a couple very small things that I would ask. Apparently, you propose that parking stalls would be 18 feet and the sidewalk next to it six feet and the city has suggested that you put in bumpers a foot away from that. Have you considered making your parking stalls 17 feet, with a seven-foot sidewalk, so that you don't have to have bumpers? Turnbull: We don't want to have bumpers, so we will work that out with your staff. think we have re-depicted that and I think that's all cleared up, if I'm not mistaken. Zaremba: It's the same lateral distance, whether it's -- Turnbull: We don't care to have separate bumpers. They just -- Zaremba: So, make the sidewalk wider and -- Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 5 of 118 Turnbull: -- create a place where you can't sweep. Zaremba: Okay. One other question -- and this may be a question for both you and staff. In this we are asking to approve lots that have no street frontage and I did not see a comment requiring that there be cross-access agreements. I assume that's an easy thing for you to do, but is that -- is that something we need to ask for or put in here? Wilson: Chairman Zaremba, I would agree that that does need to be in there. Turnbull: Yes, we agree. We agree to that. I thought it was in there, but we certainly would do that. Zaremba: Commissioners, I would make an Item 16 out of that on page seven, lots with no street frontage are approved if cross-access agreements are recorded for all lots or something to that effect. Wilson: Chairman Zaremba, I also -- I apologize for failing to mention. I do need to mention for the record that we did receive a letter in opposition. The Commission, I believe, was given a copy of it and I do have a copy of it here, from a Mrs. Stephanie Sodelero, that did state opposition to the development. Zaremba: We do each have a copy of that and if I'm interpreting it correctly, she's objecting to having offices built in a light office zone. Am I interpreting this correctly? Wilson: I believe so. Yes. Zaremba: So, the zoning is not an issue before us, it's already established as L-O, and offices are what we anticipate having built there. Turnbull: I would hope so. Zaremba: I appreciate her taking the time to write in, but it's something she could have known. We had no one signed up to speak, but if anybody does care to speak, we do give you the opportunity. I see no one moving. So, Mr. Turnbull doesn't need make a rebuttal. So, apparently, we are. Thank you. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I move we close the public hearings on PP 05-001 and CUP 05-013. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 6 of 118 motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: The only discussion that I would have about the next motion would be on page seven, adding an item 16. Moe: Would you, please, slow down and say that one more -- did you get that, Mike? Zaremba: Okay. Moe: Did you get that, Mike? Rohm: I got it. Moe: Well, then, go right ahead. Rohm: Do you want -- I mean I don't care. I will. Moe: You got it, go for it. Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of PP 05-011, request for preliminary plat, to include all staff comments for the hearing date June 2nd and presented on May 27th, with the following change: On page seven, add an item number 16 that reads: Cross-access agreement shall be required between interior lots. I think on this Sanitary Services, would that be on the CUP? To eliminate the requirement of additional use with -- or working with the Sanitary Services? Zaremba: That makes sense to me. It's probably a CUP issue. Rohm: I think a CUP issue. End of motion. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? Thank you. All ayes. That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of CUP 05-013, request for Conditional Use Permit to include staff comments for the hearing date June 2nd, 2005, received May 27th, 2005, with the following change -- Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 7 of 118 Borup: Question on that. The way I see it worded, it just says that they are to contact Bill Gregory and haven't they done that? So, it's happened. Rohm: That-- Borup: Yeah. Rohm: And so we don't need to remove it or -- Borup: Well, I -- unless staff has another comment, but -- Wilson: Staff would agree that that does not need to be removed. The conditions -- and they are kind of -- their comments, they will become conditions of approval with the findings. You know, the commenting agencies do provide those comments. Rohm: We don't need to remove it. End of motion. Wilson: Yeah. Moe: Second. Zaremba: It's satisfied anyhow. Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 6: Item 7: Item 8: Continued Public Hearing from May 5, 2005: AZ 05-007 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 43.18 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Bellingham Park Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC - north of Amity Road and east of South Locust Grove Road: Continued Public Hearing from May 5, 2005: PP 05-009 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 166 building lots and 37 common lots on 43.18 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Bellingham Park Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC - north of Amity Road and east of South Locust Grove Road Continued Public Hearing from May 5, 2005: CUP 05-008 Request for a Planned Development consisting of 166 residential units with reductions to the minimum requirements for lot size, street frontage and yard setbacks for Bellingham Park Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC - north of Amity Road and east of South Locust Grove Road: Zaremba: Okay. I'd like to open the next Public Hearing for AZ 05-007, a request for annexation and zoning of 43.18 acres from RUT to R-4 -- I'm sorry. From RUT to R-8 Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 8 of 118 zone for Bellingham Park Subdivision. Also reopen -- I'm sorry, I was reopening a continued hearing on that one and I will also reopen the continued Public Hearing on PP 05-009, request for preliminary plat approval of 166 building lots and 37 common lots on 43.18 acres, in a proposed R-8 zone for Bellingham Park Subdivision and also reopen continued Public Hearing CUP 05-008, request for a planned development consisting of 166 residential units, with reductions to the minimum requirements for lot size, street frontage, and yard setbacks for Bellingham Park Subdivision, All of these by Gemstar Development, LLC, and located north of Amity Road and east of South Locust Grove Road. And we will begin with the staff report. Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This for 166 residential lots in an R-8 zone. The site plan here shows that this is Locust Grove Road and Amity Road. The Ten Mile Creek, actually, bisects the property from approximately northwest to southeast and it splits this into two distinct areas. As you can see by the aerial photo, this is a major canal system through here. This is the Ridenbaugh. And the Ten Mile Creek goes underneath the Ridenbaugh in that area. The triangular- shaped piece right north of here is, actually, owned by Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District and they do have a weir master's house, I guess is the way that the gentleman presented it to me, that they maintain the actual ownership of the Ten Mile Creek to the property boundary of the southeast corner, as well as through the Ridenbaugh Canal area. The request here is for a planned development as well. The planned development has reduced lot sizes, reduced setbacks, and street frontage. The street frontage reduced setbacks is mainly the area right in -- where I'm showing here, listed as Block 3, which is a narrower lot, they are the 31-foot lots, approximately 4,100 square feet. The amenities that go along with the planned development would be the trail system that the applicant has proposed that would go from Locust Grove Road to the common lot area against the Ten Mile Creek in the southeast corner and that also follows this Wrightwood Lane into the bridge in this location. This is the second drawing, dated April 26, which is the second submittal to this application, due the applicant trying to meet staff's comments on the first round when we were scheduled to hear this on March 17th. The other amenity, I guess, to clarify, is that there is an open space lot approximately right here where there is an existing home. The applicant has indicated that the home will be remodeled and constructed as a clubhouse for these lots, The clubhouse -- we haven't seen a design or a layout -- a floor layout of what actually would go into a clubhouse. I discussed that with the applicant this afternoon and they would definitely have something before Council, if it is -- the recommendation follows. It's a little larger lot size here that -- the second issue I want to bring up is that is a split area for low density and medium density residential. The low density is, actually, just a small corner right down in here and that actual density comes in under three dwelling units to the acre when calculated by acreage. That is immediately north of an open space lot right up against Locust Grove and the Ridenbaugh Canal. The large aerial photo shows the first of two significant features, is that there is a major portion of this property is in the flood plane along the Ten Mile Creek. There are approximately three impoundments here. The first one at the corner, another here, and I believe the third one is right there where there are existing culverts that are in the Ten Mile Creek. They are placed most likely for agricultural uses in the past. The Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 9 of 118 applicant's letter from Paul Coonts, who is the geo tech engineer, states that a letter of map revision, which goes to FEMA, needs to be filed for this area and if that letter is filed and those culverts are removed and replaced with the existing bridge location, which would be approximately where the second culvert is, then, the flood plane should be contained within the banks of the Ten Mile Creek and within the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District's property. This aerial photo does show the property line of the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District along the Ten Mile Creek. The second feature of concern is high groundwater in this area. The Public Works Department has requested an additional condition on this site in order to try and address those -- that concern. I guess I will keep going with the presentation here and, then, I will address that here shortly. This is the Ridenbaugh Canal at this location. This picture was taken from Locust Grove Road. This is the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation home back in this location -- in that area and the home to be remodeled is where the trees are in that location. The major feature on the Ridenbaugh of concern is the weir that actually separates the Ten Mile Creek and the Ridenbaugh, which is where the trees are located here. I'll have a better picture shortly. This is the -- where the future is in the foreground here and it is a fairly gently sloping area towards the Ten Mile Creek. And just a point of reference, this is the location where the highest groundwater was identified for the site. The second picture, just as I -- before I got rained on -- was taken almost at the intersection of the Ten Mile and the Ridenbaugh. This is the edge of the concreted area along the Ridenbaugh and the rest of this naturally maintained vegetation through there. I apologize for the darkness of the photo. This is the weir that we are -- that I have discussed twice now. This is the Ten Mile Creek and, then, at the bottom under that -- the actual Ridenbaugh Canal is a swiftly flowing feature right through the middle of this and, then, it immediately goes out to this area right here and that is the future concern. There is a letter of -- addressing this by Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District in the file. This location is showing the western portion -- or the eastern portion, I apologize -- of the site, which is, again, very gently sloping. These are trees that are located in the drainage way along the Ridenbaugh Canal, slightly west -- or slightly east of the site. Of this -- these -- this area has two special concerns and the Chapter 5-A-2, page 30, of the Comprehensive Plan does pull these out as areas that should be developed to guide development to minimize the expense and inconvenience to individual property owners and general public. The uses permitted in this district generally are associated with open space and recreational. That is a bridge from the entire section, but gives you the general purpose of what the hazardous areas state. Staff did discuss this with the applicant many times and our original recommendation was that there should be additional open space along the canal and the Ten Mile Creek in order to try and facilitate more of an open feel to these natural features. The Comprehensive Plan also does call out that -- one of the few natural features the City of Meridian has is the Ten Mile Creek and additional -- additionally, to the north of this site similar subdivisions have given much wider berths to the Ten Mile Creek and rather than what the proposal says. With that, there is a required development agreement for this annexation that the city feels is needed in order to address this concern. Because this is dependent on FEMA approving the letter of map revision and the flood designation for Ten Mile Creek, the applicant should enter into an agreement with two options. One is to remove any lots within the flood plane or to resubmit for a preliminary plat for phases one and two Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 10 of 118 and that is if the flood plane and flow way boundaries are not approved by FEMA, which if -- according to the engineer's report, they should be accepted by FEMA, but this would cover the city's concerns on that -- on that issue, as well as on the preliminary plat there are conditions 14, 15, 16 and 17, which Public Works and Planning and Zoning have agreed on to address staff concerns with the high groundwater and the flood plane issues for the site. The second issue is that there are multi-use pathways. This is a major intersection for what has been called out for the major regional pathway system. Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District did submit the letter that indicated that they wished the -- or they would not allow the pathway system to access their property at that weir and, as you can see, it's a significant feature, it would not facilitate a bridge or any type of other crossing there. Staff has agreed with that letter and has put on a site specific condition for the preliminary plat for number two, which says that the multi-use pathway should still be -- occur on the site, but that an alternate location proposed by the applicant and approved by this board was what we had recommended and that also should be in cooperation with adjoining projects to the east and west of this project eventually. The projects east of this site is -- or north of the site and east of the site is the Tuscany Lakes development, which has an internal pathway system, as well as proposing a public park, as well as there is an elementary school site located within there. Staff feels that the site being the chosen location for the intersection between the pathways, that the pathway should be build as close to the Comprehensive Plan as possible. In conclusion, staff is recommending approval of this site, which is the site plan dated April 26th, with the conditions listed in the report. With that, Public Works has added many conditions to try and address the mitigation of concerns with the groundwater, as well as hope that the applicant engineer -- he is here and should address that and if you have any questions, I will stand. Otherwise, please, hold your questions for the engineer if they get too technical. Thank you. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Okay. I have one. One of your requirements is that they submit a dewatering plan. Can that be a little more fully explained? What is that intended to accomplish? Freckleton: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The dewatering plan that's mentioned in the geo tech report and which was also mentioned in our staff report, is during construction the dewatering is to put the pipe work in for sewer and water storm drain, that sort of thing. Unless you go with a foundation -- the crawl space under the homes, there is another comment that speaks to that with the types of soils that are present on this site, the building code would require a dewatering system around the foundations of the homes. The applicant has told us verbally that they will not be building any homes with crawl spaces, that all the homes that would be constructed would be slab on grade. So, that -- that comment was just in there if they chose the option of crawl spaces. Zaremba: Thank you. Questions from anybody else? Okay. Would the applicant care to come forward, please. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 11 of 118 Bailey: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I'm David Bailey, I'm with Bailey Engineering. My office address is 1500 East Iron Eagle in Eagle and I am representing Gemstar Development. I have been left holding the ball by our planners on this project, but I have been involved in the detail throughout the project and, actually, have done the layouts on the project and done the engineering work, so I apologize about my presentation skills in advance and we will see how we can do and maybe when we get to the engineering questions I can be better on those. First of all, I want to thank Joe for the presentation there and for going over the project. I think he covered the issues pretty well on this project. Again, it's 166 lots in a planned development for the site. And I do want to cover just briefly a little bit of history on this, that -- that Joe has seen some of it and the city has seen some of it and you have seen us here before you, before already, the ones on the project. And this site does have some significant issues that need to be overcome on it and we have, actually, redesigned the site about five times and we have submitted three different revisions for the site. In trying to be flexible, work with everybody and be flexible, we have worked with everybody and deal with the issues that are on site. The layout as it is now is designed to deal with the high groundwater levels, keep us separated from the -- from the high groundwater that we have and to deal with the issues of how to get the multi-use pathway to work within the project and get it so that the parks department's in agreement with it and that we are avoiding the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District facilities, which they feel and we feel also, could be a potential hazard to pedestrians in that area on that end of it. The groundwater levels, we actually started monitoring last summer. We started monitoring the groundwater levels and went through the entire winter and into the spring and, as Joe pointed out, in the west end of the site where we are showing the park -- if you can put the preliminary plat up. Where we are putting the park and I have noted on the preliminary plat here, the higher groundwater level -- the highest groundwater level that was noted as of this spring. It, actually, has come up about six inches higher than that in our monitoring this year and we will use that highest groundwater level. The City of Meridian requirements are that we have the -- the center line of the road three feet above the highest established seasonal groundwater level and the purpose of that is to prevent water in the crawl space. As Bruce said, we have committed and I have told the developer he needs to require all the homes built in here to be built with slab on grade, so we avoid the crawl space water problem and two issues with that, one with the groundwater, two, as Bruce mentioned the type of soil out here, we do have some clay soils near the surface. As we get down deep, it's actually fairly well draining material, but it's -- there is groundwater in that also as well. But the heavier clay materials often cause sprinklers to cause water in the crawl space, even when the groundwater is not up that high. I've had quite a bit of experience with that. The type of streets, to segway in here, the type of streets we have in here are the -- are the ACHD alternative section when we have high groundwater, so we do not have -- we will not have underground drainage facilities, we will have swales along the streets and that's a 32 foot asphalt section, with ribbon curb on both sides of the street and, then, detached four foot sidewalks we will have along the streets throughout the development. Those are all contained within the right of way that we have proposed and we will have street trees subject to ACHD's requirements that they be placed in between the lots, so they don't obstruct the swales on the side of the road. So, we will have street trees in that Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 120f118 area. Some of the developments have tried to put the sidewalks into the lots in an easement and we felt that the setback requirement from the back of sidewalk precluded us from doing that and we were able to keep it -- make the right of way wide enough to keep the entire improvement within the right of way, with only easements for those, and that area in between is maintained by the individual homeowner, although it's in the right of way. As to the -- but that section requires -- the ACHD section requires that the center line of the road actually be 4.5 feet above the highest established groundwater level and that is the preliminary grading and profile plans that we submitted to the city with the application showing the fill that would be required in order to raise that level up. We will -- we are in agreement with the staff conditions on this, we will be submitting a detailed grading plan that will indicate drainage for all of the lots, backs of the lots, finish floor elevations for the houses to make sure that we meet our requirements on that end of it and we are fully in agreement with that -- that portion of it. As to the flood plane issue, we have had the study done by Paul Coonts, who does quite a few of the flood studies in this area. He's completed the actual calculations, he completed all the survey work, he has his paperwork all put together on this and he is telling us that if we remove -- as Joe said, if we remove those three culverts, then, the flood way would be contained within the limits of the actual Ten Mile Creek. And the next thing I asked him, I said, okay, great, when do we submit this thing, we want to get it going. He said, well, you can't, you got to pull those culverts out. Well, our plan is -- we can't actually submit a letter until the culverts are removed and, then, we can -- they won't change the maps until we actually change the ground out there. So, our plan is -- in the first phase is to construct the first phase, including the park and the improvements on Locust Grove and that requires a sewer extension in Locust Grove, which is already designed, by the way, and submitted. And that would serve -- I think it's 52 lots in the first phase. While all that construction was in progress, we would put the equipment on site, we would do our grading and removal of the culverts in the Ten Mile Creek and submit that application. So, we wouldn't even submit the -- the final plat application for the second phase until that -- until that was completed. So, our plan is to coordinate the construction on that, so that we are not going to ask to build any houses in the flood plan, let's put it that way, before we submit that final plat for the second phase, we would have that done. And I'm probably running out of time here. We have completed traffic studies on the project, geo technical studies on the project, flood plane studies on the project, and analyzed the roads and the sewer issues for the project, so I think we have really done our homework on that end of it. As to -- real quick on the clubhouse, the remodel on this -- and I think the developer misunderstood me when I told him what we needed to do on that. He's working on getting elevations on that and he went and talked to remodelers about how they would remodel it, so that he could understand that we could actually do that. Well, actually, the way the trusses on the house are, we will actually remove enough from the end of the house in order to meet our setbacks for that and we will get a building permit from the city prior to that construction and that will be completed prior to the plat being recorded for that portion. I had one more thing. Oh, the buffers. I'm understanding this now, hopefully, and I have talked to Joe several times, but I wasn't involved in all the discussions. The multi-use pathway continues from this area and down to the east and this is -- we have worked with the developer -- or with the planner for Messina Meadows and we will be connecting to their stub street that they have Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 13 of 118 proposed. We have coordinated that. We originally had another stub here that wasn't necessary and we will be connecting this multi-use pathway to their proposed location where that comes out. The thing that we have added on here that's not shown on this, is they have a multi-use pathway coming along the north boundary here and we will bring that in here and slide this common lot over and bring it all the way down and tie it into this location as well, so we have that connection there. And as a reference, the construction for this will be -- it will probably be concrete on the ten feet. ACHD requires us to build a four foot concrete sidewalk and, then, it could be asphalt on the pathway, but we think we'd like to combine those into a ten foot pathway along there. We have it shown as asphalt right now and ACHD conditions require that we add a four-foot sidewalk on that -- that one as well. The issue about additional buffer space on the north boundary here and on the east boundary here, we added ten feet on this end and that was from discussion -- my discussions with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District about how to provide their access road here, not have any of the lots encroach onto the area where they need their access road along the east boundary here, and we can do that with the additional ten feet and that would be about at the top of bank. And we have about 60 feet between the back of the lots here. We will be doing the Nampa-Meridian approved non-burnable fence along this area and along the north boundary. Along the north boundary -- it's hard to see from the field photo that Joe had where the property line is and that there is, actually 25 feet from the backs of these lots to the top of bank of the Ridenbaugh Canal and we feel that that leaves some room there. What we didn't want and what we felt that Nampa-Meridian didn't want was an open or common lot here that would, then, get turned into a pathway or have to be maintained by the homeowners association or something -- something along those lines in the back here. We would rather have that solid fence continued across the park as well to access those facilities for this area in putting these lots right up against that property line. But there is a significant separation between the backs of these lots and the Ridenbaugh and there is also a vertical separation. We are not a big elevated canal that we are sitting down below. As you saw from that picture, the actual water level in that is just below the bank, because there is no -- there is no high bank, it's just flat out from that area. So, we feel that that provides good separation and that buffer area is not on our ground, it's on Nampa-Meridian's property and they can maintain that, they have their access along that, and we feel that's appropriate. Given that, we are in full agreement with all of the staff requirements, including the drainage and the groundwater issues. We will fully comply with those -- those conditions and as far as these buffers here, as I have said, we feel that we have addressed our separation from those, but as far as the width or adding onto those, we have never gotten -- or I have never been involved in a discussion about exactly what that means or how much we are looking for or what we want to do there. We have been flexible throughout the whole process, five designs is - - is where I'd like to stop, because I think we have got a good product put together here, considering the difficulties of the site. If you have specific direction for us as to what we need to do to change this to meet their concern -- we have moved all of this away from this low point where we have the highest groundwater to minimize the fill on the site and keeps this area in recreation. There will not be standing water in this park area. We won't have any wet pondS within it. The drainage works out fairly well for us that way. But, like I said, we are flexible, we have worked with the neighbors to the south, we Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 14 of 118 have worked with your staff a lot and with the fire department, the police department, Ada County Highway District, through this, but, hopefully, we are getting what everybody needs. If we are short on that still, we want to fix it. So, I would stand for any questions with that. Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions? Moe: Yes. Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I just wanted to get a little clarification. I assume for the walking path and you're going to connect to the subdivision to the east, you're going to take it to the north side of the property and, then, you're going to move Lot 20 over to align with this High Cliff Avenue? Is that kind of what your plan is? Bailey: Commissioner Moe, the Messina Meadows project actually has their path shown in this area here. We will connect to that, move this common lot over to here, bring that through our common area, along High Cliff there and, then, around this corner and attach to this point here. Moe: And your common lot is Lot 20, I assume, off your-- Bailey: Yes. Moe: Okay. All right. Another question I have -- I just want to make sure I understand. The park, is that a park for the subdivision or is that a Meridian city park, then? Bailey: Commissioner Moe, it's a park for the subdivision and the city's policy that I understand is that they won't accept parks that are less than seven acres in size. So, it is for the subdivision. Moe: And you will maintain -- your homeowners association maintains it, no problems there? Bailey Yes. Moe: Then one other question for you and it's -- hopefully you can answer this and I'm going to ask a few other people through the evening this same question. But, basically, what you have got here is just -- I'm just somewhat reading by -- you know, you're in an R-8 -- minimum R-8 is 6,500 square feet. Basically, you have got 144 out of 166 lots are reduced from that. Can you kind of give me an idea why -- why does everybody always want to reduce these things down? I mean we have some minimums for a reason. I'm just trying to kind of get a clue -- I mean I have my own -- my own feelings about it, but I'm just -- I'm curious from the development side and whatnot, what -- why am I seeing these time and time again everything's being reduced down. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 15 of 118 Bailey: Commissioner Moe, I'm not sure I can satisfactorily -- I can explain to you my take on it and I don't know if that will do you any good, but -~ Moe: That helps. Bailey: Or do us any good. My understanding is that the smaller lots are somewhat more desirable for the builders in that the yards as smaller and in that the -- you're able to take that extra square footage in the lots and put it into common area, that open space, while keeping the density in that -- we are at 3.4 -- or 3.84 units to the acre total density in this project, which is less than an R-4 zone, and so I think there is a desire to match the minimum with the stated density goals. And if I could add one more thing real quick to that -- and this was brought up to me by Mr. Gray, is I do have some elevations that I brought of the types of buildings -- we have these smaller lots and the goal of those smaller lots is in the center with the alley loaded, was to provide a little bit of diverse housing type within the project and we wanted to mix things up some and provide a little different housing product than are available and those lots are narrow and I believe that the planners, when they submitted that, they interpreted that we were going to do zero lot line houses there and I think it should be in the conditions that our intent is to have those all single family detached homes. They are alley loaded and they provide a nice -- you know, a nice view from the street on this area here and these are the types of homes that we have taken pictures of that will be required to be built in those areas. And we will leave that -- those on the record here for you, but I did want to point that out. And those are not intended to be zero lot line attached homes. Moe: Thank you. Bailey: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Those are the homes you are proposing just for the alley loaded section? Bailey: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: And you're saying build those on a slab of concrete? Is that what that means? Bailey: The slab-on-grade concept, instead of -- you know, I guess the -- it's very common in a lot of areas to build slab-on-grade style homes and the actual footing still goes down into the wall, but instead of building a wooden floor on top of that, you pour a concrete floor and, then, build the house up from that area. So, there still are stem walls. It's fairly standard construction. It has not, until recently, been very common in Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 16 of 118 this area, because it's more expensive build that way, although you can do some neat things, such as heated floors and it does move things around within the house as far as the -- as far as the heating and ventilation ducting and the pipe work, it's done differently as far as they are put together. But it is a fairly standard form and absolutely eliminates water in the crawl space problem, because there is crawl space. And so that's the main reason. In the southern climates it's very common, because they don't need the frost protection and they can -- like you said, basically pour a slab of concrete and build on top of that without significant depth of the frost wall. So, we still need to build the frost wall down, so that the footings and the supports are below the frost level. Zaremba: I guess I still need some comfort with the flood plane area. Bailey: Okay. Zaremba: If I'm understanding you correctly, simply removing the culverts is going to eliminate the flooding -- I mean from what you're saying or what you understand of it, can we be comfortable that the houses that are along the Ten Mile Creek and the Ridenbaugh Canal, regardless of whether they -- they don't have crawl spaces, there is not going to be water in the living room ever or -- I mean my biggest concern is ten years down the road when some of these houses flood and they say who approved this -- how convinced are you that that's not going to happen? Bailey: I am very convinced that it's not going to happen and what happens here is the reason that the flood plane goes over the banks, because it's actually the banks that come up and, then, drop off a little bit with the spoils on the side, the reason that that would come over the banks with those culverts is they are actually 36 inch diameter culverts that are in there and they are buried, actually. The water has to kind of go down the hole in the ground and -- to get through. The culvert downstream is 84 inches in diameter and so that will allow the amount of water that's collected upstream of this to pass without backing it up. The 36 inch culvert, the volume of water that flows can't go through the 36 inch, it backs up behind that and, then, rises out and floods out to the side. The actual depth of flooding on that -- on the FEMA maps was never determined in detail before and a lot of those maps are made from aerial photos and some contours and, to tell you the truth, they are, basically, hand drawn and some of them are fairly old. When we do this, even if we weren't going to remove the flood plane, we would have done the detailed study and determined, okay, what is the highest elevation the water would come to in a hundred year storm event and, then, we would be required to build the house at one foot above -- one foot above that highest elevation and to actually survey that in and get a certificate, then, the homeowner still has to get flood insurance, even though they are surveyed up higher, they get, you know, flood insurance. So, I'm very confident that the study shows that if those culverts were removed, that the flood comes down there and stays in the channels and will not flood the houses on the property adjacent to the Ten Mile Creek, based on FEMA's rules and the way they calculate things. And they won't require flood insurance, even though the mortgage companies are pretty confident about it as well, once we get the -- once Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 17 of 118 we get the study done and show where the actual boundaries are, the mortgage company becomes confident enough that they require mortgage insurance. Zaremba: That gives me a second question that I didn't have before, I guess. If the culverts are currently acting as a break at a high water time or a high flood time, and forcing the water to spread out over this land, they are doing a service downstream of slowing the water and -- if you take these culverts out and let the water go through at the speed that it's not currently going through, does FEMA ask you about the impact downstream to -- I mean is this likely to cause flooding somewhere else where it doesn't currently flood? Bailey: The study that we do requires us to either start downstream with the numbers as far as the flow or to work downstream and have to know where the break point is downstream and work our way back up. Mr. Coonts, who actually did this study and did the study to the north and, actually, wrote a whole bunch of maps in the 70s even, the guy that did them for FEMA for years and years, actually had the data from the downstream portion, but that's already calculated based on all this, you calculate the downstream, you don't evaluate the upstream obstacles, you evaluate the downstream obstacles and work your way upstream with the calculation is the way it's done. So, the simple answer to that, which you probably prefer, is, no, it won't make it worse downstream to do that. I will make a point, though, in working that upstream, he -- I think he's also just completed a study on the Messina Meadows project for the same issue, along there, and part of his recommendation that I -- that he told me is that their being contained in the flood plane does depend on these culverts coming out as well. So, for a variety of reasons we need Messina Meadows and they need us. We need connections here, we need to get the water looped through, we need to get the city's multi-use pathways put together and we need them to complete their phases to the north and bring the sewer down, so that we can even do our second phase with that sewer, but I understand that's planned for the spring, that construction, in the remainder of Tuscany to the north of the project and they need us to remove these culverts, so that we can all get the flood plane to work within the channel that's provided for it in that area. So -- and we all need road connections to provide proper fire protection and police protection in the area as well. Again, too much information, right? Zaremba: No. That's fine. And you are very convincing, but give me the worst case scenario. If, for some reason FEMA came back in response to your letter of map revision and said, no, we are not changing it, what needs to be done? Borup: Mr. Chairman, maybe a question on that. Mr. Bailey, I think you --- didn't you say that after the culverts come out they would, hopefully do in a new flood plane and that would need to be approved before the final plat on those phases would be approved? Bailey: We are saying we are going to do it before the final -- so we wouldn't be able to build the second phase. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 18 of 118 Borup: So, they wouldn't even have final plat approval with the -- with the flood plane the way it is; is that correct? Bailey: That's correct. Borup: So does that answer your question? Zaremba: I'm agreeing with that, but I'm saying what if you never get it changed, can you talk us through any ideas you might have about changing the -- you have to move residences away from the canal and put open space there or would you fill and build it up or -- I mean what -- Bailey: Yeah, As I explained before -- I mean if we were intending to build in the flood plane and we removed those -- when we remove those, that just allows us to send the letter. There is no additional calculation or work or no additional survey work, except for them to certify that those are removed and that it can flow in that area. We have already got the engineering study done to prove that can happen. So, unless FEMA changes the way they review these things, which is possible, no doubt, I can't predict what the federal government might do, but it -- then we would actually determine base flood elevation based on the same study and those wouldn't even have to be approved by FEMA, we submit it to FEMA so they would have it as a detailed study, then, we build a foot above that flood plane. Those homeowners would, then, be required to have flood insurance. Zaremba: That sounds familiar. I think you explained that earlier, but I didn't get the connection. Okay. Bailey: But, if we did that, if that happened, I would have to come back before you and explain why this all fell apart and why I didn't know what I was talking about when I was in here tonight. Zaremba: So, if I'm understanding, your intention is to do phase one, which is a phase closer to Locust Grove, but while all the equipment is there take these culverts out and your assumption is, then, that there will be no objection from FEMA to go forward. Do you have a timeline for when you might have a response from FEMA that says, oh, yeah, this is fine? Bailey: I haven't done the actual submittal myself, but it's been my impression that it's a six month to a year process. Zaremba: And that holds you up or you expected to take that long to get to this phase anyhow? Bailey: We would be constructing the -- at this point I'm not sure that we could get under construction on the first phase until well into the winter and so we would be probably near the end of next year before we could start the second phase. So, Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 19 of 118 timingwise it probably works pretty well and it might hold us help. We understand that. We want to get it going as soon as possible, but we can't do that until -- until we make the next step. Zaremba: Other questions for Mr. Bailey? Okay. Thank you. And we do have a couple other people signed up to speak and we will begin with Michael Gray, please. Gray: Good evening. My name is Michael Gray. I live at 4460 South Locust Grove Road, which is the property that directly adjoins the proposed development just to the south, and, first of all, I'd like to thank the developers for working with me on the lot layout that directly adjoins my property boundary, to provide some buffer zone between the low density residential area of the -- of the Comprehensive Plan and the medium density residential areas. I also, though, would like to express my concern on the reduced lot sizes in the R-8 zone. They are asking for an R-8 zone and, then, they are asking for reduced lot sizes in the CUP and, in addition, in the CUP I think it needs to be so stated that the alley access lots will not be a zero setback construction. My concern is that -- and it's been mentioned to me before that there is a potential there for having adjoined homes or condos or even potentially apartment complexes in those kind of situations. So, the designer has indicated that they don't intend to do that and I think it ought to be so stated in their CUP. Thanks. Zaremba: Thank you. Any questions from the Commissioners? Moe: No. Newton-Huckabay: I have a question. On this -- Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: On this zero lot line, didn't we already -- is that already stated in the staff comments that -- Zaremba: I don't see that it-- Newton-Huckabay: -- that it's single-family residences? Zaremba: It says single family. The applicant has agreed that there will be no zero lot line, but Mr. Gray's comment is that ought to be in writing. Newton-Huckabay: And it's not in there. Okay. Zaremba: Since the applicant's already agreed, it shouldn't be a problem to have that as a condition, in my opinion. Newton-Huckabay: I agree. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 20 of 118 Zaremba: Jason Wolf, please. Wolf: Good evening. My name is Jason Wolf, I live at 4646 South Locust Grove, just south of Michael Gray. Before I get started, could I ask a question? The engineer said that there was no underground drains and that there was no standing water anywhere. I was just wondering where the water went to. Zaremba You ask us the question and, then, we will ask the applicant -- Wolf: All right. Very good. Zaremba: -- when he comes back later we will ask him then. Wolf: Okay. Generally, I have the same concerns as Michael Gray. Looking over the Comprehensive Plans -- or Comprehensive Plan, I noted a few things of interest. To quote, it encourages efficient use of open space at the area of impact boundaries to effectively transition from rural areas to urban uses. Also to require new urban density subdivisions which abut or are proximal to existing low density residential land uses to provide landscape screening or transitional densities with larger, more comparable lot sizes to buffer the interface between urban level densities and rural residential densities and also to require screening and landscape buffers on all development requests that are more intense than adjacent residential properties. It appears that there is a few conflicts with these action items or goals from the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed development consists of very small lot sizes, a reduced size from the R-8 zoning. It's directly adjacent to large rural size lots, it's, without a doubt, more intense than the adjacent residential properties. This implies that development should follow the guidelines and actions that I just -- that I just mentioned. It doesn't appear that there is really much transition between the urban density and the rural density in this area as desired by the Comprehensive Plan. I also wanted to mention that the traffic studies given in the preliminary reports did not include the impacts from the additional seven or eight subdivisions that are under construction or under development at the current time. So, I think that the traffic study, while they might have been okay back then, they should really consider looking at it again, because there is going to be a thousand or so more lots in the area since then. Anyway, thank you very much. Zaremba: Thank you. Questions from the Commissioners? Okay. I guess we are ready for Mr. Bailey to make some final remarks, if you would, please. I'm sorry. That was everybody that was signed up, but anybody who hasn't signed up care to speak? I should have asked that. Brown: For the record, Kent Brown. Business address 1800 West Overland. We are developing next door in both directions, both north and east. We had a similar flood plane on the property to the north in the Tuscany Lakes development and contacted Mr. Coonts and had him do the flood study and it reduced it down into the channel and he's told us on the Messina property that that's going to be the case also, as soon as these culverts are removed. One of the stories I like to use when talking about flood planes is Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 21 of 118 we are all familiar with J.R. Simplot's house and that there is a gully on either side of his house and his house was in the flood plane, according to the non-study and until you do a detailed study that defines where it's at and those things come into case when we hire these professionals and they look at it specifically and site specific and that modifies those. The city of Boise did one, because the capital building and city hall was in the flood plane and changed basically the entire downtown area, because it wasn't defined correctly. Worst case scenario is what he made reference to is that you're allowed to do, on an each individual house, prove that it's one foot above the defined flood plane and now that -- and if that happens, we now have an elevation that we would have to have those homes above and that's similar to what has happened along the Boise River down in southeast Boise, they just did map amendments for those individual houses and we moved them up and I just wanted to speak to the flood plane. Rohm: Interesting. Zaremba: Thank you for that illumination. Any questions? Commissioner Newton- Huckabay, you're wrinkling your brow. Is there something that's troubling you? Newton-Huckabay: That's unusual, me wrinkling my brow, isn't it? Zaremba: Okay. We had another person wishing to speak. Dalton: For the record, I'm Sherry Dalton and I own the property immediately south that follows along the Ten Mile ditch there. The last culvert on the property to the north of me was put there for the convenience of the farmer to cross from one side of his property to the other, but when you get onto my property immediately south of it, there is a huge blowout and I'm concerned about the continuity as you pass through the three or four different properties and, then, on to Messina Subdivision that I'd like to see a cooperative effort that that channel be made equally as wide and deep for the length of the run, because at this time my property has suffered, because the culverts that have been put up above it. Also, it wasn't until Mr. Bailey spoke tonight that I realized that I was concerned about what the runoff was going to be, where it was going to be directed. As one of my other neighbors said, well, if there isn't going to be underground pipes, where are they going to put the runoff? And also I believe that the privacy fence that was being put up stopped as it hit my property and did not continue across at that point. My intentions, although they have not been stated, are to have a specific planned development on my parcel to come next year. But those are my concerns, that this Ten Mile ditch be uniform in its design as far north and as far south as it impacts any of the properties adjacent to it. I was kind of concerned as to what FEMA had directed this Ten Mile ditch to be. Having been a farmer for many many years, I'm curious if it's ten inches of water per months or 20 inches of water per month or how much rainwater or runoff they are talking about that capacity is meant to hold. And maybe the engineer can answer that. But those are my concerns. Zaremba: May I clarify a moment. Let's see. It looks like there is a third culvert down here. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 22 of 118 Dalton: Right there. Zaremba: Is that one on your property? Dalton: No. That's on the property to the north of me. This is my property right here. This piece. And where we have the blowout is right in this area. Zaremba: And tell me what you mean by blowout. Is that overflow or -- Dalton: It's goes from a 36.inch diameter culvert to about a 15, 18 foot wide blowout. It's just huge. It's massive, as the water has boiled in that section. And I'm just asking if there would be a general engineering for the entire length of it, so that there is continuity in the design and the flow of water. Zaremba: And that's an area that, essentially, needs to be repaired back to an original condition; is that what you're saying? Dalton: I would assume. Yeah. Uh-huh. Yeah. But it is an affect that's been caused by the property to the north. And I was concerned as to ongoing when this is all houses and all hardscape, what the drainage issues are representative to the adjacent neighbors. Those are my questions. Zaremba: We will ask all of that of Mr. Bailey. Anybody else care to speak? Okay. Now we are ready for Mr. Bailey. Bailey: Mr. Chairman -- Zaremba: I saw you taking notes, so you probably know what the questions are. Bailey: I did take -- I'll address a couple of them and, then, I'll let you -- then I will be quiet and you tell me what we need to talk about. Again, I'll restate from Mr. Gray's comments that those alley units are intended to be detached and we wouldn't object at all to that being added as a condition to the project. As to Mr. Wolf, I think the question comes up on the drainage here and where I have my information some -- while I've gone out to the site, I don't live there and so I'm not exactly sure what he's talking about. The water -- and I'm not denying that there is not standing water out there, I'm saying that our -- the way we will grade and create the park area there is so that it does not have standing water in that area. The concern of this site or what causes some of the problems is that the Ridenbaugh Canal effectively forms a cutoff. The site actually contours from southeast to northwest. And what I'm talking about, about no underground drains, there is currently not a drain on this side of the Ridenbaugh Canal that releases that water across Locust Grove or out to any drainage facility. So, the only way the site can really drain is to go uphill to Ten Mile Creek in that area. A significant amount of that water, in my opinion, anyway, that is out there is due to flood irrigation and a lot of it from this site. We will be -- we do have irrigation water that Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 23 of 118 comes into this property from the south, which drains into the site and is intended to go to the Ten Mile Creek and while it's going to be quite a bit of pipe, we will collect that, as we are required to do, bring that to the northwest corner and pipe it -- solid pipe, not a perforated, along the north boundary there to the Ten Mile Creek, so that irrigation runoff water can leave the site. Borup: Mr. Bailey, I think his question was probably an explanation of the swale drainage system. That's I think what he didn't understand. The roadside swales, Zaremba: How does that work? Borup: Maybe while they are looking for that, basically, it's the same system that we have had in existence for the last hundred and two hundred years, it's -- all the country roads have borrow pits on the side of them, so this is just refining that in a subdivision. Bailey: And I guess kind of to add to that, as far as the amount of water that rainfall that falls on the site doesn't change when we develop it, the way that it gets routed from that point does change when we develop it and that's what we are mostly concerned of -- concerned with. The reason I'm asking for the preliminary plat is we do have the cross- sections on there, on the preliminary plat, that shows the drainage swales. There is, actually, several different cross-sections on the preliminary plat that show the road and the drainage swales and that's the section approved by ACHD. In effect, the swale is nine feet wide and the edge of the ribbon curb and, then, you get to the sidewalk. So, it's a pretty substantial landscape strip between the edge of the ribbon curb and the sidewalk area. Rohm: That's part of the -- the lot or is that a common -- Bailey: It's all in the right of way. The public right of way. Rohm: Oh, that's in the public right of way. And will be maintained by the property owner? Bailey: By the property owners. Correct. And shown on this area here, they are required to be -- if I can read them, these are the cross-sections. There is some granular material in this area and the ability to grow grass on top of this is what you want, but you don't want to put sod in these in that that could cause them to hold water. And, then, there is two feet of sand and more gravel on the bottom of that and the way the numbers add up is the groundwater level could be as high as the very bottom, just kind of a mini seepage bed that's continuous along the sides of the road to make sure that these don't hold water and that the nuisance water doesn't sit in them and cause a mosquito breeding problem or kill the grass in there. Three feet from there to the invert of the swales and, then, by the time you get from the swale up to the road and back up to the center line of the road, it's four and a half feet total from the high groundwater up to the center line of the road. I hope that answers that question. And I did want to continue there and I have the report from materials testing. I submit these on a regular Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 24 of 118 basis to your staff as well. I think we just sent today one to Bruce. Today or yesterday. I just faxed it over. So, we have groundwater monitoring from June of last year to May of this year, so we have one full year of groundwater monitoring from wells installed on the site right now. One of the conditions is that we continue to monitor groundwater after the final plat is recorded, so that we can see that effect to make sure that we are not creating problems as we go along and either correct it in the next phase or correct it in the phase we already built if that groundwater continues to rise for some reason. Zaremba: I think the continued monitoring. I think that's fair, since flooding is one of the topics of discussion. Bailey: That's -- as Mr. Wolf commented on the traffic studies, the traffic study was done by Washington Group in accordance with ACHD standards submitted to them and, in fact, we updated the traffic report -- we had them review the traffic report with this preliminary plat and provide us a letter saying that they thought that the conditions were substantially the same as when they did the original traffic study on that. And I couldn't tell you off the top of my head, without reading through, what they assumed as far as the future development in that area, but, typically, the arterial street on the frontage would be affected by that and that's not necessarily what's the limiting factor in the traffic study. And I hope I didn't miss any. If I did -- Newton-Huckabay: What about the culvert to the -- Bailey: Oh, yes. As to the culvert on the southeast, I would -- I am planning on putting together a plan to grade that. We need to put a culvert in there. We need a permit, license agreement with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District to do that work and I'm sure the developer and I think it would be a good idea to do that work in that area as well and I would be glad to talk with Mrs. Dalton about how we do that and I guess who pays for what, but as far as getting that all put together, it does not affect the flood plane in doing that, but it certainly affects that appearance of the area out there and, then, the flood plane kind of goes away on her property as well when we move those. So, I don't have any problem with working with her at all on getting that taken care of while we will do the construction. I just can't speak to the developer about how he wishes or she might wish to pay for that portion. Zaremba: Okay. In your previous discussion I think you were talking about a culvert. Is there one there? Bailey: There is one culvert in this area that's approximately 36 inches. One in this area here and one here and they were constructed for farm access. Zaremba: And I -- in your previous discussion I thought you were only talking about two of them, but you're now saying that the third one, which appears to be mostly on your property, you're going to deal with all three of them? Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 25 of 118 Bailey: Yes. And, actually, this one wouldn't affect our flood plane, but it's on our property and we need to remove it for the area to the south, so we are going to be doing that construction there anyway and we will need to cooperate with Mrs. Dalton in that we are going to have to enter at least a little bit on her property there to get that done, both Nampa-Meridian -- like I say, it's in their easement and they could authorize that, but we certainly don't want to go on someone else's property without their permission. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Freckleton: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Yes. Freckleton: Could I ask a question of Mr. Bailey? Zaremba: Mr. Freckleton, please do. Freckleton: Dave, just -- a couple questions came up as we were looking at the section of ACHD's alternate design section. Your preliminary plat showed a rolled curb. Doesn't ACHD require a ribbon curb? Bailey: They do require a ribbon curb and their staff report requires the ribbon curb and we are -- Freckleton: Okay. So, your detail is just in error? Bailey: My preliminary plat has not been updated to show that. Freckleton: Okay. Second question is in regards to the Division of Environmental Quality's separation requirements from the bottom of a seepage bed to high groundwater is three feet. Has ACHD addressed that issue with DEQ regarding the bottom of these seepage beds along swales to high groundwater? Bailey: The standard I use is Ada County Highway District and it's ACHD roadside infiltration and swale criteria and design details and they have built several of these in Star and been approved by ACHD where the groundwater level was right at -- right at that level and so as far as separation, they are not considering this to be a seepage bed, in that it doesn't have a pipe that puts water into it, so the separation requirement is from the -- from the invert of the swale to that bottom and that's the three foot -- Freckleton: Okay. ACHD isn't considering it or DEQ isn't considering it? Bailey: DEQ is not. Freckleton: Okay. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 26 of 118 Zaremba: While Mr. Bailey is there, any other questions from staff? Guenther: Just one comment. There is a condition of approval in the -- under the Conditional Use Permit for the planned development that says that all setbacks will be standard R-8 setbacks, which includes the five-foot side setback. The original proposal did ask for a zero side setback and as detailed in the staff analysis I believe on page three, the Conditional Use Permit special condition I believe number two. Zaremba: Okay. Guenther: Number one. It's number one. Under setbacks. Zaremba: Tell me the page and number. Guenther: We have got page 24 under setbacks. Zaremba: The applicant is studying that. We will have his comment in a moment. Bailey: I am and the -- and the real planner just told me that the request there was for a three foot side setback on those alley-loaded lots that have the single family detached. Zaremba: Three feet on the side of the lot line, so -- Bailey: Yes. Borup: That's just a verbal request? That hasn't been made in writing? Guenther: Mr. Chairman, note number two on the plat says all side lot lines shall have a five-foot drainage and irrigation easement. So, how can you have a three-foot setback? As well as note number one on their preliminary plat says -- Bailey: Well, I'll do this to clear this up. We will go with five foot setbacks and if we need to lose a lot to get the buildings to fit appropriate in there, then, we will remove one lot from each side of that alley to make the buildings fit. We will comply with the setbacks. Rohm: Can't beat that. Borup: So, you're saying you will comply with what your plat says? Bailey: Exactly. Zaremba: Okay. So, it doesn't need to be revised, it already says that. Bailey: Right. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 27 of 118 Zaremba: Just so there is no confusion between what was discussed and what's on plat. Mr. Freckleton, you appear to be -- Freckleton: Just one more that I forgot about and that is the updated report that we did get on groundwater, well, basically all the updated reports that we have gotten on groundwater have only been representative of three test holes. Ten test holes were done originally across this site, but the updated information that we have gotten has only been on three of the ten. One of our requirements that we are proposing in our staff report is that the applicant is to provide us with a groundwater contour and that they should also maintain a minimum of five groundwater monitoring wells in the project. Those are the two-year monitorings. So, I guess the question I have got is why only three? How come we have only gotten monitoring information on three of the ten holes or does your geo tech feel that those three monitoring wells give him a representative sample of what is to be encountered across this site? Bailey: Yes, the geo tech and I both believe that that gives us a representative, because we dug all the holes and checked the groundwater levels in all the holes to start with and, then, we picked the three worst locations on the site to monitor and the low areas where we expect the water to drain to. If you'd like us to install additional ones to make you more comfortable, we would be happy to do that. But that's the first I have heard of that request and it's very standard for us to dig quite a few holes on a site and monitor the ones that we think are the representative of the highest groundwater level on a site. Zaremba: So, there are not ten reports, seven of which you're ignoring, you pick the worst ones and those are what you're reporting. Bailey: That's -- yes. Well, we have not been measuring the groundwater levels in the other seven on a regular basis. We have only been actually -- we are going out and measuring them every month on those three, which we -- which me and the geo tech decided were the ones that we wanted to monitor over the long run to determine where the worst high groundwater levels were. Zaremba: And are those the ones you plan to continue monitoring? Bailey: Yes. We are going to have to add two more to meet the conditions of approval, obviously, and we will add those additional monitoring wells. A total of five. Borup: So, was the city originally supplied the ten that were done initially? Bailey: Yes, they were. In the complete-- Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Okay. I guess I have no further questions. Any other Commissioners? Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 28 of 118 Newton-Huckabay: I have a couple -- Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: -- comments, I guess, on -- I'm kind of confused on the multi-use pathway. Is that addressed -- I didn't -- it seemed to me that staff was asking for three different spots. Guenther: Yeah. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, let me just -- well, if I can ask Mr. Bailey. Three spots are south on the Ten Mile Creek, east on the Ridenbaugh, and, then, it would be going west on the Ridenbaugh. What we have asked for is a -- an alternate proposal according -- for what is -- what the Comprehensive Plan calls for, which is an intersection at this location. We don't feel that that should be an intersection either. I mean we are in complete agreement with the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation. The original proposal dated the 26th does not have the connection from where the new bridge would be located here through to the north and on into Messina Meadows. Tonight they have even put on the record that that is what they are going to do and staff supports that. Newton-Huckabay: So the pathway question is resolved? Guenther: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Bailey: And I guess there is an e~mail that I have a copy of that Doug Strong had sent to Joe today confirming that he was fine with the way the -- your parks department was fine with the way that we are proposing the pathway on the property. Newton-Huckabay: And, then, my other comment -- or I guess this is just a comment. Kind of goes back to what Commissioner Moe said. It seems to me that the reduction in lot sizes is -- I would consider it somewhat a substantial reduction, making the product -- the project denser than I think maybe it should be. Is that kind of -- because you're reducing lots over 2,000 square feet; right? Because you have got 6,500 square foot as the minimum and you're requesting 44 -- well, I just want to know what the rest of you think about it. That seems like a substantial amount to me and it seems like -- I mean I understand when you're doing the alley-loaded pieces of the project, that those are quite small and that's what people who are buying those are looking for, but the rest of it seems a little dense for my taste. Zaremba: I would comment that I have had an opinion that, actually, has changed 180 degrees over the time that I have been on the commission. My original thought was we have these standards; we have these requirements, how come everybody is asking for deviation from them. You know, why have the requirements if we are approving all sorts of deviations. My opposing opinion on that, which is where I am now, is if we are talking about an R-8 zone, theoretically, you should be able to put eight dwelling units Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 29 of 118 on an acre. If you consider the setbacks and the landscape buffers and streets all that sort of stuff, we have an R-8 zone where they are asking for reduced lot sizes and they are still getting less than four per acre on it. How would anybody ever get eight units in an R-8 zone? It doesn't sound to me like it's mathematically possible and that has convinced me to be much more willing to allow people to at least approach eight, if they can, and in this case they are still not even making four, even asking for these reductions. So, I -- you know, I don't mean that to be everybody's opinion, but I have changed my opinion to say those original requirements, where ever they came from, are preventing the intent of the district, which is to get eight units to the acre. Newton-Huckabay: So, you're supposed to get 15 units on R-15? Zaremba: That would be my theory. Newton-Huckabay: And four on an R-4 and -- Zaremba: Uh-huh. Mr. Bailey appears to have a comment. Bailey: Well, if I could say when I first -- when I first -- Newton-Huckabay: Can't you put like 30 in an R-15 or something? Bailey: When I first -- the developer first brought me this project and I started doing layouts and working on what to put on the project, I did an R-8 in accordance with Meridian standards -- standard numbers on the -- and I don't have the exact number off the top of my head, but it was about 160 units, okay. In the R-8 zone with a square site, for example, on the west side of the road, Roseleaf, Chatsworth, those projects there, we were able to achieve just about four units to the acre with the straight R-8 zone. Now, knowing that we have the problems with the site, knowing that are going to provide some -- some alley-loaded and the groundwater levels and the issues with the site, made it reasonable for us to increase the open space significantly to avoid the highest groundwater areas and to -- and to open the streets and provide the 62 feet of right of way, that necessitated us to keep about the same number of lots and the goal density -- and it's not a density goal, although we are running into this in some other communities where we are getting -- we are getting yelled at for not hitting a certain number per acre. In order to keep it around that four to the acre range, we kept the same number of lots, but reduced the lot sizes and most of that transferred in there. If I came in with this as a straight R-8, 65 by 100 square foot lots in this project, I believe I can get the same -- about the same number of units. We may be six higher I think is probably where we are at. Because I can get about four to the acre on a layout of that. In the Boise R-8 I just know off the top of my head I can get about five to the acre with 5,000 square lots. I mean it's just -- I do it enough that I know where they are. And we could probably get close to that with a straight R-8. I think this provides the same number of units, it provides a diversity in housing type, provides roadside swales, provides open space for the homeowners here and that's big enough that -- while it's not a public park, it's certainly bigger for the neighbors -- big enough for the Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 30 of 118 neighborhood to -- for the surrounding neighborhoods to also use if they care to in that area and I think it provides a good project and takes into account the physical constraints of the site, which are significant, so -- Newton-Huckabay: Fair enough. Borup: I would just comment. I have the same feeling. You know, you wonder about these smaller lots, but -- because I kind of see the opposite problem, there is not enough large lots. But if there wasn't a demand, then, they wouldn't be selling. So, obviously, there is a market demand. I think the other factor, going along with what you had mentioned, Commissioner -- or Chairman, is that not only the zoning, but it's already designated in the Comprehensive Plan as medium density, which is three to eight. So, that's -- that was decided three years ago, that that was what this area was intended for was medium density. And that's what they are complying with, three to eight. They are on the low side of the Comprehensive Plan, but it's -- yeah, the numbers don't really work. They have never been able to comply with the dimensional standards and reach the density of -- if R-4 is supposed to be four per acre. That's been the case from as long as Meridian's had zoning, I believe. Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Yeah. Just one last comment. Number one, I would say that -- back to my earlier question of Mr. Bailey earlier, I would say that, Mr. Chairman, your answer was great and, Mr. Bailey, your second answer you just gave was much better than the first and more concise and you had time to think about it, I guess, because you sold me on that one. Bailey: Thank you. Newton.Huckabay: Yeah. Me, too. Zaremba: Okay. Commissioners, any further questions or comments? Staff? Bailey: Thank you. Guenther: The only confusion with the setbacks is it should have been taken care of. If there is any other questions, it's just that through this process, the original application that came in had different requests and they changed through the resubmittals. The submittal as of -- that's dated April 26 does indicate that the minimum setback request for the CUP, there was no change to that, which means that they would have accepted the regular R-8 and that was on the later submittal, not the original one. Other than that, I think most of the questions have been answered. Anything else for me? Zaremba: Look at page 16 of your report for a minute, if you would. The site specific conditions, preliminary plat, number one. You state -- because you were just on that Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 31 of 118 subject, you state preliminary plat prepared by Bailey Engineering, dated January 6, 2005, is approved with the conditions. Should we change that to April 26, '05? Guenther: That is correct. I believe that was a typo. I had to go back and change all of those dates and I must have missed one. Zaremba: Okay. So, on page 16, paragraph one, that needs to be the date April 26, '05, received by the city clerk April 29th, if that makes a difference. So, we are talking about the same one. Okay. Commissioners? Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-007, PP 05-009, and CUP 05-008. Borup: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor please say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Do we need any discussion? We appear to be ready to proceed, if you care to. Moe: Just a couple of questions. Do we -- do we need to reference the walking path that he's -- that they said they are going to put in on the north side? Does that need to be in the preliminary plat? Guenther: The preliminary plat does -- there is a condition of approval in there that indicates that the applicant has the -- that staff is requiring that the applicant provide a walking -- or the multi-path connection to the Ridenbaugh Canal to the east of the site, in cooperation with the other developments and as stated on the record it should be sufficient. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: There was one other item during the discussion that -- Moe: That's from the CUP you're talking about -- Zaremba: Yeah. That was agreed to. Moe: -- the lot line -- the zero lot line? Yeah. I have got that. Zaremba: Yeah. Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 32 of 118 Moe: That would be in the CUP. So, having said that -- there wouldn't be anything on the -- Borup: The setback is already covered in the staff report. Moe: Well, that's right here. Borup: Mr. Chairman? The setback -- I mean it's covered, because it's on the plat, but didn't you say -- and you also have in the staff report that it would comply with R-8 setback standards; is that correct? Guenther: That's correct. Borup: So, we have got it covered in two areas, then. Guenther: Yes. There is one additional consideration in the staff report and that is the 20-foot to a garage, which would be -- if the sidewalk is there, it's a standard obstruction for a 20-foot truck in the driveway. Moe: That's already in there. Borup: That's in there, too. Guenther: They are all in there. Zaremba: Do we need to add a requirement to monitor five locations for -- Guenther: That is in there. Zaremba: Okay. Way ahead of us. Guenther: We have spent a lot of time on this application. Moe: Okay. So, I'm on the preliminary plat. Okay. In that case, Mr. Chairman -- Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: -- I move that we forward to City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-007. Guenther: Mr. Chairman, may I also add something? Zaremba: Yes. Guenther: The current submittal is still lacking a few of the considerations and we would just like to have maybe a condition that says that the applicant shall submit to staff in order to forward these changes onto City Council, I'd like to make sure that City Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 33 of 118 Council has the changes that we have discussed tonight in front of them when they hear this. Zaremba: Ten days prior to the next hearing. Guenther: To the City Council hearing. Unless you would like to see the changes prior to -- before it moves on. Otherwise, staff would just like to make sure that our records are correct. Currently, the last landscape plan that we have received is dated January 6th and it doesn't take into reference any of the changes that have been made through the April 26th submission either. So, it would just be nice to have the most current version going to City Council, please. Zaremba: So, the question is do we feel we need to see all that before we make our recommendation. The applicant has agreed to, essentially, everything in -- in the staff report and we are ending up not modifying much of that. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: I think just adding the requirement that they have the plans to staff by ten days before the next hearing would be -- Borup: We have only been seeing this for four months, so -- so your question is do we want to do it one more month? Rohm: No. I know the answer to that one. Moe: Shouldn't that go in the preliminary plat as well? In those comments? I think we can -- we can be assured that staff is going to take a look all that and make sure it's fine before it goes on to Council. Zaremba: Except the requirement is that they have it ten days before that. That's what we are adding is -- Moe: Applicant will submit ten days -- updated plans ten days prior to City Council hearing. That will work -- Zaremba: Is that part of your current motion? Moe: It will when I get to it. Zaremba: Oh. Okay. I'm sorry. Moe: I'm not there yet. I have, actually, made a motion to-- Newton-Huckabay: I think you need to restart it. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 34 of 118 Moe: I'm going to restart it. Zaremba: Let's restart the motion, please. Moe: I will as soon as I find -- that's what I'm looking for here. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-007, to include all staff comments for the hearing date of June 2nd, 2005, received by the city clerk's office May 27, 2005. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: And Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of PP 05-009, to include all staff comments of the hearing date June 2nd, 2005, received by the city clerk's office May 27,2005, with the following change: On page 16 of the report, under item -- under site specific conditions, item number one, I would like to change the date noted there as January 6. 2005, change that to April 26, 2005, and also I would like to add an item 19, to read: The applicant will submit updated plans for this development ten days prior to the City Council hearings. End of motion. Borup: Second. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of CUP 05-008, to include staff comments for the hearing date of June 2nd, 2005, received by the city clerk's office May the 27th, with the following change: Under site specific conditions, general -- of a Conditional Use Permit, on page 25, I would like to add an item number Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 350f118 five to read that all -- at all alley access lots no zero lot line adjustments -- no zero lot line lots will be allowed. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. Allin favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 9: Item 10: Item 11: Continued Public Hearing from May 5, 2005: AZ 05-013 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 120.15 acres from R1, RUT, C-G and I-L zones to C-G, I-L and L-O zones for Pinebridge Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - east of North Locust Grove Road and south of East Fairview Avenue: Continued Public Hearing from May 5, 2005: PP 05-015 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 55 building lots and 7 other lots on 120.15 acres in proposed C-G, I-L and L-O zones for Pinebridge Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - east of North Locust Grove Road and south of East Fairview Avenue: Continued Public Hearing from May 5, 2005: CUP 05-020 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for commercial I office I industrial and multi-family uses in proposed C-G, I-L and L-O zones for Pinebridge Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - east of North Locust Grove Road and south of East Fairview Avenue: Zaremba: Thank you very much. The next two items I believe we can dispose of quickly, so let's try those before we take our break, if I may. I will open -- or reopen the continued Public Hearing for AZ 05-013, and PP 05-015, and CUP 05-020, and entertain a motion to continue these again to our meeting of August 4th. They all relate to the Pinebridge Subdivision, which has not been settled on with ACHD yet. Rohm: So moved. Zaremba: Okay. Do we have a second? Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second to continue these three items to August 4th. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 36 of 118 Item 12: Item 13: Public Hearing: AZ 05-019 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 10.9 acres from RUT to C-G zone for Dorado Subdivision by Kimball Properties, LLC - NWC of South Eagle Road and East Overland Road: Public Hearing: PP 05-020 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 16 commercial building lots on 10.9 acres in a proposed C-G zone for Dorado Subdivision by Kimball Properties, LLC - NWC of South Eagle Road and East Overland Road: Zaremba: I will open the public hearings for AZ 05-019 for Dorado Subdivision and we have a correction to make. Item 13 is listed as PP 05-020. That reference number is actually incorrect. The correct number is PP 05-024. All other -- all other information is correct, but the file number should be PP 05-024. So, I will open the Public Hearing on that one as well and the request is to continue that to our meeting of July 7th. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we continue these two public hearings AZ 05-019 and PP 05-024, to our regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning meeting July 7th, 2005. End of motion. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: As we are approaching 9:00 o'clock, which is a traditional time for us to take a break, we will take about a ten-minute break and, then, we will reconvene. (Recess.) Item 14: Item 15: Item 16: Public Hearing: AZ 05-017 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 137.96 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Messina Meadows Subdivision by Tuscany Development, Inc. - on South Eagle Road between West Victory Road and West Amity Road: Public Hearing: PP 05-019 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 491 building lots and 67 other lots on 136.72 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Messina Meadows Subdivision by Tuscany Development, Inc. - on South Eagle Road between West Victory Road and West Amity Road: Public Hearing: CUP 05-026 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for single-family detached residential building units Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 37 of 118 and single-family attached patio homes in a proposed R-8 zone for Messina Meadows Subdivision by Tuscany Development, Inc. - on South Eagle Road between West Victory Road and West Amity Road: Zaremba: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. We will reconvene this meeting. Let the record show that all Commissioners are again present. I will open the public hearings now for AZ 05-017, request for annexation and zoning --annexation and zoning of 137.96 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Messina Meadows Subdivision. I will also open Public Hearing PP 05-019, request for preliminary plat approval of 491 building lots and 67 other lots on 136.72 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Messina Meadows Subdivision and I will also open Public Hearing CUP 05-026, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for a single family detached residential building units and single family attached patio homes in a proposed R-8 zone for Messina Meadows Subdivision. All of these projects by Tuscany Development, Inc., and located on South Eagle Road between West Victory Road and West Amity Road and we will begin with the staff report. Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. You're correct, this is an annexation and zoning of 136 acres and a preliminary plat for 491 single family residential lots. Yes. Moe: I hope we can maybe -- thank you. Guenther: Thank you. Moe: I can't hear you. Zaremba: Thank you. Guenther: I was going to try to be extra loud. Okay. I think now it's a little better. The Conditional Use Permit for the site is for the development of reduced minimum lot frontages, lot sizes, and this is for creation of a -- like a park style patio -- or not patio, but a parkway home style, which would have different type of frontages on a different private road system, instead of on a public road. And the reduced lot sizes, obviously, is going to be in the roughly 4,000 square range. Actually, it would be 3,600 square foot minimum. The site is located immediately east of the previous hearing item, which is west of Eagle Road and north of Amity and is also north of the Ten Mile Creek, which is the southwestern border of the property. The site is phased in four phases. The first phase would be contiguous to the existing Tuscany development, which is immediately north of this site, which is the Messina Hills projects. The access -- the main access would be taken off of Eagle Road approximately a quarter mile south of the property line. There is a public park that is proposed in this location that was a portion of the original proposal for the compliance with the Comprehensive Plan for Section 29 of this township. And that is in this location here, which will be developed also in the first phase. This is kind of a little better understanding of what you're looking at. The parkway style homes are in this location. The center lines here are the private areas Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 38 of 118 leading into the larger city park. The site does have the same issues -- one of the same issues as the previous project, which is the Ten Mile Creek flood plane, again, along the southwestern border of the project. This does encompass a significant number -- well, quite a bit of -- a number of homes, but, primarily, those homes are located in the fourth phase of this development and, as anticipated, it should be completed and this area is most likely going to be retained within the Ten Mile Creek channel. Thank you. I could not find that word. The site photos here -- this is, actually, taking a photo south of the Messina Hills project, looking west on -- this is the drainage ditch that is providing drainage to the site. This is the Eight Mile lateral in this location here and this is taken immediately off of what is the future De Vinci Way and if you recall from the previous proposal, these trees here is where the Ten Mile Creek comes across -- the multi-use pathway would come into this location at -- through the Messina Meadows proposal and cross the drainage ditch at this location and provide connection into Tuscany Lakes development and into the future city park. This is a photo taken south looking on to Di Vinci. Again, this is not high groundwater, it was raining the day that I took these photos. This is, again, the drainage ditch that is immediately in that vicinity. You can see the Ten Mile feeder in this location that runs mostly through this site in a central locale and hooks into the -- hooks into the Ridenbaugh Canal and provides for irrigation water as a lateral. This is a site photo showing the western portion -- or the eastern portion of the site. There are houses being built currently in Messina Hills proposal and approximately where these trees are here, that is where Eagle Road would be. This drainage ditch does provide a significant portion of the drainage and the applicant has included that into their master site drainage and grading plan and I believe this one is going to be tiled in order to facilitate any type of safety issues that would come with this type of major drainage system in that -- in that location. And that would be drained into the Ten Mile Creek approximately in this location. The standard homes for this site would be this type of a product, which would be the -- fairly similar product to what is in Messina Hills and the parkside styles are similar to these elevations being submitted here. The -- one more point of issue is that this is a two layered comprehensive designation as well. The centerline of -- you can kind of see where the properties break there, is -- north of there is medium density residential and south of this is low density residential. The applicant has indicated that they need a bump up in density. The bump up in density is not very significant. I believe it is to a 3.2, approximately, and, similarly, the largest lots of this subdivision do occur in this location along Amity and through the Ten Mile Creek area, which are between the 9,000 and upwards of 15,000 square feet, which staff is supportive of the bump up in density for that site. Again, there is several drainage systems and irrigation systems that the applicant will address. However, they do not have the significant groundwater issues as the previous development and staff is confident that the conditions of approval should be able to meet the needs of the future residents of the City of Meridian. I will stand for questions at this time. Staff is recommending approval. Zaremba: Commissioners, questions? Thank you. Would the applicant care to come forward? Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 39 of 118 Brown: For the record, Kent Brown, 1800 West Overland, Boise, Idaho. We have been working for some time on this site. Originally, our clients came in and roughly about 70 acres that was adjacent to the Tuscany development that we have previously submitted and they went out and started picking up the other properties before we submitted. Joe, can you go back to the plan that's right after the preliminary plat. Great. What our design has is we have a residential collector coming in off of Eagle Road, Mona Lisa. Moe: There is a pointer there. Brown: If you want to see me shake. Mona Lisa right here. That residential collector comes all the way in from Eagle Road and takes you to the park. We have been working with the parks department on this park site. You also have a collector that comes in this way, feeding into the same general area, and, then, we have a connection to Bellingham that you heard previously. We also have three connections from -- one from Messina Village and two from Messina Hills. This is the Ridenbaugh Canal in this location right here. Many of the pictures that Joe showed you there is -- there is an existing drain ditch that starts at this point and runs over to this point where it goes in with the Ten Mile feeder. We are proposing to tile that the entire distance, all the way to our property line, and in the area that Bellingham was talking about that they had that space, that's a part of this same area. They have a drain in that area. If they tile it, then, they will have that walking path and that's where our walking paths would be. This is the Ten Mile feeder. We have approached Boise project and the Bureau of Rec. about realigning that, picking it up at this point and tiling it to this side of Montigue and, then, having it open from that point through the city park and, then, coming in and tying in at its original location. We are working with Nampa-Meridian as to how that -- they want that to happen and Boise project or -- they are trying to work together on that. This is the Grimmit ditch here that comes across and dead ends at this -- this property. We are proposing right now to pick it up and tile it to our drain, because we are the end of the ditch, we are going to be a part of Nampa-Meridian's pressure irrigation system and we don't need that delivery point. As I promised Commissioner Moe, I'm excited to talk to you about these smaller lots that we have designed. Joe, could you turn that overhead on? I think that shows -- here is Mona Lisa that comes in off from Eagle Road here at this location and goes over to the city park and the city park sits down here. One of the things that we are finding in the marketplace is there is a lot of people that are not like my wife, they don't want to mow lawn, and this would be a great place for them to live, because, basically, everything is maintained. What's exciting about these lots here is you have a traditional street look -- traditional streets here with -- they are private streets, so they are narrower, but we have a little parking lot in the center, but we still have 20-foot setbacks from the garages. So, from a normal street it looks fairly similar. It doesn't look like an alley. It's a street. They have street addresses. And the exciting part for us is what you would normally have I guess considered the backyard, we are dressing up and making it look like the front and you have the front yard that's a little parkway between the houses. We have seen these projects, there is the -- I think it's Prospect in Colorado and there is another one in Pennsylvania, that had similar type of lots. There has also been one in Boise that used alleys. But we are using these public streets. We have thrown in these little parking stalls in the center and provided a Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 40 of 118 means to go north-south also walking. So, you have lots of walking trails in this whole area. The feedback that we have been getting -- and I have been getting it through other projects -- is that certain buyers, because that they are -- how busy they are, they just want a nice home -- and these will be really nice. As you looked at those elevations, it's not meaning that they are going to be smaller, but they are going to be nice homes on these smaller lots, but, then, they have shared space that someone else is taking care of. Someone is mowing, someone -- so, you could have an empty nester, you could have, you know, a single professional or just someone that -- I think my first analogy is someone not like my wife, that doesn't like to mow the lawn and we have got a half an acre and she can feed her fetish and mow as much lawn as she wants, but not everybody wants that and so they are seeing a need that's why they have designed these type of lots. We have also created to the south the larger lots in that lower area. Some of those are quite deep, to meet the other end of the market, that Keith had talked about in the previous application and the larger homes. We have been successful at Tuscany Village, we basically tried to use our experiences there with the alternative street section that the highway district has, that's proposed in this phase also. We are also taking the lot sizes that have been good for us in Tuscany Village and Tuscany Lakes and those and we expect those to be built and completed and moved down into these and so we have created the lot sizes that have been good to us in those and are going down. In the previous application there was much discussion about water. Because we did Tuscany Village and Tuscany Lakes and all the Messina stuff, we are very familiar with the water in the area and we have been doing the testing and this site has, according to our initial preliminary reports, less water than we have been dealing with and so we feel very confident to go forward and are excited to be approved. And I will stand for any questions. Zaremba: Commissioners? Commissioner Moe. Moe: Yeah. I have a couple. Just to go back to the water issue. That's in your planned phase four; is that correct? That area? Brown: You're talking about the Ten Mile Creek; correct? Moe: Yeah. Brown: Where the flood plane is. Moe: Yeah, Brown: A majority of that is in our phase four, yes. Moe: And, then, the other thing is we were -- we were discussing the units near the park and you said that was a public street. You said it's not an alley, it's a public street, so -- what's our width on those? I'm trying to -- I mean it's not public street width, is it? Brown: We have -- we have Montigue that goes in between the two -- Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 41 of 118 Moe: Right. Brown: -- is a public street. Moe: Right. Brown: And this is also a pUblic street that wraps around here and, then, this is a street here and this is a street here and this one are private. There is three private streets in there. Moe: Okay. What's the width on the private streets? Brown: Twenty-four feet. Moe: Okay. Brown: That was something that we worked out with Joe Silva and the fire department. Moe: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Could you kind of point out those alley-loaded homes around there? Brown: Joe, could you go to the elevations? Okay. From the private street we have a door access, so if the pizza delivery guy comes and drives to the street access, that's what he's seeing. This is the same elevation for a two-car garage off of that private street. That's the back of the house. That's the ugly side. Joe, go to the other one. That's the front. That's what you would see from the park side. And I know it didn't come up here and it wasn't something we asked for, but the setbacks are very clear in our conditions, but these houses have five foot from the property line from each other and what we are proposing, if you were to look at that elevation again -- or the site plan, we are proposing to grant easement to let's say this house for all that area in between those houses and, then, this guy here would have all the area between the next two houses. Newton-Huckabay: So, they don't build fences. Brown: They don't build fences. So, actually, we have more room in between our units from the fire department standpoint, because we don't have a fence just five foot off of the building, we have ten feet in between the buildings, which I think is an added -- in the area where you would have a backyard with a bunch of fences going out, that's -- that nice elevation that we are seeing here, with a parkway in the center, we are hoping that, you know, the mailbox and all of that stuff can be out there and that these people will walk back and forth and they have places that they walk to that connect to paths and that's, I guess, one of the reasons why I'm excited about it. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 42 of 118 Newton-Huckabay: I think it's a really cool idea. I will be interested in seeing how it does. Brown: We have a builder for those lots, too. Moe: Just looking at your plan here, it actually shows those private streets to be 20 foot. Is there -- Brown: Initially there was and we worked with the fire department-- Moe: Oh. Okay. Brown: They had some other comments, they had some things they wanted us to do, and we agreed to 24-foot and there is a condition in there that says 24-foot. Moe: Thank you. Zaremba: I have a couple questions. One, there was some discussion -- although I don't think there was a condition. Discuss, if you would, parking for the park. Is there a plan for that? Any off-street parking? Brown: We haven't proposed any. That -- go to the site plan. The next one. There. We have a single sided street here. The parks department -- basically what we have agreed to do for them -- we are giving them the park, we are greening it up, and, then, they need to take care of the restrooms, the parking, and anything else that they want to do. I discussed some options with them, but it's against what these guys want, but it's similar to what they approved on the boys and girls side is some parallel parking. You don't eat into a huge amount of area. They could just have parking at an angle right there and they could back out into the travel way or you could provide enough room that they could back out. But that's something that the parks department will do in the future. Zaremba: Okay. And the other -- I appreciated your testimony on the previous issue about the flood plane, but it would be nice to have the same discussion on the record for this one. You're comfortable that removing the culverts on the project to your east is going to solve your flood plane problem? Brown: Correct. As previously discussed on Bellingham, we have a letter from Paul Coonts that's in here stating that from his -- his knowledge and experience that when those three culverts are removed that that will alleviate the problem. We had -- Moe: That would be to the west, not to the east. Brown: I'm sorry. To the west. Correct. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 43 of 118 Zaremba: To the west. Brown: Thank you. Zaremba: I did misspeak. Brown: We had the same experience on Tuscany Lakes when we did that application and we -- it goes back to a detailed versus a non-detailed and he's done a detailed analysis and so now he can file a detailed study when those culverts are removed. Zaremba: So, you're comfortable that FEMA's acceptance of your letter of map revision is going to be forthcoming without too much difficulty? Brown: Correct. Zaremba: Is that what you're saying? Brown: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Moe: Just one more for just clarification. When you say you're going to green up the park, does that include the irrigation for that greening up? Brown: That's correct. Moe: Very nice. Brown: We are going to be grading it, because there is a number of ditches and drains on it now. We are going to be filling that and alleviating that. Moe: That is a great amenity for the city and for this development. Brown: One of the things that I think is -- to help give you a little comfort is that the Ten Mile really starts at Columbia Road, so not much further south it -- at Columbia Road it basically starts at the creek and that's where they used to water the stages that would go out to Kuna and there was a -- there is a hill that they'd go up and they cross right there, but there was a spring that kind of starts the Ten Mile and the Ten Mile, then, follows along and comes up to this site. So, you know, a mile and a half is all that there is, the distance between us and there and three-quarters of that first section is golf course that it runs through, so -- Zaremba: Thank you. And Steven Stark, please. Stark: My name is Steve Stark and my family and I live at 2630 East Amity Road. We are the property down on the bottom there. That property right there. And we are being Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 44 of 118 affected dramatically by the development of Messina Meadows. We know that development is inevitable, but we are asking the Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee only to approve the application conditional on the developer taking some action to mitigate some of the impact on us. Some of our concerns are our property line -- on the east side of our property line. The proposed plat map shows property being developed inside our long established fence line. We have a fence line along the -- on the east side there. This long-established fence line is evidence of an agreed upon boundary and our attorney has advised us that by the doctrine of boundary by acquiescence, the fence is a legal border for our property. We have thousands of dollars in trees and landscaping along the east side there and we'd like to keep them. Another thing that we are concerned about -- could you go to the site plan also, please, Joe? We would like the developer to protect us from light glare and on the southeast portion of our property there is a -- kind of an unconventional driveway that points right into our bedroom window there as you come into that bend there -- Moe: Could you use the pointer, please? Stark: Right there. Yeah. There we go. There is a driveway there that feeds two lots there and that points that -- points right into our bedroom window. I went out there and looked out there and you can see right into our -- my wife was in our bathroom and you can see out there, so -- the other concern we have is this road right here comes down and it goes into the back of our bedroom windows and, then, Lynn Acey's property is right here and, normally, he drives up and down his driveway here, but he's going to have an access here and he has to drive around behind the house and around and that will be shining in that way. So, anyway, we'd ask the developer to protect us from light glare and this proposed plan has headlight glaring into our house from three directions, from the north and the east and the driveway from Lot 6, Block 9, and we'd ask that you, please, add a berm and a six foot vinyl fence, a solid privacy fence, together high enough so glare from traffic doesn't enter our house and change the direction of that South Messina Way would -- while still allowing us access for future development, would also help us. In addition, we have horses and we have a hot wire around our property and I think anything less than a berm and a six-foot fence would give you a hazard for non-horse people reaching over the fence to a hot wire. So, it will be hot wired when this development is done still, so -- because the horses will chew on a vinyl fence. I'd like the developer to address the lack of privacy. Our house, if you look at a picture that's on the front page, it's all windows facing the foothills, all the windows, we have got like 15 sets of blinds in all those windows there and we ask the approved plat would restrict Lots 6, 8, 9 and 10 of Block 9, to single story houses, so people cannot peer into our house. Our bedroom, bathroom, dining and kitchen windows all face northeast. In the event the flood plane is narrowed, your property is built to our west; we request a six-foot vinyl solid privacy fence along that west line. Like right now it's in the flood plane, you couldn't put a solid fence, but in the event that that was narrowed and built right, you know, develop that whole area, we would ask that they fence that. Standing water -- all that we are concerned with is that -- we are concerned about -- there is standing water on Eagle Road right now. That picture was taken yesterday, so -- and all we want is a guarantee the development doesn't create standing water on Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 45 of 118 Amity Road, you know, because we have had three cars drive through our fence in the past five years and standing water would create ice problems and more of a hazard, so -- or any flooding on our property. We presently flood irrigate and we want to be -- make -- be assured we can keep our ability to irrigate our pasture and we would like -- request to have pressurized irrigation. And utilities, we have sewer and water service when available to be stubbed out to our property line, so in the future when we are in the city we would be able to hook up to it. And, you know, on the zoning to R-8 versus R-4, I mean we are clearly in low density residential down there and there is no reason to make it R-8. If R-8 means 3,600 square foot lots, there is no reason to make low density anything other than R-4. And Kathy and I have lived in the houses we are talking about. You know, we were talking about the alley houses and small lots, we have lived in those houses. You can't call them medium density and -- and they are far enough away from us where it's not -- I'm not saying it's a big issue, but it's not medium density. It's high density, no matter how you look at it. Anyway, we are in a low density and we would ask the Commission to leave it R-8 -- I mean R-4 -- leave it R-4. And in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan, the low-density designation, so it's not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. And, thank you, I'm done. Any questions? Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions? Newton-Huckabay: I have one. On this property, have you talked to the developer at all? Stark: The developer has never contacted us at all. I found out through the grapevine who the engineer was. Mr. Brown was very helpful. He showed me the plans, told me who the developer was. I called -- he had a -- a young man came out -- the young man that came out, his name was Shay, he wasn't sure if the property next to us was the developer -- that the property would be developed or not. He was very unsure. He said he thought it was, but he wasn't sure. I thought it was important to get it on -- you know, since he wasn't sure, I thought it was important to show up and make it clear. Borup: So, he came out to you and didn't even have a copy of a preliminary plat? Stark: He did not. Now, Kent showed it to me. Borup: Okay. So, you already knew, then? Stark: What's that? Borup: You already knew that it was? Stark: Was what? Borup: That it was being developed. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 46 of 118 Stark: I wasn't positive I had the right one, other than -- you know, in other words, I thought I was positive, until he came out and said he doesn't know for sure. Borup: But you had a copy of this? Stark: No. I didn't have a copy of -- Borup: Kent showed you a copy of this? Stark: Yeah, Kent -- I went to Kent's office and he showed it to me. Borup: Right. And you didn't know what your property -- where your property was on this? Stark: Not -- I knew where my property was. I did not know that they were going to put stakes ten feet in on our property line until they came out and did it. Borup: Oh, that's what you're talking about. Stark: Yeah. Right. Yeah. Came out and did it. Yeah. Borup: And your statement on that was because you were or your previous owner made a mistake on the fence line, this other property owner should be penalized? Stark: No. My statement on that is Idaho. I sought the advice of an -- Borup: I understand. But it was still -- but they still improperly -- they put the fence in the wrong location. Stark: I think it was put in the late 70s, early '80s. I have no clue how old that fence is, but it's extremely old. There is mature trees along the fence line. There is irrigation along the fence line. I'm saying that because the developer comes along, I should not lose my irrigation ditch, my mature trees, and the fence line. It should be -- I should follow state law. It's a fence that's been left alone for years and years and years and when I bought the property, the property owner showed it to me and said that's your fence line and that other fence line is the other seven acres. Borup: Who told you that? Stark: The owner I bought it from. Borup: You didn't get it surveyed, then? Stark: No. No. There is no survey in that area. Yeah. We went back and asked for old surveys -- Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 47 of 118 Borup: Well, I mean when you bought the property you didn't ask for a survey? Stark: No. No. But the person we bought it from owned the property around us, too. So, there was no reason for us to doubt that. Borup: I had another question on -- that the road that came in from the side you -- Stark: Yes. Borup: Is the plat showing your house location, is that fairly accurate, or is that -- Stark: No. It's-- Borup: It's not accurate. Stark: It's not accurate. No. In fact, it shows Lynn Acey's barn as being a dinky little barn and it's huge, It shows our shop being huge. It's dinky. It's not to scale and it's not accurate. What I did -- Borup: So, the location of the house was not accurate either? Stark: Not on that drawing. Right. That I had that we got from the city. Right. It's not accurate. In fact, if you take that driveway and head in there and take a flashlight, it will shine right into our bedroom. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Can I finish my question now? Borup: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: On the property line, do you want -- on that east property line -- I know we have the question of where the property line actually is, but, then, do you want a berm and a vinyl fence? So, you want to take out the trees anyway? Stark: No. I want to be assured that -- I don't want our trees taken out. What I do want is glare protection. So, if you have to raise up a six foot fence, that's fine, but we don't -- what we don't want is we don't -- the plans call for a five foot vinyl and that would not be adequate for glare control. And I don't want to tell somehow how to do glare control, but I do know I don't want the people 50 or 60 feet away from our bedroom with headlights in our bedroom. That's what -- Newton-Huckabay: No. I understand. I'm just trying to understand -- Stark: In other words -- Newton-Huckabay: If the mature trees are on the property line -- Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 48 of 118 Stark: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: -- and they are grown up and, then, a five foot fence -- Stark: Won't do it. Newton-Huckabay: Is there enough room? I mean will -- Stark: I don't know. Newton-Huckabay: What are your mature trees screening now? Stark: Well, they are -- we have one -- one extremely mature tree that's been there -- a deciduous tree right there, but it's not right where that driveway is, it's a little further down here and we have some, you know, 20 foot tall evergreen trees that have been there. So, I'm not saying I know how they are going to do it, but I do know I don't want a car pulling in here 50 feet from my bedroom shining right in my bedroom window. Newton-Huckabay: Right. Stark: That's what I don't want. I also don't want to be in our bedroom and have cars coming down here and have the headlights on the back of our house. I mean the boys' bedrooms are upstairs and our bedroom is downstairs and all of our windows are -- to the bedrooms are facing northeast and so they are -- you know, they are wide open to all the cars coming down those two ways. And, Lynn, when he drives up and down the driveway here, it's no big deal, you know. But if they are going to access this from the road and come around and face our house every single time you pull into the driveway, it's going to be -- it's going to be a glare problem. Moe: What do you have on your north property line as far as -- Stark: Barbed wire fence. Moe: Barbed wire fence? Any other obstructions -- Stark: And a hot wire. Moe: So, in fact, a berm could be built there? Stark: Yeah. Yeah. Moe: I guess what I would be curious about is if something was done, would it be able to be built on your property, if it was paid for by others? Stark: Yeah. I'm not imagining like a 35-foot berm, you know, I'm imagining a small -- I'm just saying that a six foot fence _M Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 49 of 118 Moe: No. I understand. Stark: -- is probably not adequate for -- Moe: What I'm, basically, referring to is if we have -- we have a plat that's put out here and, you know, dimensions and everything else, I'm just trying to get a -- Stark: Yeah. There is plenty of room back there, yeah, for that. Newton-Huckabay: I guess that was my question that wasn't articulated well. Is there room on your property for a berm? Stark: Well, there is an irrigation -- irrigation ditch right along that fence. Moe: On the southeast not, but on the north it would be fine. Stark: Right. So, yeah, the north side there is not a problem. There is no irrigation -- the water flows this way, you know, so -- on this side, if we were to get pressurized irrigation, we could give up the ditch and there could be a small berm built there. So something adequate to stop these -- you more -- usually when you pull into a house, like if you pull into this house, there is a house and a garage and stuff like this, but if you're pulling into a driveway that's pointing right into our house, it's different and there is not one, but two houses when they pull in there. Newton-Huckabay: I wonder if that lot could be made more triangular? Stark: This is the only where there is -- Newton-Huckabay: Sorry. Did you get what I said? Stark: But as long as there is access from this road coming this way, we are going to have the same problem. Newton-Huckabay: Right. But if there was a house there -- Stark: Right. Yeah. Right now our nearest neighbor is 300 feet away -- or 350 feet away. And so what we would like is to mitigate some of the impact of a total lack of privacy we are going to have is -- that's why we are asking for one story houses in these four lots is ~- is for some measure of privacy. We are going to lose all of our privacy, but we'd like some measure, so we are not -- like have a wall of houses with people right there. Zaremba: Okay. Any further questions from the Commissioners? Thank you, sir. Stark: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 50 of 118 Zaremba: Let's see. No one else has signed up to speak, but this is an opportunity if somebody would like to. Sir, come ahead. Groves: Commissioners, my name is Craig Groves. I reside at 3920 East Shady Glen Court in Boise, Idaho. Let me first publicly apologize to Mr. and Mrs. Stark for not taking the time to visit with them about the impacts of this development on their property and I want to assure the Commissioners that we will take an opportunity between this meeting and City Council to visit with them and try to adequately address their concerns. One of the reasons -- the reason we didn't visit with them, the property that lies -- the property that they -- that lies to the east of theirs and runs back and flags back in the back of their property, we worked on trying to acquire that property for a year and a half. We didn't actually get a final agreement on that property until about less than 30 days ago. She agreed to annex and sign the -- allow us to submit the application. We didn't have a firm price or terms or anything like that and so we were, frankly, up in the air on whether that property was even going to be part of the -- of the plat. So, we do have an agreement with Mrs. Hall that owns the property, she lives down in Utah, and so, you know, consequently, that's really the reason we never talked to Mr. and Mrs. Stark, because didn't know if we were going to develop next to them or not. Now, we do know that. We appreciate their concerns. We will try to address their concerns. I would like to point out just a couple of things. The private lane or alley that comes in off of -- that comes in on the east side of their property and has one lot there, that access is quite a ways north of their property, okay, and I'm not sure that it's really going to have an impact, from my perspective, on their windows. This right here, okay, their property probably -- their property sits -- according to the map, sits more like right here. So, that lane coming there is -- is quite a ways north from their backyard. Borup: So, you're saying the plat that we have is accurate? Groves: We believe it's pretty close, yeah. Borup: Mr. Stark said it wasn't. Groves: Yeah. Well, we will get some surveys out there and verify that. I don't want to be controversial. I did want to indicate, too, that these three lots right here, you know, again, those are way -- way north of his property. They are a hundred -- almost 130 feet deep -- I think 126 feet deep. From this point here where the stub street is in the back of his house, we estimate to be nearly 300 feet. Okay. But with that said, we fully intend to -- to be good neighbors and see if we can't work a solution out that's good for everybody. Thank you. Do you have any questions? Moe: Well, yeah, I guess I would, because you say that you will work with them to kind of work things out. Hearing some of the items that he has discussed tonight, are any of those options feasible, Le, berms and six foot fencing and whatnot to screen out some of the glare areas and whatnot? Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 51 of 118 Groves: Well, you know, I can't make any commitments at this pOint at this hearing. I will say this, you know, there were a lot of things that were discussed. There is the issue with the -- the boundary line on this site and, you know, frankly-- Moe: That was my next question. Groves: Yeah. We did not pay -- again, we paid zero attention to it, because we didn't have a firm agreement on this property right here until about 30 days ago. Okay. But now that we have a firm agreement and we realize that we have a boundary issue, we will -- we will address that adequately. There is an issue about pressurized irrigation versus the irrigation ditch that they have there, we will address that adequately. The berming, the fencing, you know, all of that will be addressed and I think we can come to a reasonable compromise on things. Moe: Okay. Borup: The plat shows five-foot fence. That is your intention, rather than a six-foot? Groves: Keith, what we have done in the past -- the perimeter fencing along Eagle Road and along Amity, that perimeter was six foot. The interiors were five. You know, I guess we could consider addressing this as a perimeter here. Okay. But all the perimeter fencing that we had along Eagle Road up in here, that was a six-foot and I think the fencing on the back boundary -- I guess I don't remember if that was -- I think that's five. Borup: That's more of an internal type fence. Groves: Yeah. That was an internal fence there. This one here surrounding this property, yeah, we can work with that. Borup: So, unless someone's got a vehicle that their headlights are taller than six feet, that would probably -- Groves: Yeah. Borup: No monster trucks through there. Groves: Right. Again, let me apologize to Steve and Kathy. We will sit down and talk with them. Any other questions? Zaremba: Thank you. Yes. Wait until you get to the microphone, please. K.Stark: I'm Kathy Stark and I live at 2360 East Amity. On -- currently where that road comes, the lone house there, their house -- I don't see it shown on there, but their house and their barn and everything they are going to be removing. Okay. They have a light post that's back where their barn is at, so that post -- that light shines in our bedroom. If Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 52 of 118 a car parks next to their house, sometimes I get up and close my blinds, because it shines directly into my house, which is about the same area where that road is going to be butted in. So, it doesn't matter what it looks like, our house is at an angle, it's not -- it's not straight, it goes like this, and so all of those windows, to get privacy from all those lots, I would need to close blinds -- I think it's 14 windows. They will be looking directly into our home and the lights will be shining directly into our home. Borup: The car lights you're referring to? K.Stark: Car lights. Yes. That's correct. And what I'm concerned about is the road behind us, is, you know, the elevation. You can see lights coming from a long ways away, so if you have a fence, I don't know, I haven't had a fence back there, so -- and we haven't had anybody driving back there, but I know, you know, the road's like this, I don't know what the elevation is, but I am concerned about headlights constantly flooding the whole back of our house, which would be our bedroom, our bathroom, our family room, our kitchen, our dining room, it's a huge -- I mean basically our whole living space. And a five foot fence, if you drive and look, it's kind of low. If you drive around Tuscany and look, there are places where it's five and there are places where it's six. It may not seem like a lot, but six feet versus five on the perimeter of our property would be very very big. Zaremba: That would help. K.Stark: It sure would. And if the fence was at a grade where it's not lower -- below road grade or -- I don't know what that's called, Sorry. That would make a difference as well. And drainage is another issue. With Eagle Road you can see all along Tuscany there is a lot of water. I am very concerned about the water along Amity. If that happens on Amity and it being dangerous, because the driving 60 miles an hour, you know, people go a lot faster than that. We have had three people crash through our fence. If there is any water, there will be ice. Zaremba: Do you have a sense that the issues that were very concisely raised -- and we appreciate your husband's presentation, along with yours. Do you have a sense that they can be resolved or -- or are they deal breakers to you? K.Stark: Do I believe he will resolve those from his discussion tonight? Zaremba: Uh-huh. K.Stark: No. I have been told by the neighbors that Tuscany built around on Locust Grove, that they were told different things and it did not happen. It was not in writing, at a meeting, and it did not happen. So, I am quite concerned that -- I don't believe when he says he will work it out. To whose satisfaction? Rohm: So, are you saying that a six foot fence is acceptable and a five foot fence is not? Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 53 of 118 K.Stark: I'm saying five foot would not be acceptable. Rohm: Well, I mean if we can establish what is acceptable, maybe that's -- K.Stark: Along the back I think it needs to be bermed, along the back. The north -- is that north? The back of -- yeah. Would have to have a berm. I don't think six feet -- that property right at our barbed wire fence actually goes up, so when we flood there is no way we could even get water to the back and to the property back there, because it actually goes up. So, I don't know how long it -- how far back it continues to go up, but I know it's -- where our fence is at, along the barbed wire, it goes up a ways and so I think it has to be bermed along that back. Borup: And you would allow that berm on your property? K.Stark: I don't -- I personally don't want it on my property. I want it on his. Borup: Well, your husband stated earlier a berm on his -- on your property would be -- so, you two aren't in agreement on that. K.Stark: I don't agree on that. Borup: Okay. K.Stark: But, hey, that's for us to work out. Borup: But you feel a six-foot fence on -- K.Stark: With a berm on the back would make a huge difference, because as I'm sitting there and I have to flip my blinds everyday on the whole back of the house because of light from traffic, I think they should change the road, then. Angle it towards the house that's already there. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I'd like to throw out a suggestion. Maybe -- there are a lot of issues, plus a legal issue potentially, with the property line. Maybe it would be appropriate, rather than to say, okay, you folks work this out between now and City Council, maybe continuing the whole -- what if there were more houses around -- a neighborhood meeting to work things out and come back. Zaremba: I can see some sense to that. City Council has regularly said they don't want us to send unresolved issue to them. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 54 of 118 Newton-Huckabay: Well, I mean the point being that they are getting invaded on all three sides of their property. I think that it's reasonable that -- it may take time to work out. Zaremba: Just for curiosity -- Joe, when you put the current picture up on display from the previous one, there appeared to be juxtaposition. Would you toggle back and forth between the two of them a couple times? Yeah. Just those two. No. Yeah. The aerial view and, then, the plan view, Yeah. Go back and forth between those two. Guenther: Mr. Chairman, they are not to scale. Zaremba: What I'm looking at is where their property is in relation to where I see the two houses. So, they are not exactly to the same scale, but -- Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I'd like to ask the applicant one other question. One issue that we didn't discuss is the single story on those houses on the east side. Is that -- what are planned in those lots on the east side of their property? Brown: Just so we keep him happy, I'm Kent Brown, the applicant -- or the engineer's representative. And I will address yours in just a second. I wanted to go with these headlights for just a minute. Obviously, we haven't surveyed their house. We don't generally go around onto other people's property and survey it. What we do is we take an aerial photo and if you understand how they use these aerial photos, they stretch them, they make them and, then, our technician, he tries to find the roof and what looks like the roof and sometimes they are totally off. I mean as to -- but they are in the general right location, when you really look at it. What they are sometimes seeing is a shadow. When they window in and magnify that, they are seeing a shadow of the house and so -- I mean we are talking, you know, at the most five, six feet or something like that that it's off and the photos are I think '03 photos, so barns and different things that are modified in between, sometimes those things happen between the process and, yeah, don't have them on there. We should have shown the property, the house to the west, that should be on there. It would help us. But if you look at the preliminary plat -- Borup: It's on there. Brown -- you see the Stark's house and we have one lot that is adjacent to their house and as you look at that lot and you consider that the first house there is going to have a 20 foot setback, that 20 foot setback makes that house, basically, block anything from the east that would be shining into their home and this road and driveway comes into the north of their home. So, the headlights are -- this house would be here and the road is coming in here and the Stark's house is to the south of where this stub street or street curve goes up. And, then, the three lots to the north are adjacent to their vacant Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 55 of 118 pasture ground. I guess, you know, we are here to be approved. We want to be good neighbors. I have talked with the Starks before we ever submitted the subdivision, I showed them -- I showed Mr. Stark a copy of the plan. He talked to his neighbors and found out that they were all in the process of selling. So, I spoke to him before we ever submitted. He called me recently, I talked to him again, he said he had talked to Shay, which is one of the people that work for Tuscany Development, Inc, He said that he would work with them on the fencing. We are here to work with them on the fencing. One of the things that happens when you do a berm, though -- and we have had this over and over again, is they want the fence to be on the very top of the berm. Well, then, you have the top of the berm, if you put it at what the property line is supposed to be, then, how is the developer to maintain, in this situation, the west and south side of that berm? You know, it's -- you almost have to put the center of the berm on the property line to be able to allow them to take care of their side of the berm -- we are not going to go on the other side of the fence to go over and pull weeds or, you know, whatever that are over there. So, I mean if you choose that that's what you have to do tonight to move us forward, we are going to continue to work with the Starks. Mr. Grove had said that that's what he's going to do. But we are here to be approved tonight. So, if you feel that you have to do that -- I don't believe that it's necessary. I offered to show the Starks -- go out with a survey rod, raise it up, show what, you know, a two story house elevation would be, to show them that it doesn't block, you know, the mountains, if that's what they are concerned that the view is, because the horizon is so much. To the north of the Starks the property is falling away and we have done a topo, we have done a survey, we know what that is. This property line business, with it being ten foot off, yes, state law says that if you have a fence on your property and you pay taxes on that property that you have a fence on, then, it's yours. Our previous owners before have been paying taxes on what they own, which has been ten foot over onto the Stark's property, according to the information that we get from the assessors and all the stuff, the title reports and stuff that surveyors had and that's why the property line is located where it is. My client has told me he's even willing to work with them on that ten foot, if that's -- you know, helps them, he's willing to work with them on that. I mean we have 126 foot deep lots there and the lots on the other side of the street -- just a second. Borup: One hundred forty-two. Brown: So, we have plenty of depth in there that that ten foot could be -- and still keep the lots. You're working on two ends there, too, is that they were concerned about the density and we have these huge lots down next to them and it provided -- the largest lots in the development are all against their property and we try to take that into consideration in the design. We tried to take that in consideration that we were dropping down into low density in that portion of the development in the Comprehensive Plan. Our density is to the north in our parkway lots. Basically without that we don't even really need the PUD. I mean we -- we could just do a straight R-4 sub and -- for the whole piece of property. But we tried to do something that I think is a nice development. Do you have any questions? Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 56 of 118 Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions? Borup: Just a couple I have, Mr. Chairman. Zaremba: Commissioner Borup. Borup: So, you're -- well, one, I don't know if you know the answer to this question, but what the density would be south, the quarter section line, the area that's in the -- Brown: That was part of the discussion that was in your staff report that -- from Joe at the very beginning was 3.2 south of that line. Borup: Oh, that was just in that area. Brown: Right. Borup: That's -- I guess I didn't understand that that was just -- Brown: That's what he was making reference to is south of this line right here is where the low density starts and we have 3.2 -- Borup: Separating that section -- Brown: Right. From the northern portion. Borup: Then, is your understanding -- and I may have misunderstood Mr. Stark, but I thought I had heard him say that the property -- he bought the property from the individual that owned both. Brown: Probably from the seller. Yeah. Borup: Okay. So, it sounds like the person that owned the property put the fence in himself. The fence that's off was put in by the individual that owned both properties. Brown: You're asking me to guess. Borup: So, you're not sure on the previous ownership, then? Brown: I know that they did sell to them, as I understand. And I'm trying to remember from the deeds. Moe: Along the same line in regards to that, just -- I just want to make sure I heard you correctly and that is that you possibly could work with them in regards to that ten foot, moving it to the east. Or I mean, basically, your lots will change out there, then. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 57 of 118 Brown: If we need to. I mean we are trying -- we are trying to be amenable, whether they talk to them -- my clients talk to them, I have talked to them a couple times, the Starks, and the discussion we have had tonight with Mr. Groves as we have been sitting here, he's told me that, you know, he wants to work with them, so we can talk to them about that ten feet and maybe the ten foot ends up being -- if we have to put in a berm, where the berm goes, I mean that's why we would like to continue to work with them, but I mean if you feel that you have to approve us to do that tonight, I kind of disagree, but we are here to be approved tonight. We don't want to be tabled for a month. We will continue to work with them and work out -- Newton-Huckabay: You didn't like my idea. Brown: I didn't like your idea at all. We have been waiting a long time to get to this point. I mean we have -- I think I submitted it -- Rohm: It sounds to me like -- Mr. Chair, it seems to me that we've just got a single issue between two neighbors and if we could just give them an opportunity to talk for five minutes, we could wrap this up and be done, I think. I think that it would be wise to just let them talk for a bit and see if they can come up with something that we can put in a motion to move forward and, then, it's -- it's a resolved issue that's not going to come up at City Council at the next stage and it would take -- Newton-Huckabay: Well, the property line -- Rohm: No. The property line does not end up being a stickler for either side, if they can put the berm on the property that is in question, then, work it out and we can move forward tonight with a recommendation to the city that's accepted to both property owners. That seems to me the right answer. Zaremba: The two ways to do that would be to take like a five minute recess or to table this to the end of the meeting, as opposed to continuing it to -- Rohm: Well, I don't want to continue it. I'm with the applicant and I don't think anybody wants to do that, but if we want to table it until the end and let them -- give them some time, let's do it and get it resolved. Brown: We will do what we can. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. and Mrs. Stark? Zaremba: So, do you want to table these three items to the end of this meeting? Borup: I have a question for Mr. Brown that may affect their discussion. That's just on that Stromboli -- Stromboli Way curve. Have you looked at doing a bulb there or something, rather than a flag lot? Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 58 of 118 Brown: We have. I mean -- Borup: Did it work okay? Brown: Not really. I mean -- so, you're saying instead of that little common drive, to extend out a bulb. Zaremba: And have two pie-shaped lots. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I -- Borup: Well, one pie-shaped lot and -- I don't know. It worked on this piece of paper. Maybe it doesn't work when it's drawn to scale. That would stop the headlights going down. Brown: I believe that the house that would be built on that lot adjacent to them is going to block -- that's my opinion. I mean that's why I really question -- Zaremba: Along with, perhaps, a six foot fence. Brown: And a six foot fence. But we are definitely amenable to go talk to them in the next few minutes. Newton-Huckabay: I was going to make a comment that if the house is actually south of the flag lot, it's -- if you can agree on that, you don't have an issue with that lot. Like you said, you only have the one -- southern half of that lot. Brown: And I guess one of the things that we could do is agree that if it's not, that we do something else. I mean that's -- Rohm: With that being said, Mr. Chairman -- Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Newton-Huckabay: Do Mr. and Mrs. Stark get to comment whether or not they are willing to do that, meet for ten minutes? Borup: If not, then, I guess we could proceed without the meeting. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I -- Mr. Stark would like to make a comment. Zaremba: We have a question for Mr. Stark. Let's have him come to the microphone for a moment. Stark: Steve Stark, 2630 Amity Road. The first lot is 80 feet, the second lot is 80 feet, and the third lot is 82 feet going from our north corner. I took a tape and measured it Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 59 of 118 down and the driveway coming is in the vicinity of the house. If the car pulls in perfectly straight and stops, then, we are not going to have a problem, but if the car pulls in and turns at all into a driveway, it's going to be pointed directly into our house. It's close enough where the light will spill into our house no matter what. I mean for sure I was out there with a tape. Another thing is if someone tells me that we want to resolve it in good faith, but I'm wrong about that, I'm wrong about the fence, I'm wrong about all this other stuff -- we have a personal friend that had dealings in the past -- not with Mr. Brown, but with a developer that didn't happen the way they were told it was going to happen. I don't want to do anything in good faith. I'd like to resolve it, but I don't like to be told I'm wrong about everything and, then, be told, but, however, we are going to work with them, you know. I'm not wrong about that driveway. It's pointing -- it's close to our bedroom and it's invasive. The other thing is I never said anything about a view. I don't -- you know, I understand that if you live in a valley you lose a view, but I mean I'm being quoted as saying I'm going to lose my view. You know, I know I'm going to lose a view if you build houses, but what I don't want is like a total lack of privacy. We have a -- we went to a different part -- first of all, we could not find a flag lot like that with two -- one driveway feeding two houses in all of Tuscany. We looked all through there and we couldn't find one. Another thing is we have a neighbor that lives up here that was by Tuscany and they built two story houses right behind his house. He had a rural house, he has cows and pigs and all that other stuff, put these giant houses right behind his property and it's invasive and what we would like is to mitigate some of the lack of privacy by having single story houses along that property line, so -- Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Stark, are you and your wife willing to spend some time and table this hearing until the end of the meeting and talk with the developer -- Stark: Yeah. Yeah, we will. Newton-Huckabay: -- and see if you can work it out? Stark: Yeah. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Let's do that and, then, if it's okay with the Chairman and -- Zaremba: I would entertain such a motion. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we table public hearings AZ 05-017, PP 05-019 and CUP 05-026 to the last item on our agenda for this evening. Moe: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 60 of 118 Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 17: Public Hearing: AZ 05-020 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 2.3 acres to L-O zone for Ashtyn Park by David Price - SWC of North Meridian Road and West Ustick Road: Zaremba: Thank you. We will talk to you all again in a bit and I will open now the Public Hearing for AZ 05-20, request for annexation and zoning of 2.3 acres to an L-O zone for Ashtyn Park by David Price, southwest corner of North Meridian Road and West Ustick Road and begin with the staff report. Hood: Mr. Chair, I'm ready. Sorry for the delay. The subject application is 2.9 acres -- is 2.3 acres, exclusive of the right of way for Ustick and Meridian Roads. It's currently zoned R-4 in Ada County. The requested zone is to L-O limited office. The subject property is located on the southwest corner of Ustick and Meridian Road. You may recall this site was before this board early this year. They were requesting a C-G zone and a C-C zone for a Maverick convenience store. After the recommendation from this board, the applicant withdrew that application, did not go to the City Council. Again, the subject application is for an L-O zone. There are currently two homes and an out building on the site. The applicant does intend to remove the structures. The one home on Ustick Road is currently within the right of way there. Once it's removed the applicant will construct an office development. This is only an annexation application. However, the applicant did submit two conceptual site plans. Both of them are somewhat similar and I will touch on the similarities. The access point into both of these site plans is located approximately 150 feet south of Ustick Road in alignment with the access to Eastbrook Subdivision on the east side of Meridian Road. ACHD did approve this access location, with the understanding that if it does become problematic and accidents do occur here, they may restrict to right-in, right-out. However, being that Eastbrook Court is a public street, they don't like to restrict public streets to a right-in, right-out and would like to leave that full access. Just a couple of things that staff has included with the development agreement in the recommendation for approval, is if the future uses that do occur on this site are of the office nature or clinic nature or professional health care services, so it doesn't turn into a commercial through a Conditional Use Permit or those other means, that it really does meet the intent of this resolution to have these three acres or less parcels develop with office-type uses. The other thing just quickly to touch on is hours of operation. We are recommending that those hours of operation be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. If you will notice the -- most of the items to be included in the D.A. are standard comments for a development agreement. We are trying to standardize those a little bit more with these as we are seeing more and more of these three acres or less office developments come in. We are trying to be consistent in those requirements of those applications and so what you see on -- on page 11 and 12, condition three, is going to be pretty standard from here in out. So, if you have any comments on those conditions, we will make note of those and Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 61 of 118 try to incorporate those into future upcoming applications of a similar nature. Again, staff is recommending approval of the rezone -- or annexation and zoning to L-O with the development agreement and I will stand for any questions. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Since you opened the door with your last remark, I would make one comment. And this is on page 12 and the last bullet of the development agreement. I would, with your comment, ask to maybe suggest to add a sentence to that. The one that's there, the vehicular access to the site shall be restricted to those approved by ACHD and the city. I would add a sentence something to the effect: Further, the applicant agrees that such restrictions may be revised to be more restrictive in the future. I think that's perfectly applicable in this case and it may be applicable as a general statement in the future. I mean in the discussion you pointed out that ACHD is not going to make this a right-in, right-out now, but they might when they widen Ustick and I think we may need to make it clear that the applicant is agreeing to today's condition. The applicant's agreeing that it could change. Hood: Mr. Chair, I do believe that's appropriate in this instance and just to further clarify, a couple of these are site specific to this development. Sometimes, you know, like the cross-access, the bullet before that, those ones are obviously specific to this one, but most of the ones that you see before that will be the more standard conditions. But I think you're right, since most of these are going to be on arterials, that's a condition of the resolution to apply for this L-O that they are on arterials, so I can see that, any access that can specify what road -- you know, it's limited to this now and we reserve the right to even further restrict that in the future -- may be appropriate in future applications as well. Zaremba: And the applicant is warned that that could happen and doesn't say no, no, back in June of '05 you said this is the way it was going to be. All right. And I would add that to this one, if the Commissioners agree. That's my only question. Thank you. Let's see. Newton-Huckabay: May I ask a question? Zaremba: Yes. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Is the cross-access -- the cross-access that's there to the west -- on the west side of the property, is that what we are -- Hood: Yeah. Let me give you a little bit of background on this property. The church -- Presbyterian church currently -- or I'm not sure if it's actually changed hands yet or not, but they own this property and they have a sewer line as well that bisects this property approximately where the dashed line is in the middle of the site plan there. So, what we envisioned is an access being constructed somewhere -- the other site plan may work a little bit better somewhere in here and, then, when the church develops any additional, that they tie in with that and that gives a better access out of this development to the church and, then, the church -- if someone is turning right heading south on Meridian, Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 62 of 118 they could also make that movement without going through this intersection. So, it wouldn't be an immediate connection, but at least cross-access could be provided, so the church can, then, extend that and reciprocate that back and in the future, to the west only, though. I did look at the south. That's planned for residential. It didn't seem to make a lot of sense to have a cross-access to the south, so -- Newton-Huckabay: Well, see, I would disagree. If -- potentially, if they take away -- if they make right-in, right-out only on their access -- on Meridian Road, that I would think -- potentially having access to the south, would -- especially from office into residential would be similar to like Heritage Commons or one of those developments, that you -- but that's a private road right below there and -- do you know what I'm saying? I don't think it's -- to leave that door open would be inappropriate. Hood: It could work. You're right. I mean we do see some of those. What we don't want to see, you know, residences or office having to drive through residences to get to offices, but, you're right, I mean it could work. If the applicant wants to do that, I guess that would be something they could propose to do. Again, this is a conceptual site plan, so -- Newton-Huckabay: Right. Hood: -- they could come back in again with a driveway shown there and, then, we could just evaluate it at that time, too. Newton-Huckabay: I would just suggest that we leave that door open, if it -- the access I would imagine for anybody living in Eastbrook has to be horrible with those -- on Meridian Road trying to get out there. End of comment. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. We are ready for the applicant, then, if you'd care to come forward. Price: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, I'm David Price and I reside at 2291 North Greenfield, Eagle, Idaho. I'm a little bit nervous. I have never done this before, so bear with me. I wrote things down, so at least I could refer to it. I just want to let you know, first of all, that we did place a notice that Craig had told us we needed to place and also we held a neighborhood meeting, we sent letters out to all the residents that lived within the prescribed area and did that a couple of weeks ago. Actually, no one came to the meeting from the neighborhood, but I have personally met with the people to the south, both families to the south, and I have also met with the two closest neighbors at Eastbrook Subdivision personally to discuss with them what was going on and perhaps that's why they didn't feel like going to a neighborhood meeting -- or to a neighborhood meeting or something, because I had met with them before that. So, I was going to give you this so you could see what I was going to read, but present some things to you, if that's all right. I appreciate the opportunity to meet before you this evening and present my proposal for annexation and rezoning the property I'm in the process of purchasing, located at the southwest corner of Ustick and Meridian Roads. Before proceeding, I'd Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 63 of 118 like to first express my appreciation to Mrs. Anna Canning -- I know she's gone now, but the planning director was kind enough to take time from a busy schedule to meet with me and share her experience in behalf of this project. And, secondly, I'd like to thank Mr. Craig Hood, an associate planner for the city, who -- he's had several meetings and phone conversations that take a lot of time with me and I appreciate that. I feel that L-O rezoning will enhance the development of the local community, while providing a location for services that are both desirable and potentially essential to the vitality of the surrounding neighborhood, Professional offices that include health services, such as dentists, medical doctors, chiropractic physicians, physical therapy, urgent care facilities, would add convenience and stability and service quality to the local area. Other professional uses could include accounting, insurance consulting firms, small business offices, attorneys or real estate offices, to name just a few. I believe the location of a city park immediately north of the property, the heavily traveled arterials lining the east and the north boundaries of the property, as well as the neighboring church to the immediate west of the site make the location much more suitable for professional office development, than for just residential housing. Although I'm grateful that the staff recommends approval of this request for annexation and for zoning, I wish to express my concerns regarding some of the comments and respectfully request you deviate from those found in the annexation and zoning facts and comments section and that would be on the following specific points and I took quotes from the report. First of all, comment three recommends that -- in that section recommends that no alterations, expansions, reconstructions or other enlargements to the existing family structures will be permitted, except through a certificate of zoning compliance and except where the use of the structure changes to a use consistent with this development agreement and the structure meets all applicable development standards, such as setbacks, frontage height, et cetera. That no building or other structures shall be erected, moved, or added to or structurally altered, nor shall any building structure or land be established or changed and used without a certificate of zoning compliance. And here is what my request was. My current request is not an application -- for this whole thing is not an application for subdivision development and it will take some time for me to get to the point of proceeding with that application. I have met a couple of times with the family that's currently renting the house there and they are occupying the large rental home on the development site and have resided there for about five years. The wife or mother is disabled and special living accommodations were constructed by the husband and the father to help her there. With the development -- when the development time comes I want to do my very best to preserve their current living status. I have told them I would do my best, so I don't uproot them and I would delay as long as possible any type of displacement for them. It is my intent to focus on possible development scenarios that could start at the south end of the property and, then, delay displacement of the family. This restriction on zoning compliance would place an undue hardship on this family by mandating relocation to achieve that zoning compliance as soon as any type of development begins. So, I respectfully request the above listed requirement be exempted due to the unique situation of this property and the development that is present. I would like to try to keep them there as along as I can and not displace them. At least I promised them that I would try to do that and that was his concern when he first met with me, because he, personally, had so many accommodations in the home to Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 64 of 118 try and help his wife. Comment number two -- or the number two. Comment number three recommends that the following shall only be the -- shall be the only allowed uses on this property. Professional and sales offices, professional -- or personal and professional services, clinics, medical, dental and optical and health care or social services. And my request is this: The church that is the seller of the property to us has been operating a day care for years without being obtrusive or creating any inconvenience or disturbance to the surrounding neighborhoods. In fact, the current operator of the day care facility at the church recently approached me concerning the possibility of utilizing a portion of this property for the operation of the day care facility. In fact -- or excuse me. Under these recommendations, an already established use such as this would fall outside the stated allowances. I believe that the neighbors of the property site are protected in the case of any future development of the property by the hearing process associated with subdivision application and future required approval for platting of specific development sites on the property. Any use, even to include those recommended by the staff, would still have to receive board approval for the future platting request. With this future protection already in place for the neighborhood, I submit it as redundant and unnecessary to place further restrictions upon future development considerations of this property beyond that already incorporated and approved by the City of Meridian, a definition of L-O zoning. We have all witnessed unsurpassed growth, major development changes in the Meridian area and it is unclear what direction future development of the neighboring properties and surrounding area will be. Protections are already in place for my future neighbors on future development of this property and I'm unclear on my time line for the actual development of this site. I respectfully request that additional development or zoning restrictions not be placed upon this property beyond those already contained in the L-O zoning designation, recognizing that any development I do will have to go through the hearing process anyway. So, I would have to get approval of that in the first place. Number three. Comment number three also recommends that the hours of operation shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., unless otherwise modified through a Conditional Use Permit. And my request is while it might be assumed that a limitation on the hours of operation will serve as a noise or disturbance protection to the adjacent neighborhoods, such a restriction has not been needed for current uses in the neighborhood. Located on the adjacent northwest corner of this property is Settler's Park, which provides a potential for substantially greater traffic and noise for hours well outside of this limitation. Additionally, the church immediately adjacent to this property has activities well outside of these parameters. For example, in May, a few weeks ago, a carnival was held on the church grounds that completely filled all available parking, including the paved and the dirt parking, including the use of my property, potential property, and was not even scheduled to conclude until well after the limit that this proposal would place on that property. I recently visited the property site and observed the activities of the adjacent neighbors and the neighborhoods and noted car repair, lawn mowing, and other such activities extending well past these hours. During the school year some bus pick-ups in the area are occurring and many worker commutes begin at or before these hours. Within the L-O zoning definition normal uses would be included that frequently extend hours outside of the 12-hour parameter recommended. For example, urgent care medical facilities in this valley are commonly open until 8:00 p.m. or later. My own Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 65 of 118 chiropractic office schedules patients at 6:30 or 6:45 in the morning and it is not unusual to see patients after 7:00 p.m. Accounting firms will see clients well into the evening beyond these hours, especially during tax season. Attorneys firms may do depositions well into the evening and insurance agencies or real estate offices may hold meetings or classes well beyond these limitations. This is not even taking into consideration professional office times with only staff present. The designated use of this property is by its very nature going to be focused for a quiet neighborhood compatible services, with relatively low traffic volume when compared to the adjacent church and park facility uses. I respectfully request that arbitrary hours of operation limitations not be placed upon the property as a condition of development, as other adjacent facilities currently in use do not have such types of limitations and have been compatible. Number four. The report contained a general statement indicating that all trees must be mitigated. I have walked the property with the arborist. I hope I spelled that right. And he told me that I should report to the planning and zoning board that four trees, for a total of 60 inches, need to be mitigated. I respectfully request that appropriate notation be made that the tree mitigation is for 60 inches, rather than for all of the trees, like the report indicates. And, finally, the report indicates there is an existing eight inch private sewer service that bisects this property. It is not a city-own facility and would not be eligible to serve additional units. New sewer mains would have to be designed and installed to service the parcel. Sewer is available in Meridian road. That's the quote from the report. I'm unaware that code -- I am aware -- excuse me -- I am aware that code allows only one connection per service. However, this situation is unique. In my discussions with the Public Works Department, I have learned that the eight inch private sewer service is adequate for additional connections and it would, actually, be better for a pipe of that large size to have more usage, rather than less, so it can actually have adequate clean out, according to what they told me. The large size was used due to the higher elevation of the sewer main in the area, necessitating the larger connection pipe. I understand that to access this private service the church would need to grant permission. Such use would be better for their pipe, save the development cost, and eliminate need for tearing up Ustick Road. I respectfully request that the board not specifically disallow the connection, while recognizing that the church must approve such and the Public Works Department must determine that such a connection meets code requirements. An exception would need to be made to the limitation of one connection per service in this unique circumstance. Thank you for your kind consideration in my proposal and request. That's all I have, if there is any questions. Zaremba: Questions from the Commissioners? Borup: I have one, Mr. Chairman. Zaremba: Commissioner Borup. Borup: It was back on your -- on your first one. The staff comment just said that there would be no -- basically, no alterations of the structures or adding to and, you know, the first one objected to -- are planning on adding onto the existing buildings or -- Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 66 of 118 Price: Well, in my discussion with them -- and I could possibly have misunderstood this -- my discussion was that if we -- or my understanding was that if we make any type of changes in the development -- there was another section in that report also I didn't quote and my understanding from that was that if we start any of the development process to change anything on the property, that it would, then, have to come into L-O zoning compliance and what I was trying to get the exception to -- if I understand -- Borup: So, it's your understanding that they wouldn't grandfather the existing use? Price: It would need to come up to L-O zoning -- yes, it would have to come up to L-O zoning standards if we started to do any change on the property and I was trying to say I wanted to preserve that and start at the south end to help preserve that. If I misunderstand that and I can start that without having to do that and it's only limited to change in the structures, I'm fine. I just didn't want to impact them as long as I could hel p it. Borup: So, I guess I'm confused on how you could do any development when you only have one access point. Brown: Well, the access point doesn't run through the house. So, what we would -- what we -- if we did the access point, we would, then, start the parking lot to the south end of that, then, we would start the development to the south of that and try to leave that church -- that church -- the house structure as long as we could and wait until we have completed that, gone farther along, and, then, make that change. Borup: Okay. We might get some clarification from staff, but -- or do you want to answer that now? As long as they don't change the use, is that grandfathered, normally? Hood: Yeah. Mr. Chair, Commissioner Borup, that is the -- the intent. I'm sorry for not explaining that better to Mr. Price on the phone the other day, but, yeah, it is no alterations, expansions of the existing house and if you do so it has to convert to office. They can begin constructing offices south of that, as long as they don't touch the house and the house continues as it grandfathered in as a nonconforming use in the L-O, so -- and any lot lines that are platted, it also needs to meet the setbacks of the L-O zone. So, when you come into do a subdivision you will need to put that on its own lot and it will have to meet setbacks and things, but it was not intended that the house has to come as soon as you start to construct that first office building in this development. it can continue to be used as a single family home until you decide to take it down. So, sorry for that confusion. Price: No. That's all right. Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, I appreciate that, Craig. Thank you. So, I would assume, then, from that that if we did plot that separately, then we could just come back later when that house is taken away and change that plot. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 67 of 118 Hood: Well, it would be platted as an L-Q lot with an existing single family home. It's a nonconforming single family home. Price: And, then, I assume we would just change that later? Borup: Well, you just tear the house down and complete your development. Newton-Huckabay: Well, the way the house sits on the property, though, you wouldn't have -- Price: It wouldn't be the normal place that we would put a -- Newton-Huckabay: Right. Price: -- an office. It's going to be right in the middle of part of the parking lot. Borup: Right. That's what I say, you would have to tear the house down and finish your project. Price: And, then, replot that, I assume, or something or plot-- Borup: Well, you're not-- Hood: Or what you could do is I mean -- Borup: Just do it in phases. Hood: Or what you could do is you could have -- you know, you're going to have to put the house on it's own lot and, then, when you knock the house down, you could do lot line adjustments and you can move those lot lines to where you need them to get your -- you know, to get lots that will fit something similar to what you're proposing conceptually. Price: All right. Hood: So, you do have to plat it, if you're going to keep it on a lot, and, then, when you take it down you can move it and things after that. Price: All right. Borup: So, it sounds like that's workable. The other question -- or the other comment I had was on your second one that -- about the -- about the restricted uses, you made the statement that you'd have to come through a hearing process anyway. I don't believe that's the case if we are zoned L-O without conditional use, unless you come in with a non-allowed use you would need to ask for a conditional use and there would be a Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 68 of 118 public hearing. Otherwise, it's already zoned and if you're doing office buildings, there would be no public hearing. Price: If -- well ~- Borup: Your statement was it would need a public -- go through a hearing process anyway. Price: Well, my understanding from Craig again, Mr. Commissioner, but, again, I could misunderstand this, was that because we are doing a subdivision that we will still have to plat out this subdivision and present it before the Planning and Zoning again. Borup: Oh, that's what you meant by another hearing process. Price: Yes. Whatever we do on the property, we are going to have to get your approval anyway; is that correct? Hood: That is correct. A preliminary plat does come back to the Commission, obviously. Borup: Right. But that doesn't have anything to -- that doesn't have anything to do with the uses or -- Hood: It does not. No. This is zoning -- this is, really, where the uses are. You know, that's just lot lines, they are property lines that are discussed. Price: Well, that's true if it's -- if it's an office part, that's true, but if I -- if I was going to try to do any conditional use permit -- any conditional use -- Hood: Right. Borup: Then it would need to be. Price: Yes. And so -- Borup: But I don't think that's what the staff comment was talking about. They were restricting -- as you correctly stated, some of -- maybe some uses that would be normally allowed in an L-O zone. Price: I believe that if you review that, the ones with p's on that would normally be allowed, weren't restricted in there, but what they were doing was restricting -- my belief they were recommending that a restriction be made to only be able to do what was currently a P on the L-O zoning and that if I wanted to do any of the C there, it would be a blanket statement now that I could never do any type of a C and what I was saying is that's what I consider to be redundant and I would like to not have that as a restriction. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 69 of 118 Borup: Okay. I understand. And I don't think that was their intention. Maybe let Mr. Hood comment on that. Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Borup, that was my intention, actually, because the intent of the resolution to amend the Comprehensive Plan does specifically say office- type uses and even though commercial uses are allowed conditionally in the L-O zone, the intent of this was smaller pieces, more professional offices and clinics. So, we are kind of cutting this off before he gets started down that public hearing process, saying, hey, you aren't eligible -- even though you have that L-O zone, you aren't eligible for some of these conditionally allowed uses. So, the applicant is correct in that if we are further limiting this to just professional offices, health care clinics, those types of things. So, it's up -- he does make some valid points, especially about day cares and things like that that are, you know, that by nature maybe being allowed in there. They may be appropriate, but, again, the intent was to be office uses and that's why this condition is put in here and you're going to see this again with pretty much every one of these that comes in now, because there have been some in the past that we said all uses were conditional or, you know, you could apply for more retail uses with a Conditional Use Permit and we made a decision that this seems more appropriate after reviewing all these things, that this is what we are going to pretty standard put on all of these requests. so I hope that answers the question. That is the intent. Borup: Well, yeah, in your -- where it pertains to the section line road ordinance -- Hood: Correct. Not all L-O properties, but just the ones that are applying for L-O zoning -- Borup: In a residential -- Hood: Correct. Borup: All right. Thank you. That was alii had. Price: Mr. Commissioner, if I may just make a comment on that. That was my concern was that already a mechanism is in place that places the responsibility, the faith of the Planning and Zoning Commission, that if I were to ever come forward with some type of Conditional Use Permit request, that you would be taking into consideration should that be there or should it not be there or what future changes occur in the developments in the area and my point was that I -- although I understand where I think where Craig's coming from, it's a redundant requirement. It takes away any type of freedom for any type of allowance from the Planning and Zoning Commission -- Borup: Well, the other option would be to come in and do a Comp Plan change. Price: I'm not sure what you mean. Newton-Huckabay: No. I think he's asking for a conditional use. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 70 of 118 Borup: That would be ignoring -- ignoring the ordinance that was passed pertaining to these things. This is already designated as a residential use. You're already getting a bump up because of -- because of the -- the ordinance change. Zaremba: And I think that that's the issue. This parcel would not qualify for an L-O if it were not for the resolution -- Borup: Right. Zaremba: restrictive. that is separate from the ordinance and that resolution is actually Borup: That's what I meant. Zaremba: And your point is since this only qualifies because of the resolution that does not mean that it's full-fledged L-O. Am I interpreting that -- Hood: That's correct. I was just looking in the staff report. I think there is some language in there, the three acres and such, that says no ancillary commercial uses shall be permitted. So, in keeping with the intent of this resolution that allow them to get the L-O zoning or do offices, we thought that this is how you limit it to no commercial uses and just stick with the -- the office uses. I was going to see how it exactly says office uses. Borup: So, the very resolution that allow!3 office to go in there, you would have to not even comply with that, but that's what allows you to do it. The other option would be to do a Comp Plan change. Price: Well, what my point is is that you already have that information ahead of you and I'm simply saying that if I applied for the L-O and I already have to come to you anytime -- for any type of a Conditional Use Permit, then, I don't know why there should be a blanket statement in there saying it could never happen and that's where I gave the example. They are already -- already the neighbor is running a day care center and it hasn't been a hindrance to the community and I'm not even saying I plan on putting a day care center in, but I'm saying by its very nature it limits what's already protected by you as Planning and Zoning, that if you felt at some future years, if development stayed the same and -- or whatever, you would still have the right to turn that down, or if the nature of the community changed or the nature of the neighborhood changed, then, you could say something could be done. But you still have the ultimate last protection and I just n my request was that there not be a repeat limitation even further limiting it, when I would already have to come before you to do that in the first place. Hood: Mr. Chair? And this may be for the benefit of the applicant a little bit, too. Is if you did apply for -- say something was conditionally -- required a Conditional Use Permit, I would have a tough time recommending approval of that project, because it Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 71 of 118 says no commercial uses within this L-O. So, that's -- again, we are trying not to mislead you and say, hey, submit for commercial, that you can get a CU with these, because I would have a tough time as staff recommending approval, because of this resolution that gets you the L-O zone. Price: I understand that. I don't have a problem with whatever you would recommend and I don't have a problem with whatever the Planning and Zoning is going to eventually approve or not approve or whatever the uses are. All I'm saying is that if that is only being put in there to not mislead me, you don't need to put it in. I just would like to not have superimposed redundant restrictions placed upon it to take away freedom for the future for whatever changes may occur in the area, because the protection is already there. That's my point. And you have to decide, I guess, what to do with that. Baird: Mr. Chair, if I could add into the mix here. Zaremba: Mr. Baird. Baird: Thank you. If it's your intent or desire to approve this with a recommendation the staff has, I would like to add that if things do change in the future and there is a desire to apply for a conditional use that wouldn't otherwise be allowed, you can also apply to amend the development agreement to remove that restriction. But this would allow you to put your current thinking on paper and make it that much more of a burden to establish down the road why things have changed and why you might want to reconsider. So, it would come before you with a motion to amend the development agreement and a motion for a conditional use. It's just some food for thought that -- when it's being described as not ever being able to be changed, all you have to do is change that development agreement. Does that make senses? Zaremba: No. That does. Thank you for adding that. What I was thinking about is asking you the same question that I asked Mr, Hood a little while ago and that's an interpretation of the resolution. If this only qualifies to be an L-O because of the resolution, shouldn't it be limited to the uses that the resolution envisioned? It seems to me the whole package. Baird: Yes. Zaremba: And that's what I believe staff is trying to do is to say because this is a resolution exception to what, otherwise, would be a residential zone, the other restrictions of the resolution should apply. Baird: That's correct. Price: May I ask a question? So, would that mean -- Zaremba: Please. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 72 of 118 Price: -- that, for example, the use that's currently being used on the church property of the day care, that that would not be allowed to continue -- or to be used on this portion of the property? Zaremba: I'll have to admit, I haven't read the resolution, so I -- Borup: The resolution doesn't apply to the church. Price: No. But I'm saying that already the inquiry that they had of that, which I don't even -- I haven't even discussed anything about doing it, just their inquiry for that, by its very nature that -- and I'm just saying I guess I would have to ask Craig that there are some -- there are some uses that might require a Conditional Use Permit that would in no way -. or would not be considered what I would envision were the staff's concerns about commercial development. Is that accurate? Hood: That is. And that's why I said, you know, day care may be -- with a CU may be appropriate here and that's why I'm hoping -- you know, if there are two or three, maybe, that are not quite commercial and not office and they are not as described here, if you request those now and the Commission thinks that's appropriate with a CUP in the future as well, that may be appropriate. I just didn't want to open up all of the CUs and so we did that by limiting it to these professional office, medical clinics, et cetera, so -- Price: I -- Mr. Commissioner, if I may just say, I have to admit that I wasn't prepared to come with a list of the things that I would envision, as I haven't really thought about that. I guess, then, I would just appreciate if there was some type of wording that were to say -- were to say if there were -- if there were some type of reasonable conditional use permits that may be amiable to the community there, then, that would be something to consider. That's all I'm asking. I'm not asking to have a maverick. Rohm: And I think that that's what everybody is trying to tell you, is that if, in fact, you do have an application down the road that you see as appropriate, you can come in and make an application for a conditional use -- Conditional Use Permit and an amendment to the development agreement and if it is deemed appropriate, then, that would be granted, but at this point in time you know what the thought is of the 7:00 to 7:00. That's kind of where this is -- that's kind of where this is going. Price: I'm not sure of the connection of the 7:00 to 7:00. I lost you on that. Rohm: Well, isn't that what you're fighting is the hours of operation that -- Newton-Huckabay: No. Rohm: Oh, I -- didn't you -- hadn't you mentioned -- Price: Well, that was one of the things, but I wasn't even on that page. I apologize. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 73 of 118 Rohm: Okay. But the conditional uses that you want to be considered, if you make an application for a -- what's the -- Zaremba: A day care, for instance? Rohm: Well, for -- no, the -- Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a comment after Commissioner Rohm -- Rohm: Go ahead. Newton-Huckabay: I would like to suggest that we leave in Craig's statement as it stands. The applicant has options where if he has what he considers as a viable business, you have options, you can come back in and change it. This is the first time that we have had one come back through with -- this is a result of that Comprehensive Plan change. It's the first one we have had come back through, I think we need to stick with everyone's interpretation of what the resolution means and I think we are splitting hairs and it's 11 :00 o'clock at night and let's not start splitting hairs on his -- you know, his other requests and, you know, I would stand by Craig's statement. I think it's appropriate. Borup: So, that was my point to start with. And if we want to discuss anything, it may be the hours of operation. Newton-Huckabay: I agree with the applicant, that restricting hours of operation is inappropriate, especially restricting -- you know, with the -- section two. And 1-- Zaremba: Well, the L-O and limited, I could agree. Newton-Huckabay: I think that the applicant is perfectly reasonable in asking that to be removed. I think his tree statement is a reasonable request. And I would ask Bruce to make comment on number five. Borup: And the comment on the tree statement, I'd like to see that in writing from the parks department, rather than a verbal statement. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. And that's fair. Is that fair with you? Borup: Well, it already does. It says it complies with the landscaping ordinance and that's part of the landscaping ordinance is that the arborist look at deciding what trees need to be mitigated and which ones don't, so -- I mean I think it's being complied with. I don't think the staff's statement needs to change any. Price: Well, the reason I brought that up was because the staff's statement said that -- or the wording in there said that all trees needed to be mitigated. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 74 of 118 Borup: According to the landscape ordinance. Price: I don't know. Borup: Well, the landscape ordinance explains that there is some that do and some that don't. Some are considered junk trees that could be removed. Price: Commissioners -- or Chairman, I'm not sure why, I just met with him and he walked through and he told me what to say and I would have assumed he would give you a report. I'm not sure why he didn't give a report. It just wasn't in there for some reason. Maybe someone else-- Freckleton: Mr. Chair, staff feels that the clarification in our -- the way that the comment is worded is appropriate, that it should be those that are deemed -- appropriate for mitigation by the arborist. The way that the -- Zaremba: We have seen it at other times -- Freckleton: It's worded any existing tree four inch caliper and larger that is moved. So, I think we can -- Zaremba: Just change it. Freckleton: -- modify the comments -- Zaremba: Those identified by the arborist. Freckleton: The arborist's report. Borup: How about like sewer? Freckleton: For the sewer comment I'll let Mike Cole talk to that. He's the one that wrote this report. Cole: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, it's a private sewer line that goes through there. It's an eight-inch sewer line that -- while eight inch is a main and he mentioned that more sewer going through would clean it, that's a true statement, but it's not classified as a main. It wasn't inspected by City of Meridian inspectors, it wasn't tested, it's not a facility that we feel comfortable taking ownership of. As such, it's deemed a service and building code only allows one building per service. If he's asking us to take over maintenance of that, he would have to proof that it's up to our standards. He'd have to get the church to agree to that. He'd have to get easements through where it runs into the church's property, so we could maintain it. I'm not saying it's -- it's impossible, but he would have to prove out that it's a facility worth owning or work with the building department and get a variance on their one building per -- per service. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 75 of 118 Borup: Any idea why an eight-inch line was put in to start with? Cole: I did some research on that. It was put in quite some time ago and, basically, I think common sense says that they didn't have enough depth to run -- a four inch line has to run at a minimum grade of two percent and the depth in Meridian Road, by the time they got to the church, it would have been out of the ground. You can run an eight inch line at 4/1Oths of a percent grade, so you're saying depth. You can run bigger lines further, because you're running it at a -- at a lower grade and so -- Borup: Doesn't that assume there is more capacity in that same line? Cole: Yes. That's-- Borup: I mean more usage in the same line? Cole: Yes. It can hold more sewer. That's not-- Borup: But the same volume of water is not going to do -- the same volume is not going to do as well in an eight-inch line as a four-inch line. Cole: That's correct. Borup: And so it's a matter of complying with the regulation that maybe in this case didn't make sense. Cole: Yeah. Borup: Okay. Cole: I don't know how it got to an eight service. Borup: If the church expands their building, they could have more usage, too, couldn't they? Don't they still have room to expand? Cole: If they -- if the church was still a single building, expanded as a single building, they could -- they could go into that line. If they -- if the church went to two buildings, you would -- it's two buildings into a single service and that's not up to building code. The plumbing code. I might ask the applicant, was he asking us to take over maintenance of the line or just allow him to hook into a private system, a private line? Price: Well, all I was simply asking was that the board not specifically disallow a connection. It specifically in the report disallowed it and I just wanted to have the option that if the church approved that and if, in fact, your Public Works Department people found that it was an acceptable line and so forth, that we could have a chance to hook Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 76 of 118 to it. I'm not trying to make you decide now if we need to hook up, I just didn't want it to be disallowed. Cole: I understand that and I -- I don't think this Commission would make a decision on whether or not you could or couldn't hook into that -- that sewer line. That would probably be made with Public Works at a later date. I just wanted to make you aware that -- to you that that -- that line is private and it's not ours. At this time it's not eligible to be hooked into. Price: Yes. I understand. So, perhaps I could -- Chairman and Commissioners, I would just ask that if you said at this time it's not eligible or something, that's fine. It's just that it specifically disallowed it and that's what my concern was is all, because when I have talked with some of them before and with the church, they didn't seem to have an objection and we may not even be able to do it. Maybe they will never be able to come up to standards and maybe I won't be able to get a variance, but I'd at least like to have that option. Cole: Staff has no problem with that. Newton-Huckabay: Not eligible at this time. Zaremba: Well, it's not eligible, because the code says you can't have more than one building on a -- on a private service line. Cole: That's correct, sir. Zaremba: And that's not going to change whether the church agrees or not. Cole: It's definitely a special circumstance and he'd have to -- he'd have to get the plumbing department to -- to okay it, if -- if he can't bring it up to prove to us that it's to our standards. Zaremba: Okay. So any -- Cole: We are not -- Zaremba: -- alternate agreement is subject to Public Works approval. Cole: That's -- yes. Zaremba: Okay. That should be part of our currently disallowed statement and is subject to Public Works approval. Moe: Could we go back to the -- just a quick question in regards to the time -- time frame that we want to just disallow the whole thing. I realize 7:00 to 7:00 is a little bit much, but -- I mean we did have residential neighborhoods around this, I think that was Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 77 of 118 the main reason why we were doing some restriction -- that staff was looking at restricting the operations. I realize you don't want arbitrary hours noted and whatnot, but are you anticipating being open until midnight, then? Price: Well, I don't think I have any particular participation -- or anticipation, but I gave examples there and I'm not sure the exact nature of the people that I would be building things for, but I believe that the development, in and of itself and the L-O zoning of itself, the size of the property in and of itself, is such that we are not talking about an intrusive -- it's certainly not going to have anymore traffic than the adjacent subdivision that's right next to it or the church. Hood: Mr. Chairman, again, this is one of the standard conditions, so if we are going to modify that, I would just -- you now, I'm going to read into that that you want us to modify all these, because it's going to be similar situations where they are three acres or less and they are adjacent to residential, so you're going to have similar situations down the line, so if you go with a 6:00 to midnight or no hours of operation or whatever, we are going to read in to put that with all of them, so we can, again, try to be consistent on those and they can be modified, but just so you know, that's how I'm going to kind of interpret the motion being made, is that all future ones are going to follow this mold, so -- Rohm: I think that you, actually, hit the nail right on the head with your original write up and that if, in fact, at some later date you want to come back in and request an amendment to the development agreement for a specific use, do so. That seems appropriate. And you see what the -- the direction that the planning department wants to go and if you have a specific use that you want to bring forward, then, so be it. It doesn't -- I don't understand why there is an exception to that. I mean there is a specific reason why they want to limit the uses within that L-O designation and that's why it's written the way it is. Borup: I think some hours are appropriate. You know, in realty, if some accountant was working until midnight and one car was sitting there, no one's going to complain. I think one of the purposes is if there is -- if there turned out to be a lot of traffic and a lot of noise, you know, there is a mechanism for residents to say something about it and -- Rohm: Exactly. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Borup: -- the city doesn't go around checking parking lots and seeing what car is there after 7:00 o'clock at night, as long as it's non-obtrusive. I don't think that's really -- to my mind that's not a concern, whether it's on the books or not. Price: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I guess by its very nature, though, I would -- I'm not sure that it's -- that the planning and zoning board would want to inherently place restrictions on that you also expect to have not adhered to and say, well, it's a minor Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 78 of 118 thing or maybe it -- you know, it ought to be reasonable enough that we could do it. The problem that you run into is that if I, as an owner, am going to lease a space out to a person and they happen to have hours outside of those, before I can even lease it to them, I've got to come back through another hearing and try to apply for a special permit to get them to be at certain hours and if they decided they needed to change those hours -- what if it was during tax season and they were going to see clients later, I would have to come back and get another special permit. So, what I'm asking for is if you don't feel comfortable having hours -- not having a limitation, then, at least placed in a broad enough way that it incorporates the type of uses that the very zoning itself allows. Further, I would say that although this may be something that Craig mentioned is going to come into play in future cases, this is a little bit of a unique situation, because adjoined on the north and adjoining on the east -- or, excuse me, west by two properties that currently are well outside of those limitations. The church and the park. And that's not going to always be the case when you have three acre parcels or less that are going to be changed to L-O zoning. I depends on the neighborhood, obviously. There currently is only small subdivisions to the side of it and that's probably not going to always be the case. Newton-Huckabay: I -- Mr. Chair, I have to agree with Mr. Price on this point. I think 7:00 to 7:00 -- your point, you put a chiropractic office in there, many people would want to go -- I mean 6:00 o'clock in the morning is a completely appropriate time to open up for business. I think 7:00 o'clock is -- you know, like H&R Block and those type of things are open into the evening to 9:00 o'clock, so I do think 7:00 to 7:00 is too restrictive and I think you do have a point that you have a unique area, because you have a park north, you have another L-O office phase there to the northeast there at Sundance. Borup: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Is that called Sundance? Borup: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Yes. That's the-- Borup: Yeah. That's designated for office space, too. Newton-Huckabay: Right. Right there. And you do have a church immediately to the west I think. I do think he has a valid point on that one, that the time -- the time line is too restrictive. Borup: You have convinced me. Mr. Chairman, I would be in favor of moving on and so we can make a motion. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Zaremba: Well, are we interpreting that something like 6:00 to midnight of -- Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 79 of 118 Borup: I say 6:00 to 9:00 is my vote. Price: I would be grateful and acceptable of 6:00 to midnight. The problem we face again is that if -- as Commissioner Borup mentioned, if I have somebody there who is working late like that, I can't have them do it and to have a time that's inherently the possibility they are going to be going passed that and, then, say, well, it's okay, because it's only one, I'm not sure that that's -- we ought to make it to where it's a livable thing and if it's going to be only a few, then it shouldn't be a big concern. We are talking about an office, as opposed to commercial. Borup: Because if it's not a few, there is no -- there is no recourse for the individuals. That would be my point. If you had 60 people there and in and out all hours of the night, there is no recourse. I would still like to move on. Rohm: I would, too. 9:00 o'clock. Baird: Mr. Chair, if I could have your -- this might be helpful. I think I would interpret hours of operation to mean from the hours of the pUblic -- the doors are open to the public. If you have got an accountant staying late or a cleaning group coming in, that's not restricted by the 7:00 to 7:00, unless somebody on staff tells me I'm wrong with that. They are nodding their heads that's correct. So, I think that might give you some comfort that if you set it -- an upper limit, you're not going to worry about the person working late at night. That type of thing. So, without further delaying it. I will -- Newton-Huckabay: I say 10:00 o'clock. Zaremba: Consumer operations. Newton-Huckabay: I say 10:00 o'clock. Zaremba: Okay. Works for me. 6:00 to 10:00? And the interpretation is -- Borup: We have limited it tighter on that in commercial zones. Zaremba: Let's see. We don't have anybody else signed up for that one, but is there anybody else that wishes to comment? We do have someone. Thueson: Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission, my name is Greg Thueson. I had not intended to stand up and talk tonight, but I'm Dr. Price's leasing agent, commercial realtor. I live at 4263 Nystrom Way in Boise. I'll just take a moment and, then, I will sit down. But I have been a leasing agent and commercial broker for probably 24 years here in Boise. I have leased thousands and thousands and thousands of square feet of office and retail and sold quite a bit of product as well. In the office market when you are leasing those to an office tenant, you do see people that work late. Not very many. Probably less than ten percent of any tenancy will have Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 80 of 118 people work beyond 7:00 or 8:00, but in this day and age hours need to be open, sometimes as late as 9:30 or 10:00, just to be able to produce the volume that any business needs to to get things done and that's unique to maybe chiropractic, possibly accounting, possibly real estate and so forth. You're aware, I'm sure, of the fact that an office complex is probably the best neighbor anybody can have short of a city park, because people tend to leave at 5:30 or 6:00 and it is a quiet use and weekends are usually not very busy. Many tenants close during weekends. So, I think that 6:00 to 10:00 is perfect. I think that's fine. And I think that's very believable and realistic. So, I think that's great that you're willing to give a little on that. The one thing that I wanted to ask very quickly, though, was related to this zoning use of L-O and, again, the appropriate process for permitted uses is C or condition use uses and the nature of the process should allow, if it's zoned L-O, for us to come back and utilize the legal dialogue in the agenda that's been in place for so many years, being able to come back and say I know this is a little stretch, but can we have this or that. I'm not ever imagining that he's going to put a convenience store or anything that's going to be heavy retail there, but what I do know is that I have already had one inquiry -- very serious inquiry for a child care facility and if I understood the way the staff's report read -- and I may be wrong -- I hope I'm wrong -- that indicated that there would never be an opportunity to come back and say we'd like a Conditional Use Permit for a child care facility and I'm just looking maybe for some clarification on that. If that is the case, the thing that concerns me is -- I only circled a couple of things here quickly, but technical school, a computer school that would want to operate in a facility like this, an office complex. Veterinary clinic. Who knows. I don't think that would be compatible with the rest. But child care center, family child care home, I don't think a home would be appropriate for him, a group home, but, definitely, who knows, a private club or a lodge within the hours that were defined, you never know. So, there is that gray area that if you shut those out, a greenhouse or a nursery, I doubt that as well, but mostly I'm looking at the shop carers. If I understood correctly, that just shuts the door from just every being able to come back in or not. Okay. I thought I read in December where it might be -- Borup: Well, it's -- Thueson: So, they do have the right to come back to -- he does have the right if a specific use is not listed as a permitted use. Borup: No. He would have to request a change in the development agreement. Thueson: He couldn't go through just the regular Conditional Use Permit process? Borup: No, because this isn't something that's been -- you made a statement it's been in place for several years. That's not the case. It's been, what, a year? Newton-Huckabay: Not even that long. Borup: Hasn't even been a year. So, this is a very new resolution that has allowed this special circumstance to allow an L-Q zone in an area that's designated residential on Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 81 of 118 the Comprehensive Plan. The choices in the past have been asking for a change in the Comp Plan. Thueson: Okay. Borup: This is -- this is skipping that step and allowing a special case like this an office use. So, that's the difference. Thueson: Okay. I think we are talking about two different things. Borup: I don't think so. Thueson: All I'm saying is if we are just going for L-O zoning, there are permitted uses and, then, there are -- Borup: But you're getting that L-O zoning because of that resolution. Thueson: Right. But that's the -- I'm just saying once we have L-O, if we have one of these other uses, we still would be able to come back and say, hey, what about a child care and the way I understand it -- Borup: So, it sounds like of all the stuff you have listed, child-care is probably the only one you're interested in? Thueson: Conditional use. Well, child care or other things similar to that that -- all I'm saying is there were probably 25 things on this paperwork that we received just within the last three or four months from the city that lists quite a few permitted, quite a few conditional -- not, granted, I think on there was a convenience store and that's -- we know that's never going to happen, but shouldn't an owner of property or a buyer be able to come and follow the plan that was given and say -- Borup: That is not the -- you're not understanding what's going on here. Zaremba: You're not requesting this under that ordinance; you're requesting it under the resolution which states what can be done on this kind of L-O. Thueson: Okay. Then, my mistake. I thought you were shutting the door on any of these other-- Borup: We are. Thueson: So, child care, then, is shut out? Newton-Huckabay: This piece of property is allowed to be L-O zoned under a completely different resolution than the one you're looking at. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 82 of 118 Thueson: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: It's like a different -- almost a different L-O zoning; would that be a fair statement, Craig? Thueson: Well, then, what we need to have is-- Zaremba: L-O resolution. Thueson: -- a different set of paperwork that identifies what is allowed, instead of informing us that L-O will allow -- Hood: We do. It's in the staff report. Newton-Huckabay: He said it's in the staff report. Hood: That's the -- Newton-Huckabay: Okay. But if you choose to want to request a day care center, then, you can change your -- or create or change the development agreement with the city and, then, you -- Borup: Couldn't that request be made right now? Right this minute? Hood: To amend the conditions? Borup: Just add child-care to it. Hood: Yeah. I mean this is all up for discussion. Borup: Until we make a motion. Thueson: That is one of the intended users that has expressed strong interest in having a small child-care, a small 16-child child-care center. Hood: I guess what I would ask with that is that you state with a Conditional Use Permit. These other ones are principally permitted and they could apply for a building permit and construct these offices, but a child care I think is appropriate to have that mechanism that the city has established for all these other uses, comes back before you for another hearing specifically for a child care center. Day care. Thueson: Okay. Hood: So, specify that, because right now these ones are principally permitted. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 83 of 118 Thueson: I was misunderstanding, then. I thought that we would be shut out from ever being able to come back and do anything with child care, so I apologize for taking your time on that and I don't have any other questions, unless you have questions for me. Zaremba: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I move that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-020, AZ 05-01 -- on, no. That's it. Just that one. Okay. Zaremba: AZ 05-020. Newton-Huckabay: Zero. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Are you doing the motion or do you want me to? Newton-Huckabay: You go right ahead. Zaremba: My only comment was going to be as the staff report clearly references Resolution No. 04-454, my feeling is we need to stay in compliance with that. Borup: I have got that the applicant may apply for a Conditional Use Permit for a child- care at a future time. Is that -- Zaremba: But otherwise comply. Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Zaremba: Works for me. Rohm: Are you going to adjust the hours? Borup: Yeah. Zaremba: Discussion on the other issues? Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 84 of 118 Newton-Huckabay: On the landscape to change the -- Borup: Oh. Zaremba: To work with the arborist, the standard conditions. Borup: Well, I think, yeah, they recommend -- the staff recommended stating -- oh, how did they say that? Appropriate trees or-- Hood: It's on page nine and I have -- those trees identified by the city arborist. Borup: No. Zaremba: Which has already been done, so that's a limited quantity. And, then, on the development agreement on page 12, the last bullet, add a possibility that there may be further restrictions on the access in the future. Any other comments from staff? Hood: No. Zaremba: Okay. Let's see. We have got that an alternate connection to the sewer line must be approved by Public Works. Did we get that in? Borup: No, we didn't. Oh, yes. I mean I did in my notes. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-020, request for annexation and zoning of 2.3 acres to L-O zone for Ashtyn Park by David Price, to include all staff comments and conditions of the staff memo dated May 27th for a hearing a date of June 2nd, except for the following. On page nine, under paragraph K, to add that any existing tree larger than four-inch caliper, as designated on -- let's see. All right. Any tree as designated by the city arborist that needs to be removed be mitigated, Is that close enough? On page 11, number three, to add that after the first sentence stating that it's not a city-owned facility and would not be eligible to serve additional units at this time. Any other agreement for its use would be subject to Public Works approval. Page 12, hours of operation shall be limited from 6:00 to 10:00. And the last bullet point that -- add: Further restrictions may be placed in the future by ACHD. And, then, Item No.4, that the applicant may apply for a Conditional Use Permit for a child care facility at a future date and this is the only -- only non-permitted L-O use that this Commission would approve at this time. Is that the proper way to say that? Zaremba: The only exception to the resolution 04 -- Borup: Yes. Okay. That would be the only -- okay. End of motion. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 85 of 118 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Thank you all. Okay. In anticipation that we are going to complete the agenda tonight, we will take another five-minute break. (Recess.) Item 18: Item 19: Item 20: Public Hearing: AZ 05-018 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 29.18 acres to R-4, R-8 & R-15 zones for Westborough Square Subdivision by JLJ Enterprises, Inc. - SEC of Jericho Road and Chinden Boulevard: Public Hearing: PP 05-020 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 7 building lots and 1 common lot on 5.39 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Westborough Square Subdivision by JLJ Enterprises, Inc. - SEC of Jericho Road and Chinden Boulevard: Public Hearing: CUP 05-027 Request for Conditional Use Permit / Planned Development approval of a mixed-use development consisting of 10 multi-family buildings and 6 office buildings with multiple buildings on a single lot and a waiver of the street frontage requirement in a proposed R- 15 zone for Westborough Square Subdivision by JLJ Enterprises, Inc. - SEC of Jericho Road and Chinden Boulevard: Zaremba: Okay. We will reconvene this meeting and let the record show that all Commissioners are present again. And I'd like to open the Public Hearing for AZ 05- 018, request for annexation and zoning of 29.18 acres to R-4, R-8, and R-15 zones for Westborough Square Subdivision. Also open the Public Hearing PP 05-020, request for preliminary plat approval for seven building lots and one common lot on 5.39 acres in a proposed R-15 zone, And also open Public Hearing CUP 05-027, request for a Conditional Use Permit planned development approval for a mixed-use development consisting of ten multi-family buildings and six office buildings with multiple buildings on a single lot and a waiver of the street frontage requirements in a proposed R-15 zone for Westborough Square Subdivision. All of these by JLJ Enterprises, Incorporated, southeast corner of Jericho Road and Chinden Boulevard and we will begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. I did a pretty good job of explaining this project. You touched on some of my points, so I'll try to skim over and touch on some of the major issues that we have, but first just a little more background to help. This project is annexation of everything shown here in bold. It's about -- approximately 29 acres, 17 acres of that is proposed for the R-4 zone. There is an existing charter school on that site. The 5.53 acres to the west are -- have five single- family homes. The applicant has proposed R-8 zoning for those one-acre parcels. And, then, the remaining approximately six acres is right on the southeast corner of Jericho and Chinden and that's proposed for R-15. Now, this is also being platted and the Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 86 of 118 Conditional Use Permit is on this rectangular shaped property on the corner, so just to kind of clarify that for you. Some of the boundaries are different. In 2004 the City Council did agree to provide sewer service to the five residential lots in Westborough, again, these five one acre lots as they were outside of the city limits. Now, the lots don't -- the homes and lots don't show up on this aerial, as it is older, but the lots are there on the aerial. In exchange for sewer service, the owner agreed to sell the city a well site, which is right in this location right on Locust Grove in that location and to request annexation once they were contiguous. Arcadia Subdivision, which I think is on the next aerial, Arcadia Subdivision was recently approved. Saguaro Canyon is in this location. And they are contiguous and have -- and the applicant has request annexation. To the north of the site are one-acre homes in Eagle. To the south single family homes zoned RUT. This was the Reserve Subdivision. That one was withdrawn. That's still in the county as RUT. Again, a church to the east. There is a church to the east here on the corner of Locust Grove and Chinden and Tustin Subdivision is also a recent one that was approved by the city on the corner of Ustick. Or, excuse me, McMillan and Locust Grove recently, The applicant is proposing to re-subdivide, again, the 5.39 acre parcel, Lot 6, Block 1, of Westborough into eight new lots for Westborough Square. There are six single story office buildings on the west side, so approximately here is the line separating the office uses from the ten proposed four-plex buildings on the eastern approximately half of that site. The remaining lot is a driveway lot, which I will get to now. The applicant is proposing one 30-foot wide -- and it does vary a little bit. It's 30 feet here and it does go down to 25 and 20 feet from some areas, from Jericho Road, to serve those seven lots - build.able lots within the subdivision. There is no other access proposed. There is some -- a mix of garage and open-air parking spaces for the units for the residents of the multi-family units. Here is an elevation of the multi-family. This is a four-plex. A lot different than what we are used to seeing for a four-plex building. They all are two bedrooms, just different floor plan for each of the units. The gross density of the subdivision is 7.4 dwelling units per acre. However, if you exclude the office, basically half of the building, then, the density almost doubles to 14.4 dwelling units per acre. Here is an elevation for the proposed office -- or one of the office buildings in a conceptual elevation for that. Because the applicant did not submit applications that complied with the Comprehensive Plan, as noted in the staff report. Staff did recommend that the city annex and zone the 17-acre school site to R-4 as requested and that the 5.53 acres containing the one-acre homes be zoned to R-4. And I will stop there for just a second. It was requested for R-8 zoning. Staff did not think that that's appropriate and did not represent the land use on those lots being one acre and the redevelopment potential of those to even subdivide those -- the area of those lots take up a good portion. They are pretty centrally located on those one-acre lots. They probably aren't going to redevelop anyway, so the R-4 zone more closely represents what's actually on site. And, finally, that the 6.62 acres requested for the R- 15 zoning be denied and that be zoned R.8 as well. Since the recommendation went over to the Commission I have spoken with the applicant and about recommending approval of R-15 zone with the stipulation that no office uses go on there, that they only be residential uses on the R-15. I'm agreeable to that if the applicant does agree to construct only residential dwellings on that, excuse me, six acres or so. However, the plat will probably need to be revised, a new site plan will need to be submitted, a new Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 87 of 118 landscape plan with new lot lines and landscape buffers surrounding the uses and the amenities that are appropriate to the size of the development. So, there are some conditions with that that if that's the direction that this board chooses to go, we will need to be modified and staff has not included any conditions of approval right now with this application. The recommendation was just to approve these modified zoning and not the plat or the CUP. Also, the final remaining issue, if you will, is the sewer service there and it is noted in the staff report. I would like Mike to explain to you a little bit more of what's going on there and if you have any questions of me, I am available. Cole: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission -- excuse me. This is -- this development is being proposed to sewer through a private lift station that they -- they installed that we reviewed for the five building lots on the left-hand side of Westborough and for the 31 lots in Arcadia. These five building lots here and this one. And for this little area right here that -- we are not planners, but at the time they told us it would be commercial. So, Public Works reviewed and accepted that lift station for that amount of influent to come into it. Now, with this being proposed as R-15 multi-family residential four-plexes, apartments, that's a significant increase in the amount of influent that is being generated and the lift station doesn't appear to be able to meet that -- that demand. They have had some talks with our department and we said that they could build maybe a couple of them, put on a flow meter at the lift station to get a true representation of the sewage that's being generated and see how much they could handle. And the other issue of that is it's a -- the sewer is being pulled right now to Saguaro Canyon, the North Slough trunk line is coming through that right as we speak. So, it has gravity means to it soon, but not yet. They don't have the sewer capability to sewage -- to sewer these multi-family lots. That's the sewer problem. I think I have made myself clear. I will stand for questions. Zaremba: When the new sewer gets there, then, they will no longer have any need for any lift station; is that correct? Cole: That is correct, sir. It's -- it has been planned to -- the routing of the sewer through this Saguaro and the Arcadia Subdivision has had the pipes upsized and was planned to sewer all of that. So, as the gravity gets there, it -- they will have capacity then, just not with the lift station they have there now. Zaremba: Is there a target on how long it will be or is that developer driven or -- Cole: I -- I had conversations with Ben Thomas and he has final -- he is trying -- going to try to final plat Saguaro Canyon three and four soon. He was asking for routing of sewer mains. So, I know that it's -- it's close, He's wanting to final plat and as soon as he final plats it, Arcadia is just waiting for it to get there, so they can go. But, then, again, it is on the -- on the developer's timeline, just because they final platted it, doesn't mean they would be building it. Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners? Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 88 of 118 Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I would ask staff a question. Just through staff comment alone I'm sensing that we are actually not really going to be ready to do much of any decision on this issue tonight. I think there is -- there is items already that need to be addressed and -- before I'd even want to consider sending this onto City Council. So, I'm a little bit concerned. I want to see the project go forward, so I guess my point is I think we should be considering a continuation of this, as opposed to -- I'm just sitting here trying to walk through this thing when there are so many items that are still somewhat up in the air. Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Moe, if I may, if you would allow the applicant his time, anyways, and, then, based on that you can -- it's going to have to be remanded back is how I envision it, anyways, for either conditions of approval or you send it on with the recommendation for this zoning or however you want to go. There isn't a plat approved with this application. There is not a CUP approved. So, depending on how you want to go with the zoning, that will kind of lead us down the next path and I envision it coming back again, but I don't know if necessarily in a continued manner and it will be something more to the effect that you're remanding it back to me to come up with findings and conditions for whatever you want to see, I guess, is how I envision that coming forward. So, anyway, that's my two cents. I agree there is no conditions to modify, so the motion is a little bit different than the standard motion, but that's -- Moe: Well, I have no problem listening to the applicant. I would have one other question for -- Zaremba: I think that's appropriate, because they may be able to clarify some things. Moe: Absolutely. Zaremba: When we do -- if the end result is that we continue this for staff to write a report, the conditions -- we will have things that we can suggest go into those conditions. Moe: Absolutely. The only one other question I would have for you, Craig, I know we talked about as far as the 17 acres going R-4 and you talked about the 6.62 acres going into R-15. Are you still looking to do the 5.53 that R-8 to go into an R-4 as well? Hood: I would stand with the original recommendation that those be zoned R-4, not as R-8 as requested, but to more, again, closely represent the current land use of single- family homes on one acre. The applicant and I have not discussed that zone, but -- Moe: That was my question. Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: Let's have the applicant if we may. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 89 of 118 Jewett: Jim Jewett, 516 South Capital in Boise. I was going to go one way tonight, but because of your comments I'll kind of go first -- that my planner here maybe can clear up some questions to get a direction. So, if you'd go to the plat, the colored one. You know, what's driving the annexation of not only this property, but the school property and the well site and the five one acre lots is an agreement we have with the city to do so. That agreement was entered into just over a year ago and with Arcadia being approved, that keyed that agreement going to the next stage was the annexation. That agreement, unfortunately, was not specific on zoning, so it was, I guess, left to us. After staff made -- had its report, I had a talk with staff about what -- the appropriate way to go and as far as the school zoning, the one acre lot zoning, whatever the city desired there. There was some discussion about the R-8 being on the one acre lots for some specific reason, but it wasn't from us, so R-4, R-8, that really is immaterial. What's important to us is that the five acres be zoned something that's usable for us and R-8 is not going to be usable for us. The R-15 -- what drove us to this layout initially was just like the application you had prior, when that new resolution came in that allowed three acres of L-O when you have frontage on an arterial or a collector street, that's what laid out this three acres of this commercial here or L-O was based on that. Then, as we got into it, we found out that we -- that we really didn't fall under that resolution, so, then, we went to the R-15 with a conditional use for the commercial, since we had already gone down the road of starting commercial and so the apartments was just really what was left over of our 5.6 acre lot. So, with the staff support, not finding that they could support the L-O or the commercial use or the L-O use within the Comp Plan, I talked to staff about, you know, zoning the whole thing R-15 if you left the L-O out, but, ultimately, it's this body and the City Council that needs to decide what they feel is appropriate on Chinden. So, I felt it was in our best interest to come forward tonight, present why we thought L-O would be appropriate or those uses would be appropriate and get the input back from the -- from the P&Z and if the P&Z feels strongly that it's not appropriate, that we can then -- we would be willing to withdraw the conditional use and just let it go the R-15. I think it's important tonight that we try to get a recommendation on that zoning and we can let the plat -- the conditional use either go away or be tabled, let us modify it, but for the sake of the other properties that are already in the sewer area that need to go into the city and would need to continue forward, we have finished the transaction with the city on the well lot, I think it transferred to them last month, and it's outside the city limits right now and that's included in this application. So, I believe that the zoning needs to move forward and if -- and a recommendation of zoning for this one needs to move forward. If there is a difference and it needs to be modified on this application on the plat, we can let it be tabled, let us revise it to whatever your recommendations are, and let it come back through. But I would encourage that the zoning be allowed to move forward and that we discuss what appropriate zoning should be here tonight. Now, if that's the direction you'd like to go, then, Phil could come up and discuss the buildings, discussion that commercial, how we laid it out, and why we laid it out and how we feel it meets the Comp Plan and, then, we can discuss that. So, with that I would stand for questions on how you would like to see me go forward. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 90 of 118 Hood: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Yes. Hood: I would just like to clarify, if that's the direction that you choose to go and basically we are moving on just the annexation request, that, too, I think if there is not a plat and a CU, it should at least be sent back so I can have some development agreement conditions. I mean we never sent anything to the City Council with at least some conditions for a DA saying that, you know, okay, you have got R-15, however, it's limited to this or that or you need to come back in and hours of operation, those types of things in a DA. I can't remember ever just seeing a recommendation for, you know, zoning and you're done, so -- unless there is a plat or CU that can have those types of conditions on them, if that's the direction you're going, we are just moving forward with annexation and zoning, that still needs to be remanded, or at least tell me what condition do you want to see this at the City Council, if you're comfortable with that. I mean that's the third option, I guess, is -- Zaremba: Just a personal opinion. My instinct would be that we generally try and keep these three subjects together when they are together. City Council has responded to us that they prefer that as well. I personally -- and I think the city is satisfied that you are -- you have initiated the process to be annexed and so you are complying with the original agreement. I don't think there is going to be any discussion that says if we hold all three of these together, you are in default of some agreement that requires you to annex it. You have made that application and it's moving through the process, so I don't see that becoming a problem. We only get one opportunity at this, so we do need to get it right to everybody's satisfaction, so my instinct would be to keep the three of them together, remand -- probably continue all them for some rules and I don't think the city's ever going to say you weren't trying to live up to your part of the bargain, so, personally, I didn't -- if anybody else agrees with me. Newton-Huckabay: I do. Rohm: About a hundred percent. Zaremba: That's good. Let's see. Do we have -- well, let just ask. On the five point I think 39 acres, really, is the focus of the discussion, are you amenable to making that all four-plexes and having no office there or -- discuss your -- I know you said that you wanted to plan in the first place, but do you have other options that would be a second choice? Jewett: Well, like I stated earlier, R-8 zoning, we don't consider that to be acceptable, but R-15 all residential we would deem that acceptable. Our desire to move forward on that, I'll just be real clear on that, I mean the county -- we have had -- with this piece of property we have gone through quite a bit with this piece of property and just, really, we are left with this 5.6 acres and the county has deemed it their responsibility to tell us it's Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 91 of 118 commercial property and it's worth one point some million dollars and they tax us accordingly. And there is -- and we just sit there and pay taxes. So, our desire is to do with the property what is the highest and best, so that we can dispose of it and move on and just quit paying taxes on it. We have sewer available to it now. We have annexation to the city available to it now. We would like to have a use that allows it to move forward and if that's all residential in an R-15, that would be acceptable. We thought this is what the city all wanted us to do when we made the agreement with them, but I think they all envisioned a new comp plan being in place before now that would take in the north Meridian and it just doesn't exist right now and I think that's our problem more than anything is we have a comp plan that's really not adjusted for what's happening up there along Chinden Boulevard. So, you know, I'd like to have the input of this body on what they -- what they envision that should look like and if they don't think that the L-O is appropriate, that all residential and apartments or townhomes is more appropriate, then, I'd gladly take that recommendation and go back and modify the preliminary plat and bring it back. So, we really do need that direction and if you do want to hear the planner make a presentation on this application and why we did it and what's in it, he can gladly do that, but if the staff really feels strongly that it's not going to be supportive, then, I don't think that either of our time is spent well at this hour going over something that's not going to be acceptable. If the body really feels that -- that R- 15 with an all residential that -- me and staff talked about late today, is what would be the only thing that would be acceptable -- or the highest acceptable use in there, then, give us that direction now and, then, when we are out, kick behind us, and we can all go home. But I -- I really think there is merit to this one, but if it's really fighting an uphill battle, let it get known now and so we can make the modifications and I would -- I don't disagree with the idea that all the applications should stay together and I do appreciate your comments and I -- and so I would just look for your direction. Zaremba: I'm not sure, to me, that it would be a waste of time to hear your case for your present configuration. I don't know about others, but the one reason that I would consider listening to it is that within a planned development you do have in the ordinance the 20 percent use exception and if I calculate the whole 29.18 acres into this application, you would be under that; am I correct? And that would allow you to do something like six acres as a use exception. Hood: And I'm not sure how that's -- it's -- requested for R-15 is, actually, 6.62, so it's -- we are splitting hairs a little bit. I mean it could be modified to get to the 20 percent, I guess, and it's real close. If that's the direction -- it could be as a use exception, you know, we do have that in a PO, like you said. That's not how it was submitted, so -- Zaremba: Let me ask the other Commissioners. Is it open for discussion or -- Borup: I think it might be. I do have a couple of questions that probably -- some of it may be answered if we did that, but some of my curiosity -- apparently the assessor's office doesn't take into consideration Comp Plan designations? Jewett: No. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 92 of 118 Borup: That seems rather strange to me. Jewett: I could go on for a long time on that issue. Borup: Well, I was just clarifying that. Newton-Huckabay: Let's not. Jewett: Let's not. Borup: And, then, you had mentioned the Comp Plan -- I mean the Comp Plan is not that old. I mean 2002 doesn't seem that long ago to me, anyway, and didn't you have control of the property -- or you were looking at the property at that time? Jewett: Yeah. We had control of it. Borup: Did you do any input into the Comp Plan on designation at the time the Comp Plan was being changed? Jewett: Yes. And if you remember-- Borup: No, I don't. That's why I'm asking that. Jewett: Do you remember when the Wardle plan for north -- was going through? Borup: Yes. Jewett: And the Comp Plan kept being delayed and delayed, waiting for the Wardle plan, finally, the City Council said we have to get a new Comp Plan in place, so they said we are going to move forward, understanding that we are going to have an overlay for north Meridian. Well, then, Wardle withdrew his plan and, then, that's where it's been ever since. Borup: But you didn't -- you didn't put any input at any of the pUblic hearings about -- Jewett: I assumed the Wardle plan was going to -- in the Wardle plan we did. Borup: Okay. Jewett: But not -- we all assumed the Wardle plan was going to change the -- Borup: Okay. And, then, I didn't see where ACHD really said anything -- had any concerns or anything about this. Jewett: ACHD has none. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 93 of 118 Borup: I noticed that. So, even the -- you know, staff had some concerns on access to this site, if there is, you know, going to be -- especially much commercial type traffic, because there would be a signal there or anything else, so -- Jewett: We have a new signal at Locust Grove. Borup: Right. Jewett: It slows the traffic -- Borup: But that doesn't get you in and out of Jericho, other than -- other than, yeah, the stopping. Jewett: It's just that the people are going a little slower to get in and out of Jericho. And, you know, the commercial would be less intrusive than the residential when it comes to traffic, because it would spread out more evenly through the day, then, residential would be more concentrated at 8:00 to 5:00. So, that's one reason why we always had planned some commercial there, because it would be less intrusive. Borup: But in my mind I mean some office there seems appropriate to me. You know, good access to it. I don't know if that's -- the only traffic that's slowed down is the westbound -- eastbound traffic from the previous light has enough time to spread out, that -- unless there is a red light there. I don't know. I don't see where that's -- and that's the -- and it's the eastbound that's going to be the most conflict. But it still seems like probably an appropriate place to have some office. Jewett: And I do believe -- I don't drive Chinden all the time, but they have widened that to a turn lane the whole length of that mile. There is a turn lane the whole mile. Borup: In the center. Jewett: Center turn lane. So, people who want to make a left-hand turn into Jericho now can get out of traffic. They don't have to be stopping traffic going westbound. Zaremba: Well -- and somewhere in the future it will be a five lane -- Jewett: Right. Zaremba: -- the only discussion is whether it's a five lane plus bike path, but it would be a five lane. Is our assessment that we would like to hear the planner's presentation? Newton-Huckabay: Can I ask a question first? Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 94 of 118 Newton-Huckabay: I think I might have missed something during your presentation. This -- why are we not -- this is what I think I missed. On the Comp Plan this is medium density residential and we don't want it to be medium density residential anymore? Hood: No. The applicant has applied for a Conditional Use Permit. The R-15 zone is a bump up -- Newton-Huckabay: Right. Hood: -- he's asking for a bump up to R-15 and, then, on top of that they are asking for a Conditional Use Permit to do nonresidential uses in a residential zone. Newton-Huckabay: Oh. Okay. Hood: The reason that it didn't jive with the Comp Plan was not only that, but also there is a neighborhood center less than a quarter mile away and depending on the scope -- you know, this amount of office will -- you will end up with a Paramount. Basically, the city will have to initiate a Comp Plan amendment to remove the neighborhood center at the half-mile, because all of the commercials are going to be taken up here or a good portion of it, anyways. At least that's -- so that's why R-15 didn't seem to be appropriate. Jewett: And we did have an answer to that and that's one reason why Phil can talk about that neighborhood center and how it affected -- or how we would affect it. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. If I can just finish my thought. Can you back up to the one that has the bigger area? Okay. This seems -- this here seems very awkward development of this. Like the neighborhood center is right there, right? Okay. So, we have that neighborhood center there. We have Arcadia. And, then, if I remember right, this has been withdrawn, but I suspect it will come through again and ACHD had access here, access here, of course, going into Jericho and, then, you put 350 people living right in here -- it's just really busy. Zaremba: So, are you suggesting that it should be split between residential and commercial? Newton-Huckabay: I'm not sure what I'm suggesting. I would think that it should be just residential myself, but -- either that or -- I mean because like when this connects through and comes up through Saguaro Canyon and Arcadia and through here, you know -- and I don't know how long this is, but it just seems like we are -- at some point somebody's going to go, boy, that was just a really bad idea when all that comes together. And that -- I guess that's why I'm -- that's why I'm thinking -- and, you know, I mean I -- just there is a lot of stuff that's in process all around in here and I don't think developing this as R-15 -- and this is the neighborhood center-- Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 95 of 118 Borup: Well, I don't consider -- that's not a neighborhood center, is it? It's just office space. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. No. The neighborhood center is right here. Borup: Oh, there. I'm sorry. I thought you meant -- Zaremba: It isn't on this property. It's west of this property. Newton-Huckabay: He's kind of a whole cacophony of things going on all in this area that I think it's going to make this -- like I said, somebody's just going to go -- that really wasn't thought through very well. End of comment. Borup: Quick question on traffic count. Which is more, residential or office? Residential is, what, ten trips a day. Hood: For a single family residential it's ten. Borup: Yeah. Hood: For multi-family it, actually, goes down per unit. Borup: And, then, what's office? Hood: I don't remember what was said about office. Borup: Anybody know? Okay. I just wondered if it was more or less. You're talking about the -- about the traffic concerns and I -- I didn't know if office would be less traffic than apartments or more. Newton-Huckabay: I would think that it would be less -- Jewett: Let me try to answer some of those questions real quickly. That's on the quarter mile. Secondly, I'll give you what I know about -- Reserve was withdrawn because they wanted to connect this street to Locust Grove and the developer does not wish to do that. So, by doing that you have an alternative out that -- with Saguaro Canyon, you had it connecting, so you have an alternative out this way, but you also have an alternative out this way. So, it's kind of a two way street. As far as the neighborhood center, I want to point out that you have existing commercial uses here that is going to prohibit the neighborhood center from going right on the half mile, because of the existing uses of Zamzows and the -- day care or school there. So -- and I'll let the planner talk about that. What's happened in here is a result of lots of different things and I can't say that it's the best of the long-term planning, but they are what they are, and we had -- I had to deal with them as a homeowner, the city has to deal with them as a city and the P&Z as the P&Z on what to do now. And that's what I'm asking for is your direction. Staff has made a recommendation. We will have Phil go ahead Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 96 of 118 and make a presentation on the -- what our uses are and why we thought they were appropriate and, then, go from there. Zaremba: I say let's do that. Please. Holt: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, my name is Phil Holt with the Land Group, 462 East Shore Drive, Eagle, Idaho. 83616. Basically, as we were going through the planning process and in reading through the -- the Comp Plan, we grabbed onto some language, basically, that made us think that this would be an appropriate use for this corner. And all kind of steps -- or deals with the neighborhood center concept at that location. I'm just going to read some of that language that was in our application and report that we submitted. Basically, considering the development application to apply to the neighborhood center concept, with our project location contiguous to a future mixed use community neighborhood center, professional office on the corner of Chinden and Jericho would fit well with more intense commercial uses across Jericho to the west. So, basically, what we were saying was with the more intensive commercial use at the center of the neighborhood center, if you can visualize that graphic in the Comp Plan of what that neighborhood center looks like, there is basically concentric circles radiating out from that central core of more high intensive commercial use and we are envisioning this as one step out from that and this professional office not being an intensive commercial use, it's, basically, a transition to the higher density residential on an outer ring and, then, ultimately two lower density residential. That's, really, how we came to this concept, as well as the property being located on Highway 20-26, but huge traffic challenges and at the same family residential up against that really made some sense to us. Lower traffic counts generated from office, as opposed to the higher density residential. A couple of other items. I'll just kind of paraphrase a couple of the Chapter 7, Goal One, Objective B, a couple of the action items that are out of the Comp Plan. It says locate new community commercial areas on arterials or collectors near residential areas in such a way as to compliment with adjoining residential areas. Our site is located on an arterial, Highway 20-26, and a collector, Jericho, providing for professional office only, not retail or more high intensive commercial uses. We will provide for a more compatible use to single family lots to the south. We are kind of hearing that also that the single family residences to the south would most like the lower intensive commercial use better, as opposed to the higher densities eventually. Basically for lower traffic counts, no two story developments looking down on -- those types of things. Hours of operation. So, just it's really made sense just to provide some commercial on this corner for those -- those reasons. Zaremba: Questions from the Commissioners? Okay. Let's proceed with the Public Hearing and we will have some discussion after awhile. The name is only a last name, but McClure I believe it is. Please come forward. McClure: My name is Lynn McClure, I live at 6055 Jericho Road. It's the property right next to Arcadia. A five-acre lot. And I was really happy to hear what you had to say, because that was our main concern, because all these little places coming in and the Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 97 of 118 major traffic going down that really narrow small road and, then, they wanted to add these ten four-plexes, adding approximately 40 families, possibly two cars apiece, another 80 cars coming out on one little street right there at the entrance of Jericho, making it very difficult to get out in the mornings. I'm not real fond of businesses, but if we stuck with the smaller ones, we would have less traffic and I think it would be easier to get out, because right now I wait five to ten minutes to get out to go to work, so I really am not too found of the idea of multiple homes going in on that property. What I'd really like to see is another, you know, one-acre lot or half acre lot. That's what we would love to see, because that would fit with what's across the street, what's all around us. But that's not going to happen. I really would like to see something less imposing, something that brings less traffic onto that little tiny road and it is a small small road. It has never been properly -- how do I want to say it? It was a dirt road when we moved there and they threw some chip seal over it and, then, about six months after this started and we started complaining, they came in and threw some tar over it. So, they have never gone back and made the road wider or put in a good bed in there or anything, to handle all this traffic that's going to start coming in and now we have two schools, that's going to bring traffic and classes, parents, so you have got a lot of traffic that's going to be coming into that area already. And, then, to add ten more units, it would just become impossible for us to get in and out and I do -- my daughter has horses and we bring our trailer through there and I know that it isn't your problem, but since they started development, people must think there is a race track down there, because from what used to be a very quiet neighborhood, we now have racing motorcycles and cars and it's going to get worse, it's not going to get better. That would be our suggestion. And I know that Mrs. Martin, who lives next to us on a five acre lot also does not want to see four-plexes go in there. Thank you. Borup: Ma'am, I have a couple questions. Go ahead. Newton-Huckabay: Mrs. McClure, I was just -- I haven't been down Jericho recently. It's still a dead end now -- McClure: No. Newton-Huckabay: -- or even though it's connected into Arcadia already. McClure: Because Arcadia already has the cut out roads, the dirt roads. They are not really -- actually, they are not even really roads, they are just -- they have gone in there and indicated how the roads are going to go through and the motorcycles and the four wheelers and -- they are just flying through there. Newton-Huckabay: But that connection has already been made? McClure: Yeah. They have already started. Newton-Huckabay: All right. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 98 of 118 Borup: Now, you -- you had asked a question about what was going to happen to this road. Part of their application is they would put sidewalks down -- McClure: One side. Borup: -- one side and have 24 feet of paving. So, you understood that? McClure: Well, the road is paved, if you want to call it that. Like I said -- Borup: Well, it's going to have to be paved to ACHD standards, so I -- I don't know that it's probably to that standard or not, but the new road would be to highway district standards. McClure: They are not going to be able to put a light out there and they have put a light on Locust Grove, yes, and what that has done is it backs up. But, then, you know, they were saying it only backs one direction. If you have ever been out there at 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon, it backs both directions, very tightly, going down that road. And Meridian -- the Meridian light and -- Linder? Is that the next one? That one is really bad at backing up. I have seen it back up from Linder almost all the way to Locust Grove at some point. Okay. Borup: Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. She was the only one signed up, but there is an opportunity for anybody else to speak if they wish to. If not, we will have the applicant back again. Jewett: Okay. I have a chance to go over a couple other issues I haven't had a chance to go over yet and one was the sewer. We did -- to make a long story short, the city originally agreed to allow us to serve these properties, these five one acre lots with a temporary lift station -- grinder lift station on each house and pumping over and dropping into the line at Locust Grove. DEQ said, no, go build a lift station here, so we can turn around and move it over to here to turn around and do away with it in all a one year time frame. So, we go spend thousands of dollars, we built a lift station here, which arcadia is simply going to move over to hear for the summer and we just finished it. So, we have put a lift station in here and the lift station was sized to handle Arcadia, our five one acre lots, and this five acre lot as a commercial lot. You know, once we got going through this process, it was, obvious, that we weren't going to get all commercial on it, so the use has increased. The residential use is more than the commercial when it goes to sewer. And so we have written a letter to the city, as well as to the Arcadia developer saying that he can't relocate the lift station. He can have his hundred percent capacity and we will take whatever is remaining, and we will wait until the gravity sewer line connects before we will develop beyond that point. That's when an agreement will be made. We have issued that to the city. We are confident that this will be in long before we get that close. So, as far as the sewer, we are more than agreeable to what we have agreed with the city and what we have issued in a letter to both the city and the Arcadia developer. As far as Jericho, with the construction of these five one acre lots Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 99 of 118 we were required to curb, sidewalk, and asphalt one half of the road. So, with that we paved the road from here to here and put sidewalk all the way to here and a curb just to here. We had an agreement with ACHD that when we developed this, that we would widen the road again from here to here and put curb. And that's a condition imposed by ACHD. With the construction of the sewer line that went down this side of the road to here, we have the rebuilt -- the road on that side. So, it has brand new pavement from here all the way to here. The only part it doesn't have re-pavement is from here to here and as we build the other curb, we will construct that other half. We have widened the road from its original construction, I believe to -- if I remember right, our original condition it was a half plus 12 of a 36 back. So, it's much wider than 24 feet. I don't know the exact width of it, but I know it's much wider than 24 people, so we had to widening it with the construction of these. The -- I want to talk about the neighborhood center concept with the Comp Plan, which the comp plan is this right here. The neighborhood center that's being talked about is right here on the map. Can all the P&Z see that now? Now, if you look at the schedules here, you can see what's going on here. I have talked about the Zamzows and the other usage here, the Holy Apostles church right down here. The idea behind the neighborhood center is that at the half mile line you would have a road that would radiate out. That is not doable in this situation, because of this entrance. If there was ever going to be a road that would line up, it would have to line up here. ITD is not going to say, no, you can have another one here and another one here. They want to limit it to half miles. Well, since this one was existing and they put this road into the north, the most likely spot for a center point for radiating neighborhood center would be here. So, by shifting -- and the Comp Plan does allow this line to shift. It's not set in gold. So, if you shifted that point to there, it encompasses our property. So, one of the things we looked at when we looked at this is that, you know, that area can float to cover our property and with that, then, we are at the -- not only adjacent to that neighborhood center, but actually within that neighborhood center and which makes are use appropriate. And I also want to point out, as you look down Eagle Road, both north and south of Chinden, that you have professional office tucked in next to residential subdivisions all up and down from Ustick -- actually, all the way to Fairview now, you have these kind of uses that dump onto Eagle Road, which has a more traffic -- more traffic count than Chinden does. Another example of apartments and mixed use of office and even higher uses is over at the HP Research Center right off of Discovery Way, which has the Renaissance apartments right across the street from the Burger King, which also shares an entrance with Hobble Creek. And, yes, they have widened Chinden there, they put a stop light there, but those are improvements that have happened. So, these are uses that are in the general vicinity that are very common to this. The fault on this property is that Jericho existed and it existed before we started -- we owned the property. It was there. So, Jericho is going to be an established entrance onto Chinden, it's going to be established for some time and as we grow and continue to grow, its use is going to grow. But, hopefully, other accesses to other peripherals also happen, giving more people alternatives. We don't think -- we don't think that residential on that 5.6 acres is the highest and best use. I don't know if in your packet you were distributed the agreement that we made with the city when we serviced this sewer outside the city limits. But that agreement speaks that this five acres as a commercial lot. It speaks of it in two -- two Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 100 of 118 times in that agreement that this future five acres would be a commercial lot and the discussions with City Council when we made that agreement was you don't want that to be residential and I said, no, but we were -- you know, we, obviously, thought it would be two or three years before sewer came. We didn't think it would be just over a year. You know, it's just -- that's what our growth is doing to us. So, you know, again, what I'm asking for you tonight, if you like the application that's in front of you, you can make a motion and go forward from there. If there is something you want to see different, then, I would ask that you convey that to me, so that we can go back and bring something back to you that would be acceptable, because what we want to do is have something that's acceptable to the city and it's acceptable to us, that we can just move forward. So, with that, I would stand for questions and comments and -- Borup: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Jewett -- Zaremba: Commissioner Borup. Borup: Has there been any -- any discussion with ACHD as far as an acceleration lane or anything? Jewett: I looked at the staff report and -- Borup: I didn't see anything, that's why I was wondering if there was any verbal discussion. Jewett: They have a trip per day and I guess the trip per day did not warrant an acceleration lane, but I understand that Chinden -- well, lTD. Borup: Right. That's true. Jewett: And when I did the original subdivision, we did negotiate with ITD and give them additional right of way based on their future widening. So, I don't know what impact or what ACHD can comment to ITD and sometimes they make recommendations. In this case they didn't. I'm assuming when additional development happens out here and this becomes more of the central focus road, that might be something that comes in. So, again, we have granted -- and you can see it here, we have granted this additional right of way here. Notice how it's wider? We have granted that right of way, so if one needs to be built, it's there. Borup: Well, I'm beginning to feel -- I mean that the plan that you submitted is probably appropriate and sounds like the neighbors would rather have some limited office than -- in there, rather than all multi-family. But it sounds like the traffic is a concern and, you know, how are these people going to get out -- out of Jericho. Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Borup? Borup: Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 101 of 118 Hood: Could I just -- Borup: Please. Hood: -- do my little pitch? I guess I didn't realize that we were going to get this detailed in the specifics, so I would just like to touch on that -- that one point of how people are going to get out of not only this development, but the folks that are here this evening and Arcadia. If this -- and Jim touched on it. This is at the half mile. This is a third of a mile, this is a third of a mile, and what you can't see off the screen is Meridian Road, which is at the third of a mile. This is the half-mile. Jewett: This is the half-mile. Hood: No. This is the half-mile here. Because when this -- when ITO -- when this develops, ITO is going to approve an access point here and it's going to align and this is where we are going to get a signal. This is where the people are going to come. They are going to come in here and it's going to connect up with Jericho Road, all this traffic is going to want to go to the signal, because that's how you can get on the highway. Jericho here I envision not having a lot of people that are going to try to get out there, because it's not signalized and it won't be, because Locust Grove is signalized and it doesn't meet the warrants for the offsets for a signal. Borup: You're saying future development of the property to the west will solve that? Hood: Exactly. And if you approve -- and I'm not saying that no office may not be appropriate here, maybe there is -- it's the scale more than anything. That's my personal opinion. Now, I think that might plug us for the Comp Plan and the neighborhood center in this location and I -- that's why I disagree with Jim a little bit, that I think -- I mean there is a lot of ground here and the commercial can go, you know, in this -- and it can float. I mean, he's right, it's not an exact location here, but this is the main entrance to the subdivision and if the neighborhood center went somewhere in here and that develops with residential or multi-family and, then, that all kind of feeds out to there, that's -- again, I'll leave that alone. That's my plug for the Comp Plan and how that envisions, but that's how I, in the future, envision people getting out onto the state highway and entering this square mile in that general location anyways. Jewett: And I would agree with staff one hundred percent, with the exception of his dimensions. This is the Holy Apostle Church, which is one 40-acre parcel. This is Zamzows, which is a 40-acre parcel. Maybe I'm wrong. Hood: I guess regardless -- Jewett: Maybe I'm wrong. Hood: Regardless, this is -- this is where the access is going to be. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 102 of 118 Jewett: And I would agree with that. Hood: And it's approximately a half-mile, closer than what this is and this won't be signalized. So, that was my only pOint. Jewett: I don't argue the quarter mile. This is the quarter mile, because that's what we owned originally. We owned this 40 acres, which is the quarter the mile. So, that would be the half mile and I could be off on where the other parcels are, but I agree with you, this would be the only logical center location of a neighbor center and what I'm saying is that radiating circle would be in this area, which would cover the front or the westerly half of our property. Zaremba: And along that same line, with the neighborhood centers being flexible, they are also flexible in width. The state highway there, Chinden, some day, as Caldwell develops more and Star and Canyon County in general develops, is going to be a major corridor and not too distant future will look like Eagle looks now. There isn't any reason why Meridian shouldn't be capitalizing on the potential commercial -- the same as along Eagle. Instead of kicking at the traffic, let's figure out a way to get them to stop and spend money. This area, you're near where a neighborhood center is going to be. I can be swayed by our argument that this is maybe even on the end of an expanded neighbor center and the office use makes a good transition. I -- my take is that I would like to see probably staff's recommendations for acceptance of what you have proposed. I could be convinced to go for that. Anybody else? Moe: I concur. Newton-Huckabay: You know what we could do, we could-- Zaremba: Yeah. Because he hasn't -- he hasn't established those and I think we do need to have him have some time to think about that before we make a recommendation for the City Council. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I would rather see -- Zaremba: But I see several ways to justify it. One, just by the fact that Chinden is there, but also, you know, the 20 percent use exception, if you consider the whole almost 30 acres as one development and I'll have to say it just makes sense to me to do it. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I'd rather see something like they have now, than a whole development of four-plexes right there. Moe: Exactly. Newton-Huckabay: I'd rather see it all in office, but I would -- Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 103 of 118 Zaremba: What I'm looking for is a consensus of the recommendation of staff. My assumption is we are going to continue this for whatever we want staff to do. Rohm: I think you stated it very well, Mr. Chairman -- Zaremba: Provide conditions for approval as proposed. Rohm: Yes. And I'd just expand on that just briefly, because I want to move on here. I think the applicants make some good points and three things that I have written down here that I think are appropriate is we understand that you would like to have the property use match the taxing body. Number one. Number two, the R-15 is the least desirable of the adjoining neighbors, but you don't want -- you don't want the large four- plex development. And, then, the community center adjustment, sliding to the east, seems to accommodate both. You don't have the huge number of four-plexes, you get some commercial, and you keep your community center intact. So, that seems -- Zaremba: I think the one suggestion I might make -- and staff can review this -- is that the office portion actually be zoned L-O and I think we have had some discussion, but it's easier for the eventual builders to get their loans if the zone under your property matches, as opposed to having to explain our use exception and, you know, the portion that is proposed to be residential, if that's R-15, that's fine, but I would actually make the office L-O. Just on the surface of it, is that supportable by staff? Hood: Definitely. When you see the use exceptions, it's tough to look at the zoning map and you see R-4 and you remember that it's office and so zoning it appropriate to the land use definitely helps. Anyway, so just if the applicant knows that at least by City Council we will need to have a legal description -- a revised legal description for the -- that matches the plat for L-O -- L-O property. Zaremba So, we are thinking R-4 for the school, R-4 for the five existing residents, R-15 for where the multi-family is proposed and L-Q for where the -- Moe: Commercial. Zaremba: -- commercial is. And, otherwise, the project looks pretty similar to what you propose. Any other conditions that we want to suggest while we are on the subject? Rohm: I think that's a pretty good list right there. Moe: I guess I would just request -- when do you anticipate that that could all be put together? Hood: I guess that question's more for me, since we are looking at this application. have a plat and a CUP, so -- and the Public Works Department has also looked at it. I hate to give myself just a few days, so maybe the 16th is the next hearing and I know Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 104 of 118 that agenda is pretty full. I think the 7th -- does July 7th work on your calendar? So, I think within that time frame if -- if I don't need anything from the applicant, I can proceed and that gives me -- if a fire comes up and I have to put that out, that that gives me enough time to get -- Zaremba: Just in the process, I wouldn't say we are really delaying anything, because the can't act until the sewer gets to them anyhow. So, we aren't necessarily delaying something. They can start tomorrow. Jewett: Actually, the sewer is there today. Zaremba: Well, some amount of sewer is there. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we continue Public Hearing AZ 05-018, Public Hearing PP 05-020 and Public Hearing -- Moe: Do we not have to close the public hearing first? Zaremba: No. We are continuing it. Moe: Oh, I'm sorry. Rohm: And Public Hearing CUP 05-027 to the regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning meeting of July 7th, 2005. Moe: Second. Rohm: End of motion. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 21: Public Hearing: AZ 05-022 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 1.3 acres from RUT to L-O zone for Touchmark Subdivision by Touchmark of the Treasure Valley - south of East Franklin Road and east of South Eagle Road: Zaremba: All right. We are already -- I will open the hearing for Public Hearing AZ 05- 022, request for annexation and zoning of 1.3 acres from RUT to L-O zone for Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 105 of 118 Touchmark Subdivision by Touchmark of the Treasure Valley, south of East Franklin Road and east of South Eagle Road and we will have the staff comments. Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before you is an annexation and zoning of 1.39 acres from RUT to limited office district, near the intersection of Eagle Road and Franklin. It's, actually, east of Eagle Road in the Touchmark Subdivision, also known as Meadow Lake Village. The subject property was an out parcel, if you will, of the original Touchmark development, which did encompass a large portion of land going down to the freeway from Franklin Road and contained a large number of dwelling units, some commercial, some retail, and a senior community center. That Conditional Use Permit approval for that planned development has been modified a couple times over the years. One modification did move the commercial and the office portion of the development out to Franklin Road in the approximate area of this -- of this parcel and, then, another modified the multi-story retirement center. The application before you does take in this parcel right here, which has frontage on Franklin Road and extends into the existing Touchmark and Meadow Lake Village development. Another view does show some conceptual development of the site. We have spoken with the applicant. We did have a pre-app meeting with Dean Briggs from Briggs Engineering and a representative from Touchmark about their plans for this site and they do plan on submitting a Conditional Use Permit to modify, once again, the original Conditional Use Permit approval for a planned development, which would incorporate this site into the office development that's located here near the intersection of Franklin and their internal road here, which I don't think I have the name of. Just a couple of quick comments. Kent Brown, the applicant's -- one of the applicant's representatives did contact me a couple days ago about the applicant's request to -- there is an existing residence on this parcel and they would like to keep using that as a residence until such time that it develops commercially. Staff is supportive of that. I would recommend that we -- that we treat this one a little bit differently than what was talked earlier. In that the access to Franklin Road, the home itself and the well and septic, we would recommend that those do go away upon any commercial development on the property and this circumstance is a little bit different than the application we heard earlier. This is intended to be part of a larger already planned commercial development. It does kind of fill in the gap, if you will, upon Franklin Road, where ever we can eliminate an access to Franklin Road right there, we would like to and have them take access on the internal road. There is the foreseeable circumstance that if the residents -- if it was -- if the condition was worded such that the residents can remain until the residents was, actually, modified or they wanted it to go away, but it's conceivable that it would not go away and we would be left with a break in the landscape buffer. You can see here that the Touchmark -- that the approved Touchmark development as required a landscape buffer here and requires a landscape buffer here. We could end up with some incongruity -- and I don't anticipate that residence would remain, but I guess there is a possibility. So, I would -- I would just recommend that we -- that this one is treated -- that the residential use be accessed to Franklin Road and the well and septic service to that house would go away upon any commercial development on this property as part of the subsequent detailed Conditional Use Permit approval. Other than that, I don't think we have any issues. In regards to Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 106 of 118 that, I would recommend on page six, item three, which does discuss the development agreement for the development. The last bullet states that the subject property shall be prohibited from taking direct access to Franklin Road. I would replace that bullet -- and I don't have the wording on top of my head right now, but that would replace that bullet with one that speaks to that, the house -- the access to Franklin Road, and the well and septic can remain until such time that commercial development takes place on the parcel. And with that I think I'll end staff's comments. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Okay. We are ready for the applicant. Brown: For the record, Kent Brown, Briggs Engineering, 1800 West Overland. And Josh covered it, unless you have some questions of me. Borup: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Borup. Borup: Is the existing house being used -- Brown: They are renting it out. Borup: So, it is being used as a residential use? Okay. Brown: I could tell you a long story about that, but I'm not going to -- Newton-Huckabay: No, don't. Rohm: You don't have any exceptions to the staff report, do you? Brown: Not other than what he's mentioned about leaving the house as a use. Zaremba: Okay. You accept that it can continue until the use changes and, then, it has to go? Brown: Yes. Zaremba: Including the access to Franklin. Brown: Correct. Zaremba: We have no one else signed up to testify. Let me, while you're there, ask if anybody wishes to comment on this issue? No. Well, in case you wish to rebut what you just said -- thank you. Commissioners? Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move that the hearing close. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 107 of 118 Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Commissioner Borup. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-020, annexation and zoning of 1.3 acres, to include all staff comments, conditions, in the staff memo dated May 26, transmission dated of May 27th, with all staff comments, with the one additional comment on page six, the last bullet point, to add that the existing residence and well can remain as currently used, until such time as the property develops, and along with the current use of being -- access to Franklin Road to remain as the residential use. Moe: Second. Zaremba: Okay. We have a motion and a second to make that recommendation for AZ 05-022. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 22: Public Hearing: AZ 05-021 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 2.78 acres from RUT to L-O zone for Redfish Subdivision by Ben Miller - 4120 North Under Road: Item 23: Public Hearing: PP 05-021 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 5 office building lots and 2 other lots on 2.521 acres in a proposed L-O zone for Redfish Subdivision by Ben Miller - 4120 North Under Road: Zaremba: Okay. We are getting there. I would like to open the Public Hearing for AZ 05-021, request for annexation and zoning of 2.78 acres from RUT to L-O zone and Public Hearing PP 05-021, request for preliminary plat approval of five office building lots and two other lots on 2.521 acres in a proposed L-O zone. Both of these for Redfish Subdivision by Ben Miller and located at 2120 North Under Road. And we will begin with the staff report. Wilson: Thank you, Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission. The Redfish Subdivision is a proposal for a limited office zone from RUT, what it is currently. It's 2.52 acres, exclusive of right of way on North Under Road, immediately to the north of Sawtooth Subdivision -- or Sawtooth Middle School. To the north and east lies Baldwin Park Subdivision. Across Under Road to the west is some vacant RUT and I believe Watersong Subdivision. And further north along Under Road is another subdivision and some vacant RUT land. And, then, some proposed commercial as part of future Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 108 of 118 Paramount Subdivision. On the Comprehensive Plan this property is designated as medium density residential. The applicant has applied, under the same Comprehensive Plan text amendment that was mentioned with the earlier application for properties under three acres that lay on an arterial road to gain limited office zoning for office uses only. And I'll get into that here a little bit more here in a few minutes, hopefully not completely rehash the conversation earlier. The applicant is proposing a total of five office buildings and I apologize for the orientation here. North is to the right. It just fit a little bit better this way, you can read it a little bit better with the road along the top there. It is a proposal for five office buildings and, let see, so five building lots and their proposal is for two other lots also. Twenty-one thousand square feet, approximately, of office buildings. Because this is an annexation-preliminary plat, we aren't giving detail approval of the buildings at this point. That would be under the certificate of zoning compliance application, once the requested zoning and preliminary was approved. But the parking provided is more than adequate for the depicted building sizes. The depicted building sizes would require I believe 54 or 53 parking spaces and they did provide -- they did provide 74. So, the parking definitely seems adequate. A couple things I'll just point out as far as the preliminary plat goes. And I think we might, actually, be able to see easier here than on the actual preliminary plat and so I'll stick with this plan. The submitted preliminary plats -- I guess I'll have to try and explain it on here. The office lots did not extend to Linder Road, therefore, not giving them the required frontage. The applicant has requested a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for any kind of reduction to the frontage or setbacks, so they do need street frontage. The submitted preliminary plat doesn't have frontage, so what staff is recommending is that the applicant extend the lots to the Linder Road right of way and, then, provide the landscape buffer in easements. We would normally prefer that the landscape buffer was in a lot under separate ownership, but in this situation it is staff -- it is staff's recommendation that those lots extend to Linder Road right of way to give them the frontage required by code. The land use buffers proposed by the applicants do need some more plantings to meet Meridian city code along the -- and this is the west -- or, sorry, the east property line and along the north. There is a required 20 foot land use buffer between the proposed office use and the existing single family residential properties. In that 20 foot land use buffer, because there is a six foot existing fence, the requirement for vegetation would be one tree for 35 feet. It does not appear that the applicant has provided that, so staff recommends that at least six additional trees be provided along this boundary of the subdivision on the east side and at least three more on the north boundary to meet those requirements. If there wasn't an existing -- if there wasn't an existing or proposed solid six foot fence, then, that requirement -- that should be a 60 percent visual buffer or block, but because that fencing exists and I think that is reduced to the one per 35 requirement. The only other thing I will touch on briefly is the development agreement conditions that staff has put in for the annexation and zoning and I would agree with most of the conversations that went on with the previous application. I will just speak briefly to the intent of that text amendment and that was for property such as this where no stub street was provided from the adjacent residential properties. Residential development is not feasible and that amendment was specifically with property such as this to give them an option for development where there may not have been one under the current circumstances. Not Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 109 of 118 to open up free reign to the limited office zone for the conditional uses that were mentioned to a great extent earlier. So, you know, it's the Commission's discretion to do as you may with the conditions on the development agreement there. As far as the hours and the allowed uses go, I think the applicant is okay with the professional and medical office uses. That is what they have proposed and their application letter actually specifically mentioned the development agreement would limit the uses to professional and medical office. So, I'll let them speak to that. And as far as the hours of operation go, I will leave that to the Commission's decision. I don't think, other than that, I have anything and would stand for any questions. Zaremba: Any questions from the Commissioners? If we made the suggestion that the hours be 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., that would be comfortable for staff? Wilson: I think to shoot for some consistency, yeah, maybe it's appropriate. It's pretty subjective, really. I think it's reasonable. Zaremba: Okay. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I'd let the applicant come and tell us. Maybe 7:00 to 7:00 is fine. Zaremba: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: He's not going to say 7:00 to 7:00 now. Would you? Moe: That's my point. Zaremba: I let the cat out of the bag. Moe: Yeah, I think he did. But, you know, I guess we'll wait and see. Zaremba: I think the applicant may have been here for the previous discussion on the other issues, so may know that that one's negotiate-able. If the applicant would care to come forward, please. Hobbs: Chris Hobbs with Pinnacle Engineers at 12552 West Executive Drive. We are in agreement with staff comments and recommended conditions of approval and we will go ahead and accept the change as indicated. And with that I'll stand for any questions. Zaremba: It sounds like it's pretty straight forward. Commissioners, any questions? Newton-Huckabay: I just want to make one comment and this development kind of brought to light something that we had suggested that a day care CUP would be Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 110 of 118 appropriate in the other one and that -- this would be another location where a day care would -- I would think would be a very appropriate use when you have the density of homes that you have right there. I'm wondering if -- Craig was mentioning earlier that as we make these rules, maybe a day care -- you know, do you see what I'm saying? A day care would maybe be a conditional use that you would want to have on these types of developments. Zaremba: That is not mentioned in the resolution, but we certainly would be able to add that again to this one as an exception to the resolution. Newton-Huckabay: Well, he was -- he was saying that he was in the process of making a standard -- you know, a standard -- Zaremba: I would support that being a standard one that -- the situations where that resolution is going to apply at small in-fills in the middle of residential, would be a piece of property that can't be residential. Newton-Huckabay: Right. Zaremba: You make a good point. That's a prime location for a day care kind of a use. Borup: I would think in that case the site plan would have to change, unless -- I mean there is no outdoor play area. Maybe that's not necessary, but -- I might have been making an assumption. Zaremba: Well, I think if we made it a possibility as a conditional use -- Borup: They could design it as such. Newton-Huckabay: Right. Zaremba: And we could discuss whether they would have the play area or not, if somebody asks. Newton-Huckabay: I just -- you know, I mean what if we happen to have 55,000 people living in north Meridian? Zaremba: It sounds reasonable if you want to add that as a variation. Hobbs: Our client agrees with that. Zaremba: Those are acceptable? Thank you. Megan Letterman has also signed up to speak. Your point has been made, I take it. Okay. In that case Mr. Hobbs doesn't need to make a rebuttal. Anybody else care to speak on this issue? Okay. Commissioner? Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 111 of 118 Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-021 and PP 05-021. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we forward on to City Council recommending approval of AZ 05- 021, to include staff comments dated May 27, 2005, for the hearing date June 2nd, 2005, with the following changes: On page seven, item three, about two, three, fourth bullet down, we will -- we shall add: Or day care center on that bullet and the following bullet, change it from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. End of motion. Moe: Second. Zaremba: I would suggest a modification to that: Or day care centers still be a conditional use application. Rohm: Exactly. Zaremba: Does the second accept that? Moe: Yes, I do. Zaremba: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of PP 05-021, to include staff comments for the hearing date June 2nd, 2005, received May 27th, 2005. End of motion. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 112 of 118 Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Any opposed? That motion carries. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 14: Public Hearing: AZ 05-017 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 137.96 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Messina Meadows Subdivision by Tuscany Development, Inc. - on South Eagle Road between West Victory Road and West Amity Road: Item 15: Public Hearing: PP 05-019 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 491 building lots and 67 other lots on 136.72 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Messina Meadows Subdivision by Tuscany Development, Inc. - on South Eagle Road between West Victory Road and West Amity Road: Item 16: Public Hearing: CUP 05-026 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for single-family detached residential building units and single- family attached patio homes in a proposed R-8 zone for Messina Meadows Subdivision by Tuscany Development, Inc. - on South Eagle Road between West Victory Road and West Amity Road: Zaremba: At this time I will reopen the public hearings for AZ 05-017 and PP 05-019 and CUP 05-026, moved to this point in the meeting from earlier in the meeting. All of these relating to Messina Meadows Subdivision. And we will ask for further testimony. Traditionally, we give the applicant the last word, so what I would like to ask is that either Mr. or Mrs. Stark come forward and suggest whether they feel -- Guenther: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: -- an agreement is being worked towards -- I'm sorry. Just a moment. Guenther: May I interject? Zaremba: Yes. Guenther: Maybe to try and speed things up here, the applicant and the owners have indicated to staff that there are six conditions of approval that they would like to add that I believe are a combination of their efforts, that if they are approved by this board could be read into the record and finalized a little quicker. And if you want me to read them, then, we will get this going. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 113 of 118 Zaremba: Okay. What I, then, propose as an alternate is we will have staff read these conditions and, then, I still would like for the record to have one of the Starks come up and say and, then, the application will come up and say this. Guenther: Thank you. The first condition, which I would like counsel to interpret as well, is the -- they came to an agreement on the property line, which would need to be adjusted. However, since the Stark's property is, actually, in Ada County and subject to the Ada County ordinance, they would have to file a lot line adjustment in order to facilitate this request, which I don't believe we can make off-site improvements to -- to do this, which the request here is to quitclaim the north property line, which would be four feet of the north property line, from the Starks to the developer -- or to the project site, then, ten feet of the east property line boundary from the development trade to the application. However -- and, like I said, the Ada County I know has an application for that type of lot line adjustment and we don't -- we can't tell anyone what to do with parcels that aren't in our jurisdiction. How do you want to address that? Baird: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I think all we can do is indicate that they will make their best efforts to make that application to see that it gets gone. We can't -- you know, we can't -- like you're saying, we cannot dictate at the outcome of another jurisdiction, but at least they could promise to proceed, you know, forward with that and if, for some reason, it's an impossibility, they are going to have to come back and change that condition. But they are, indeed, agreeing to go down that road to make that happen and we could certainly put that on the record. Zaremba: And we could certainly lend our support to that happening -- Baird: Sure. Zaremba: w_ without promising that Ada County will actually do it. We could weigh in on the side of asking them to approve it. Baird: Correct. Guenther: So, that would not be a condition of approval. However, that would be a comment -- Zaremba: Of recommendation. Guenther: -- of recommendation. The condition of approval that they have come to an agreement on, specifically for Lot 6, Block 9, is that there will be a garage built at the same line of the driveway, which means that if the driveway has a five foot setback, then, the garage will have a five foot setback and, therefore, there will be no driveway overlap into facilitating the headlights leaving the property of Lot 6, Block 9. Zaremba: It prevents, essentially, a curved driveway, Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 114 of 118 Guenther: Correct. Zaremba: Which would sweep the lights. Guenther: The second portion of that condition is that the home on Lot 6, Block 9 will be a single level, with a bonus room allowance. All dormers would face east. And a third portion of that condition for Lot 6, Block 9, would be that the windows would be designed for first floor only on the west side, so that all of the windows on the west side that are facing west would be on the first floor. The third condition, for Lots 8 and 9 of Block 9, the second two conditions of the previous condition apply, which is the single level dormers face east on the bonus room and windows designed for first floor only facing west. Fourth condition, six foot solid vinyl on the east, north, and west side and the north side with a berm if needed, which it would be determined at a later time. Zaremba: Those directions are referring to the Stark's property. Guenther: The Starks property, yes. Zaremba: Right. Guenther: The next condition would be that providing minimum of one pressure irrigation stub from each side of the Stark's property, which would be the north, east, and west, so they would be provided pressure irrigation stubs. The sixth condition -- or the fifth condition would be to stub the sewer and water to their property line from the north and they have come to an agreement on all of those conditions. Staff would support all of the conditions -- all of the conditions as stated, with the exception of the adjustment of the property line. Like I said, that would just not be subject to our approval. At that, if we add those conditions of approval to the existing conditions of approval, staff would recommend approving this and going home. Baird: Mr. Chair, I have got another-- Zaremba: Mr. Baird. Baird: -- another idea and perhaps a question for planning staff. What do you think about leaving out from the rezone and the annexation those properties that we are anticipating will be quitclaimed, therefore, we are not annexing something that's going to go back in the county or saddling these homeowners with land that's part city, part county. Guenther: Well, currently, what I anticipate at this point -- at this point, is that both parcels are currently county parcels and they would have to -- if this facilitation would occur, the easiest way for it to occur would be county to county and with that, this is a one to five acre parcel and one of their conditions -- one of their findings is that through a lot line adjustment they will not -- they have to meet their minimum zoning requirements and that's why I question how this is going to happen, without some sort of Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 115 of 118 city assistance or additional recommendation. I don't see that it would be a problem. It's not increasing a nonconforming use or anything along that line, and that's where I'm kind of left at. Baird: But the intent is that it not be included in the subdivision, not be included in the lands being annexed, so I guess if we just go on record that those were the intentions and staff will work with the applicant and the neighbors to make that happen, that, hopefully, it will all be fixed before it goes to City Council. Guenther: Correct. Zaremba: It could be stated that the legal description of the property being annexed into the city will match the decision made by Ada County on this lot line adjustment. Is that specific enough or do we have -- Baird: That works for me. Rohm: I like it. That's a good description. Zaremba: Let's do that. Would one of the Starks care to comment? Stark: Steve Stark at -- from 2630 East Amity Road. I agree and the only comment I would make is that the four foot and ten foot adjustments to the existing fence line are estimates. It's, really, the agreement was to -- to move the small amounts to the existing fence line. You know, adjust it legally to the existing fence line. And so we would be gaining some on the east line fence and losing some on the north and east side, so -- but I agree with everything that -- that -- Zaremba: I assume to make the application to the county it probably would have to be surveyed and you're saying survey it along the fence, wherever the fence exists; right? Stark: Right. Where ever the fence exists. Right. Zaremba: Thank you. All right. Mr. Brown. Brown: We are in agreement. We can quitclaim that property to them. I mean that is just a deed transfer. The legality of whether that supposedly approximately ten foot and four foot strips -- I mean if they don't want to do the adjustment, they don't want to do the adjustment, but we can deed them that property. They can own it. In the worst case scenario they give them another parcel number for the ten foot strip and give us a new parcel number for, you know, the four foot strip. That kind of deal. We can make that change and we can change our legal to match the existing fence, so we will do that. Zaremba: Appreciate your cooperation in all this. Thank you. Commissioners? Rohm: I'm real happy. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 116 of 118 Borup: They are both in agreement, I don't know what else-- Zaremba: We can just reference that. Just say as stated. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we close the public hearings on AZ 05-017, PP 05-019, and CUP 05-026. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-017, to include all staff comments for the hearing date June 2nd, 2005, and delivered on May 27th, 2005, and to include all additional comments read into the record. Guenther: As conditions of approval. Rohm: As conditions of the -- like Joe Guenther, as conditions of approval. End of motion. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second; all in favor say aye. Anyopposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward on to City Council recommended approval of PP 05-019, to include all staff comments for the hearing date June 2nd, 2005, and delivered May 27th, 2005, to include additional testimony by Planner Joe Guenther. End of motion. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 117 of 118 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Thank you all for hanging in here and resolving stuff and working together and -- all of the Commissioners are hanging in here and all of the staff from all of the departments helping -- Moe: Can't we do that third one now. Zaremba: I'm sorry. We are ready for another motion. Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of CUP 05- 026, to include all staff comments for the hearing date 2005 -- June 2nd, 2005, and received May 27th, 2005, to include additional staff comments by Joe Guenther made just moments ago. End of motion. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Next motion, please. Rohm: I move we adjourn. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. Anybody left vote. All in favor say aye. That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Thank you. We are adjourned. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 118 of 118 MEETING ADJOURNED AT 1:16 A.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED a~cr-6-- DAVID ZARE - CHAIRMAN 71 ;.z I I fkJcJ5 DATE APPROVED