Loading...
2002 04-04Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting April 4, 2002. The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M. on Thursday, April 4, 2002, by Chairman Keith Borup. Members Present: Keith Borup, David Zaremba, Jerry Centers, Leslie Mathes, and Keven Shreeve. Others Present: Bruce Freckleton, Dave McKinnon, Larry Moore, Sharon Smith, and Dean Willis. Item 1. Roll-call Attendance: X David Zaremba X Jerry Centers X Leslie Mathes X Keven Shreeve X Chairman Keith Borup Borup: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We'd like to begin our regular scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for April 4th . We'd like to begin with roll call of the Commissioners. Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Approve minutes from March 21, 2002 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting: Borup: The first item would be adoption of the Agenda. Does anyone have any comments or changes on the agenda? Maybe before -- is the applicant for Item Number 10, Willey Subdivision, are they here this evening? They are not here, Commissioners. Okay. Any comments on the adoption of the Agenda? Zaremba: I have a comment on the minutes of the last meeting and this would be on Page 2, counting down the first paragraph -- two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten -- the 11th paragraph that starts with me speaking and it's a long paragraph. Following that Chairman Borup says okay and I spoke the rest of that paragraph. After Chairman Borup's okay, the rest of it should be Zaremba. That's my only change. Borup: Okay. Anyone else? Do we have a motion on the minutes? Centers: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that we approve the minutes from March 21st as amended. Zaremba: I will second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 2 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: I will be open for a motion, perhaps, on adjustment on the Agenda. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I move for this evenings hearings we take Item 10 of our agenda, PP 02-005, and move it to the next item before we hear Item 4. Centers: Second. Zaremba: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 10: Public Hearing: PP 02-005 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 4 building lots and 1 other lot on 20.01 acres in a C-G zone for Willey Subdivision by Roylance and Associates -- 3710 East Franklin Road: Borup: Okay. I'd like to open Public Hearing PP 02-005, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 4 buildings lots and 1 other lot on 20.01 acres in a C-G zone for Willey Subdivision. I'd like to open this hearing and start with the staff report. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I will go through this pretty quickly. I assume that you all know where the R.C. Willey building is right now on the corner of Franklin and Eagle Road. On the overhead there is some pictures of the existing site, R.C. Willey, and then just to the -- just to the north of Lanark Drive right there you can see where the vacant land would be, part of one of the new lots looking at R.C. Willey from Eagle Road. On the overhead now you can see a site plan showing where all of the existing lots will be placed upon approval of the Preliminary Plat. We went through the landscaping and I'd like to move back to this ordinance. This overhead right here and there is just a few comments that the staff has in addition to the staff report you have in front of you tonight. On Page 3 of your staff report, Item Number 6 states that a landscape buffer shall be required on Eagle Road and Franklin Road. That landscape buffer, according to ordinance, is required to be on a common lot. In the past few months the Commission and Council have granted waivers to that, to make it a requirement they can place that in an easement. Staff does not have any problem with that being an easement, rather than on a common lot. You may want to modify Item Number 6 on the staff report to reflect an easement, if you so choose. If you can turn with me to Page 5 and 6, actually. There is some discussion concerning tiling of the Evans Drain. The Evans Drain runs, according to the overhead you have in front of you, it runs east and west, parallel to Franklin Road on the north side of the property. It has not yet been tiled. As part of the original approval for this property when it was annexed the property was to be tiled, as it says in the staff report. R.C. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 3 Willey requested a Variance to that. The Variance request was denied, because the pipe that was required for that was not larger than 48 inches and you will find in the file there is letters from Nampa Meridian reflecting that. They had another meeting, the Council -- Councilmen Bird said that they would be granted a waiver at that time, but when the property to the east developed, it should be done. We do have a bond right now for 120 percent of the fee for the tiling. We can hold that in perpitude or you can make it a request tonight as part of this subdivision that the property be tiled. You will find that there are two options for you to choose from, either to require them to tile it this time or continue to hold the letter of credit. Those are really the only staff comments that we have that are not specifically worked out in the staff report and I turn the time back over to you. Borup: Any questions for staff from the Commission? Centers: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Could we go back to Items 5 and 6 on Page 3, your suggested modification would be -- McKinnon: Page 3, Item Number 6. The statement itself says per Ordinance 1213.10.03, all landscape street buffers shall be on a separate common lot maintained by a business owners association. Staff would be agreeable to modify that to read it could be placed in the easement, rather than on a separate common lot. Zaremba: And you're meaning a Cross-Access Easement? McKinnon: Excuse me? Zaremba: Or just a simple easement? McKinnon: Just a simple Landscape Easement. Actually, two reasons for that, one is that, and then they don't have to count that as the property line from which they measure their setbacks. The second part of that is it would remain a taxable part of the property. If it's on a separate common lot it's not an assessed piece of property. Centers: Thank you. Borup: Is the applicant here and would like to make a presentation and come forward. Jensen: Ladies and gentlemen, R.C. Willey is agreeable to -- Borup: You need to go ahead and give -- Jensen: My name is Marv Jensen. I'm with R.C. Willey in Salt Lake City. We are agreeable to the easement idea. That's fine. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 4 Borup: Okay. Then probably the only other item that wasn't -- have you had a chance to read the staff report? Any questions on that, other than -- that was one of them. The other one was concerning tiling of the ditch. Jensen: The only thing I would say on the tiling of the ditch, that has been an ongoing issue, I understand. I was involved in all of the discussions and waivers and whatnot on that. The letter of credit that you have -- as I understand it has two conditions, that the money would be released to the City of Meridian to do the tiling if, indeed, R.C. Willey didn't do it. I understand those two conditions to be, Number 1, that both the city and the Irrigation District agree in writing that it must be done. I believe you have a letter from the Irrigation District indicating that since it's under 48 inches that they anticipate the size and that it, therefore, be done. The second item, as I understand it, is that the property to the east owned by Mr. Van Auker has been developed and the ditch has been tiled. That hasn't been done yet. I did meet with Mr. Van Auker today and he indicated to me that they are going to go ahead, develop that property and that they are planning at this point to tile the ditch. If, indeed, that occurs, then R.C. Willey recognizes its responsibility to continue that tiling on across its property. Zaremba: Do you save any money by waiting and doing it at the same time they do it or is there some reason that knowing you're going to have to do it that you'd rather delay? Jensen: Well, we are down in Salt Lake and they are up here. My conversation with Mr. Van Auker today was that if, indeed, they are going to do it, it would make sense that we have -- if engage the same contractor and have ours done at the same time. Those are our preliminary discussions we are both in agreement to that. That's likely what will happen. It will be easier for us to do it that way, than to try to establish somebody up here on our own to do it and so we are planning to move that direction. Borup: So you're comfortable thinking that that was part of the requirement that it would be done at the same time? Jensen: Given the fact that Mr. Van Auker hasn't pulled his permit yet and started that, I'm not sure of the timing. His indication was today that he was going to do that soon and right away. Borup: That's what I meant. At the same time, that he did his. Are you comfortable with that as a requirement? Jensen: I think we would be comfortable with that, yes. Centers: Mr. Chairman, it's normal with a plat approval -- that the ditches be tiled with he plat approval. Would you be acceptable to the standard subdivision requirement, which I just stated, and that would be tied to the issuance of future Building Permits, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 5 that it would have to be in prior to that and or Occupancy Permits? Jensen: On some of these lots that we are anticipating creating by this subdivision, is that what you're talking about? Centers: Right. Correct. It would have to be done by that time -- before a Building Permit was issued, it would have to be done. Why would you be against that? Jensen: I don't know that we would be against it, because, in fact, it does provide a little more space on a cup of those lots in which to landscape and provide parking. I don't know that we would be opposed to it. Centers: Okay. Good. Thank you. Borup: Any other comments you want to make? Jensen: There was one other item in here that I noticed that I think is perhaps incorrect. Item 4 under the Preliminary Plat, site specific comments, it indicates that a new five foot wide sidewalk must be built along Eagle Road and Franklin. It exists on Franklin already. We put that in when we built the store. All the way from Gaudians Avenue to Eagle Road. That is there and so that should be corrected. The reason we did not install a sidewalk along Eagle Road at the time is because the Highway Department could not tell us where to put it. I don't know that they can still do that so if that requirement, indeed, is in here, it needs to be couched with something as to when the Highway Department can determine where it needs to go. Zaremba: If I'm picturing the property correctly, there is a pretty good slope pretty close to the roadbed. Is there enough room even to put a sidewalk there? Jensen: It depends on where they put their line. You're right, there is quite a slope there, and we have landscaped -- Zaremba: Well, I'm not sure how close it is to the roadbed. Jensen: Right. We have landscaped this to where we believe our property line goes, but I don't know where the road is going to go and where they will want that sidewalk. If we could put on there the overall site plan -- there we go. Right along here -- all right. Here along Franklin that sidewalk goes all the way to the corner, but there is not a sidewalk down here. That would have to be addressed with some kind of a time schedule or a formula for determining that. My understanding is that Touchmark, who is doing the development over here, is going to bring the sewer line along here. This lot Number 1 we want to be sure has a tie to that sewer line. I'm sure Mr. Van Auker will want to be sure that his property has a tie to that sewer line, too. When that's installed Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 6 that provisions are made so that these two properties can tie to that. It's my understanding also that he will request this road tie-in to the moved a little further north. Other than that, I don't know of any other items that need pointing out. Any other questions I could help with? Centers: Well, the last sentence on paragraph four that you refer to, the sidewalk design, and location should be coordinated with the ITD for Eagle Road and with ACHD. I think that would cover your situation. Jensen: I think it would. If you mention time and -- location and the time. Centers: Yes. If you can't get ACHD off the dime, you know, the city is not going to come after you. Jensen: Well, I'm sure they have a time schedule, but, you know, I don't want our subdivision approval to be tight or held up because they don't know what they are going to do yet. It needs to be worded in such a way that when they determine what they are going to do, then we will comply with that. Centers: Okay. McKinnon: And, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, we will request a bond for all the improvements or a letter of credit for all the improvements prior to the signature on the Final Plat. We can include sidewalks as part of that. We will have the funds in place for that if the timing is off. Borup: David, are you -- Eagle Road is under jurisdiction of the Idaho -- McKinnon: Idaho Transportation Department. Borup: Right. Now are they waiting for the -- that reconstruction of the intersection there before they determine some of that or do you know? Have you had any -- McKinnon: I wish I could tell what ITD was doing all the time. Borup: They are widening Franklin in 2004. McKinnon: Right. As part of the project, I don't know. There is an interesting jog to the property right now, as you can see on the west side of the property, and that was set up for mass transit. They -- I don't think that they are going to go any wider than what they have shown right there. As part of the mass transit, they have a place so the larger vehicles can pull off, pick up, and drop off. I don't believe that they are going to go wider than what they have currently requested for right of way at that location. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 7 Borup: But are they wanting an intersection design before they can get placement for curbs and gutters? That's probably -- Jensen: Since they don't have a sidewalk on either side of the street there, I think it makes sense to wait, let them do what they are going to do and then add the sidewalks to it. Borup: That's why I wanted that to -- part of why they don't have a location yet and don't have the final -- thank you. Any other questions from any Commissioners? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, I have a question, if I could ask just one. Just a point of clarification for both the applicant and the Commission. If we allow the landscaping to be placed in a 35-foot easement, rather than on a common lot, an additional requirement to that would be that the landscaping is installed prior to the Building Permits being issued for any building within that lot in the subdivision. Jensen: I understand. McKinnon: Okay. Borup: Anything else from any of the Commissioners? Thank you. Do we have anyone from the public to testify on this application? Seeing none, Commissioners? Zaremba: I move we close the Public Hearing on PP 02-005. Shreeve: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: It looks like we have about three items that -- Centers: I think -- I'd like to make a motion and we will take it from there. Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Centers. Zaremba: So let me put in one item of discussion before you make a motion, if I may. Centers: Okay. Zaremba: On Page 3, the Item 6 that we have already talked about, the last two sentences are a choice that I believe we are being asked to make. That is whether or not we want to see the plat again before it goes to the City Council. The decision is to tell the applicant to bring it back to Planning and Zoning 10 days before it comes Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 8 to us or to tell the applicant to beat the Council Meeting by 20 days. I'm not sure we need to see it again if the applicant will submit everything 20 days before the City Council meeting. Let's make that choice then. Borup: I agree with that. Centers: Yes. I don't think -- well, I think -- you know, that the landscaping be done prior to the issuance of Building Permits was the key to it. So -- I would like to make a motion that we recommend approval to the City Council for -- actually, it's Item 10 on our agenda. PP 02-005, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 4 building lots and 1 other lot on 20.01 acres in a C-G zone for Willeys Subdivision by Roylance and Associates, including all staff comments and amending Page 3, Paragraph 4. The applicant states that the sidewalk is in on Franklin Road and that would be noted. Of course, it has to be and the sidewalk on Eagle Road to be coordinated with the Idaho Transportation Department and be put in when that coordinated effort is complete and the Idaho Transportation Department gives the go ahead. In addition, on Page 3 modify or amend paragraph six where staff has stated that landscaping could be placed on the easement and any and all landscaping must be in prior to issuance of Building Permits. It would be included in the motion that we would not have to see this application again. In addition, Page 6, Item 1, I would recommend that we require the applicant to adopt the standard subdivision requirement that the Evans Drain be tiled and that tiling could be tied to the city signature on the Final Plat for the issuance of future Building Permits or issuance of future Occupancy Permits. End of motion. Zaremba: I will second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 4: Public Hearing: ZA 02-001 Request for amendment to Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance by Jim Jewett and B & A Engineers: Borup: Thank you. Okay. The next Public Hearing, Items Number 5 and 6 -- or 4, 5, and 6. Let -- David, I think it might be appropriate to handle four by itself -- McKinnon: Absolutely. Borup: -- before we go into 5 and 6. ZA 02-003, request for amendment to the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance by Jim Jewett, B&A Engineers. I'd like to open this Public Hearing and start with the staff report. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. There is a whole lot in this little application. I have kind of broken it down into basically seven items that are major in discussion that we as staff felt were important that I'd like to just mention briefly and then turn the time over to the applicant and to you for questions and Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 9 comments. The first comment we have is that this is essentially an ordinance that's trying to clarify some of the ambiguity that we have in our own ordinance about what is an attached single-family dwelling. What's a townhome, what's an apartment, what's a 4-plex, what is a duplex, and what are the standards and how do they apply for each one of those? They have given us some clarification as far as what they believe attached single-family dwellings should be and how they should be defined. Attached single-family dwellings would be similar to a duplex in appearance. The difference would be is there is a zero lot line. Rather than being on one lot, you have two separate lots joined with a zero lot line in the middle. Attached single-family dwelling, according to the new definition, would only allow for one common zero lot line wall. If there is more than two units it becomes a town home. The second thing that we wanted to point out was there is a common drive requirement -- a common drive element that's added to our Zoning Ordinance by this amendment. The common driveway is something we see very common in other jurisdictions and we have already adopted something similar to what the applicant has proposed in our Planned Development Ordinance. As you remember some discussion that we had with Berkeley Square Subdivision, we talked about private driveways or common drives. This would separate the ambiguity that we had there as to what a private drive is and what a private road is. This gives some clarification on that. According to the amendment, a private driveway would only be allowed for four dwellings maximum. You could have a shared driveway for two dwellings, for three dwellings, or four dwellings and meet these standards. Anything beyond that would be considered under the Planned Development Ordinance a private drive -- a private road and should be handled as such. Anna Powell is here tonight to represent the applicant on this. She is going to have some stuff -- some standards concerning how long those roads should be allowed to be and maybe some construction standards for those roadways that are a little bit different than what you have in your packet tonight and I will let her address that. The third item that I wanted to point out to you is something I have already touched on, is that we are eliminating multi-family and three family dwellings from our schedule of use control. Currently we have townhomes, we have tri-plexes, we have apartment buildings, and we have multi- family housing and duplexes all listed separately. Multiple family housing and three unit -- three family housing, both of those definitions would fall under the current definitions for apartment or townhomes. There is no reason to leave those in the ordinance it just makes it more vague. The other thing that's very interesting about that is our current Zoning Ordinance allows multiple family housing in some zones, but completely prohibits apartment housing. There is no difference between the two. They are allowed as a Conditional Use Permit in an R-8 zone, but not for apartments. We thought we would get rid of the ambiguity there, say let's eliminate those and let's just keep it as townhomes, attached single family dwellings, duplexes, and detached single family dwellings. Keep it simple. The fourth item is that we were requested -- the applicant requested no change to the lot size. We as staff felt that if we are requiring a 40-foot frontage, the requirement for a 4,200 -- 4,250 square foot lot, 4,250 square foot lot seemed rather odd with only a 40-foot frontage to have varying depths. Rather than just have a 40-by-100 lot, it would have to have a 40-by-100 -- 42 by some other dimension. If you're in another subdivision where there are no duplexes, the standard lot depth is 100 feet. So rather, than have a staggered lot depth or a staggered Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 10 dimension, we thought it would be simpler to just reduce it by 250 feet. Item Number 5 that I want to point out to you is tandem parking in a one-car garage. In the past it says in the staff report -- I need to take a look. You, as the Commission -- not everybody was on the Commission when these -- when we dealt with Resolution Business Park and Valerie Heights Apartments, but tandem parking was denied by you as a Commission, because it was felt that tandem parking did not provide the adequate amount of parking or in a manner that's usable. Just for some clarification, tandem parking is when one car is parked directly behind another parked car and the parked car -- the car that's parked in front cannot move out of its own parking unless -- the car behind it has to move. If we allow a one-car garage with a standard driveway, it means the two parking spaces for that dwelling unit would be one in the garage and one in the driveway. Any additional parking would be required to be out on the street. The sixth item that I'd like you to consider tonight as part of this amendment is reduced setbacks for living area. Staff is very much in support of this. Instead of having a garage which is the most prominent feature and it's closest to the road for housing, like you see in most standard subdivisions, dragging the living area closer to the garage and requiring the garage to be set back further, allows for a softer streetscape. Instead of inviting someone to your garage and then your home, you can invite someone into your home. The seventh item that I'd really like you to consider tonight -- and I know there is more items than this, but these are the major ones -- is the zero lot lines. We currently allow duplexes to be built on separate lots. We allow town homes to be built. Zero lot lines become an issue only in the fact that currently we don't allow townhomes in certain zones and under the new ordinance we would allow them to be within the R-8 zone under a Planned Development. Currently the Planned Development Ordinance would allow all different types of housing that we mentioned earlier, townhomes, apartments, duplexes, attached single family dwellings. However, they are prohibited by the current ordinance in an R-8 zone and we would prefer to see those be permitted uses of a Planned Development in zones other than -- in zones, instead of requiring them to be part of the 20 percent land use exception. That was really confusing what I just said and I didn't understand it myself. Let me try it again. The Planned Development Ordinance allows for every different type of housing, but if it doesn't -- if it's not a permitted use in any of the zones in which it lies -- take an R-4 zone, an apartment use is a prohibited use in an R-4 zone. Because it's a prohibited use in an R-4 zone, it's required to be a land use exception and, you know, to a Planned Development you're allowed a 20 percent land use exception. We would like to allow zero lot line townhomes in the R-8 zone as a Conditional Use and not as an excepted use when considering it as a Planned Development. Does that make a little more sense? Okay and that's really what I have got for you. I know there is going to be other items that are brought up. Those were the major issues as I went and looked through this, but I wanted to discuss it with you tonight. I know it's a lot. Anna is here and I'd ask if there are any questions. Borup: Questions from the Commission at this time? Centers: No. Borup: Okay. Anna, would you like to come up? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 11 Powell: Anna Powell, B&A Engineers, 5505 West Franklin in Boise, Idaho 83705. Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission -- a lot of new faces. It's unusual to present a Zoning Ordinance Amendment this way. I'm used to just sitting across a table from you and getting to hash it out. I think I'll start by telling you a little bit how -- the approach I took to this. I met with staff and they knew that they had difficulties with single-family attached dwellings. That was clearly our impetus for this, is that the client wanted to do some of this product, but there has been ambiguity from the code the last time they tried to do it. They wanted to kind of clean up the code and then just go in with a clean application or follow up with a clean application, as the case may be. I met with staff, I went through and talked to them about some of their concerns, and then I went through the Zoning Ordinance and came up with what I saw were some of the concerns. I got back with staff, they kind of looked over what I was doing, and so this really has been a joint effort. I have tried to include staff as much as I can, because they know their Zoning Ordinance better than I ever could. I mean they work with it everyday. I really tried to work with them and by and large, the modifications that they have come up with we have completely agreed with. There is one that I disagree with, but we will get to that. Do you all have those copies available in front of you? What I'd like to do is just go through some of them. In -- this may be unnecessary to say, but if you have never seen a Zoning Ordinance Amendment done before, the underlined text is text that we are proposing to add. The strikeout text is text that's currently in the Zoning Ordinance that we want to take out. If you see text that is neither underlined, nor stricken, it means that that's existing code. Just wanted to make sure everybody was -- understood what we are proposing. Going through the definitions, we did want to have the opportunity to have common drives. They are very helpful when doing attached units, but I think the city will also find that they are helpful in numerous situations. I mean you may find that somebody wants to do a common driveway on half-acre lots or acre lots, if such a thing were to be built within the city limits, but they are a useful tool. We have looked at some of the surrounding jurisdictions and looked at the way that some of those worked. I think we came up with a good approach for the City of Meridian. Add a definition for -- just a slight modification for the dwelling single-family to clarify that it was a detached structure and then added a definition for single-family attached. As Dave pointed out, this is -- we would just have one -- only two single-family dwellings would be attached. Anytime you got more than that, you would be talking townhouse. These are just two units that are attached. Dave made the comment that they tend to look like duplexes. Well, I think they tend -- because there is an ownership issue involved, rather than just -- usually a duplex both them are rented out and they are usually built to a different construction standard, most duplexes are, so I would disagree that this will look like a duplex. I lived in a single-family attached house in California, because it was the only one I could even come close to affording, you know, and it was -- looked very much like a house. We had our entrance going out one way and the other house had its entrance going out at 90 degrees to that. It just looked like a big house -- or a normal size house, actually. It just happened to have two doors on it and two small private yards. They don't necessarily look like duplexes. I didn't want you to get that vision in your head. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 12 Borup: Kind of depends on the design. Powell: It will and they could. I mean they certainly could but my vision of them -- it's kind of like the difference between a 4-plex and a townhouse. I mean a townhouse you kind of think of all these cute little houses stacked together, but -- Centers: Let me make a comment to -- jumping down to the definition of a townhouse a structure consisting of three or more. Yet you build your duplexes on zero lot lines they are going to be a townhouse. Powell: No, sir. They will be -- Centers: What are they going to marketed as then? Powell: They will be single-family attached dwellings. If you just have two dwellings, they are going to be called single-family attached. If you have got three of them sharing, that's when they become townhouses. Centers: Where is that definition obtained? Powell: We wrote it. Centers: Because I don't agree with it. When a duplex is called a townhome for lending purposes, I will guarantee you, if there is two built and one is sold -- and both are sold, that's a townhome, because it's attached and it's on a zero lot line. Powell: Well, they are -- I mean there are numerous Zoning Ordinances that use the distinction between single-family attached and single-family detached. The definitions on townhouses I will agree tend to vary much wider. Sometimes what it has to do more with is the number of shared common walls. Generally townhouses, unless they are on the end unit, have two common walls, instead of just one, whereas the single family attached has just one common lot line. Centers: Yes. Powell: So it's -- for lending purposes that may be nomenclature, they go by, but they are still an individual lot. The zoning end of things was getting more to the ownership issues and to the -- looking at the land use controls as far as, okay, if we have just got two houses here, then that would be similar to what you used to allow -- you would allow them in zones that you're used to allowing duplexes in. If you're got three dwelling units, then let's look at the ones where you typically allowed multi-family before. Centers: And I have a question for staff. Do we have something in place for townhouses, then, three or more with zero lot lines in a City Ordinance? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 13 McKinnon: The City Ordinance that we have got right now does define townhomes, but we modified the definition in this application, actually, to the way we'd rather see it done. Centers: Okay. McKinnon: That would be for three or more. Centers: Okay. McKinnon: An attached single-family home would just be -- Centers: It just -- McKinnon: Yes. Center: It's a matter of names, really, I guess, and that's fine. Go ahead. Powell: That's what a definition section is. It's all semantics and names. That's all it -- you've got it. Okay. Zaremba: Ms. Powell, if I can beat this subject a little further. Powell: Sure. That's fine. Zaremba: This may be a question for staff as well. When I was first looking at this I was saying to myself why are we making a distinction between duplexes and single- family attached. My answer you have already given, it's a matter of who owns the land under them. I think it would be helpful to make distinction actually in the definition, so I would add some verbiage to a couple of these to make that clear. On the dwelling single-family attached -- I'm sorry. Let me start with the dwelling two family duplex first, because that's the simplest one. I would have it read the way you are proposing it to read. A structure designed to be used by two families consisting of two dwelling units which may be either attached side by side or one above the other, comma, on a single lot, indicating that that's a single ownership. That said, let's move up to dwelling single- family attached. A structure consisting of two side-by-side dwelling units where one single-family dwelling shares a common wall and zero lot line with the other single family. Period. A new sentence to add to that. One lot and structure may be under different ownership than the other lot and structure. Period. I'm adding these, because I had to sort that out for myself and I may as well say it. Powell: It may be easier just to say -- Zaremba: There may be another way to word it. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 14 Powell: -- each on a single lot, whereas on the previous one you say on a single lot and it would be each dwelling on a single lot. Zaremba: Each on their own lot. Yes. Powell: Because -- Zaremba: Some wording to get that point across that they could be owned separately, even though they have a common wall and a duplex -- that's what distinguishes it from a duplex. Powell: I don't think see a problem with that and some of the definitions do have that. I was trying to match -- when I went through this, I tried not to go overboard. I tried to match what your definitions were currently and then just was -- Zaremba: Well, on the same subject, then, I would add a similar sentence to townhomes at the end of it, however you word it. Something like each lot and structure may be under different ownership than the others. Again, there may be a better way to word that, but it brings the point home of why there are different definitions to me. Powell: I'm sure staff and -- we can work together to come up with something. Centers: When we talk about separate lot line walls, you know, there are no setbacks, you know. I think they are very specific about that in zero lot lines. When you say zero lot line that means that you're buying that lot and half the wall inside the structure. Exactly and, of course, if you're not owning the land, then you have a condominium and we are not talking about condominiums here. A condominium you don't own land, you own air space inside your dwelling. I don't know, it's up to -- it's up to staff, but -- Borup: Isn't that the question your -- questioning whether that's necessary on townhouse definition to add that -- Centers: Well, on any of them, because -- I think it's clear, but that's my personal opinion. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman? Commissioner Zaremba, if you could read your modification on the town home in one full sentence, rather than pausing? Could you do that for me, so I can hear it? Zaremba: Town homes you want me to read? McKinnon: Yes. Zaremba: A structure consisting of more than two dwelling units -- more than two dwelling units -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 15 McKinnon: Please go three or more. Powell: Three or more. Zaremba: You want to change that to three or more? Centers: It's already that way. Zaremba: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm reading the old copy, because that's where I made my notes. You have given us a new copy. Okay. A structure consisting of three or more attached single-family dwellings -- okay. Reading the new one may answer my question. Each dwelling is built with similar architectural treatment, is separated by common lot line walls, and each dwelling has private entrances, usually front and rear. I still would want to add, and may be separately owned. McKinnon: I don't see the need for it, Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: It may not show. McKinnon: I don't see a reason for that. Zaremba: If it's clear enough the way it is, that's fine. Not a problem. Powell: Moving on to the standards for duplexes. Your Zoning Ordinance did have specific minimum size and garage requirements for duplexes. Then I basically just added in attached single-family dwellings and clarified it a little bit. Then we did propose to change the number of parking places. Let me back up a little bit by saying why. You know, in all honesty, we don't necessarily need it for our project. In looking at this -- we tried to look at this for the whole City of Meridian, not just what would best serve our project. What would be best for the City of Meridian what single-family attached dwellings offer is a cheaper form of housing for people that still want to own a property, but don't necessarily want a big yard or can't afford to get a loan on their own. These are a different form of housing and I just wanted to provide the option of having a little less garage space. The other advantage to less garage space is because you don't -- because you have a limited amount of frontage and a small lot. If you put a garage on -- a two car garage on there you end up having a two car garage and nothing else to look out -- I mean there is not much room left for bringing the architectural features forward. You do kind of end up getting snout houses, if you require the two-car garage. One of the other amendments we did was to give a little bit of a reduced setback if you were able to not have the garage right on the front. The common drives will help, because then you can get units sharing things at the back, but those two car garages on such small lots are somewhat onerous. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 16 Centers: So, Ms. Powell, if I quote you pretty close, anyway, you stated that you didn't necessarily change it to one car for your project, but you felt that for the City of Meridian overall? Powell: It's nice to have it as an option and other communities do it on ones -- especially if you have a mix of one bedroom and two bedroom units, which a lot of times you do. Like this particular house, that I bought was a two-bedroom unit, but right next to it was a one-bedroom unit. Then you have some flexibility. With a one-bedroom unit, you know, probably really don't need a two-car garage. It just allows you a little more flexibility. Centers: Well, everybody's got a car nowadays and a couple -- and most people have two cars. Then your tandem parking, as the staff talked about. I think if I were to ask for a show of hands here with people having a three car garage and they are only able to put two cars in it, because of storage. Or they only have a two car garage and they can only put one car in it, because the other part is storage. Powell: And if it's a one car with no car in it. Centers: You agree. With a one-car garage, they are buying a storage unit and they are going to park both cars on the sidewalk and street. So, you know, I'm telling you right now I'm not going to bite off on that personally. I guess the rest of you hear me, so -- that's fine. Go forward. Powell: Okay. The -- Borup: Before you get off the garage, since we are talking about definitions. I felt this definition was a little ambiguous on -- it says a garage capable of housing at least one standard size car. I'd like to see things firmed up on that a little bit. What size is a standard size car? Powell: Again, that's -- Borup: So can we -- have you talked about that, Dave? Can we get some specific dimensions in there? Ten by 20 or 18 by 20 or -- I mean, you know, 10 by 20 or 12 by 20, whatever -- Powell: Probably 10 by 20 clear space, not -- so that they don't encroach the heating units into the -- McKinnon: That would be -- Commissioner Borup -- I mean Chairman Borup. A standard size parking lot that we require in the City of Meridian is nine by 19. Ten by 20 -- Borup: That's outside the walls. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 17 McKinnon: Yes. That's outside the wall. It doesn't say what a -- there is no definition for what a standard size automobile is. Borup: Right. I mean -- yes, then later someone is going to put in a 9 by 16 garage and say, well, my car fits there and it meets the definition. McKinnon: I think you're on to something. I would agree that it would be better to have something in black and white, than something that -- Borup: Ten by 20? Would you -- that used to be the old -- I mean that was the old HUD definition of a garage. I mean it's ten by 20 per car minimum. I think that -- Zaremba: That's enough room to open the doors inside of the walls? Borup: Well, I mean to the new -- I think Boise has changed. I mean 18 is the definition of a two-car garage now, isn't it? Eighteen feet. Powell: I don't know what their standard is. Borup: I think it's changed, but 10 by 20 -- I'd like to see something a little bit specific or there is question, a lot of ambiguity. Okay. Zaremba: Chairman Borup, you sound like you're going towards the direction of being comfortable with a one-car garage. I tend to agree with Commissioner Centers that nowadays -- Borup: Well, I agree with that. It's going to depend on the size side of the unit you're talking about. I guess in some ways it's not a lot different than an apartment. Apartment buildings don't have any garages necessarily. Centers: They require two parking spaces per dwelling. Borup: Right. Right. They have parking spaces, but -- Centers: And it's off street and -- Zaremba: If we were to go with the one standard size -- or define space for an enclosed garage, could we add another phrase onto this that says that there must be a driveway sufficient to hold a second car off street? Borup: Well, that goes with the -- Zaremba: I know that's giving us the tandem driving, which staff was not comfortable with. I think we can't just leave it at one car garage. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 18 Borup: The garage has to be 20 feet from the street, so you're guaranteed a 20-foot driveway. Zaremba: But some of that may be sidewalk and you shouldn't have a car overlapping a sidewalk. McKinnon: No. It's a 20-foot driveway minimum, not including the sidewalk. Shreeve: Mr. Chairman, what if we just simply had that if it was a one-bedroom apartment, then they could go to a one-car garage, but if it's two or more -- because I think there is some logic there that if it's a one bedroom chances are you're only going to have one car. Now, granted, that may not necessarily be true. Well, it may not necessarily be true, because you could have a married couple. Powell: Married couples have too much junk to -- Shreeve: Good point. Centers: I'm familiar with a project that is just now being completed in Boise. In fact, it's right behind my office. My office is on Emerald, 4600 block, and it's behind it. I couldn't tell you what street. It's identical to this project. Duplexes, zero lot lines, nice little project, in-fill, it was probably two and a half acres, double garages. They are small double garages, but done very nicely and very inexpensive. I haven't checked the prices yet. They are complete with the sheetrock, so, you know, they are probably 30 days away from market. It can be done, you know, and to be made to look very nice and they do. Anyway -- Powell: Perhaps Mr. Shreeve's suggestion of allowing just one parking space for a one bedroom would be meet everybody's needs, maybe, or -- or even make it more ambiguous and say the City Council may approve a lesser standard for one bedroom units. If your attorney is shaking his head it's making me nervous. Zaremba: Anymore specific -- I like Commissioner Shreeve's idea. I could support that. Borup: I think that makes some sense to me. Maybe, then, if we talking two cars on the other -- you know, we can get specific definitions and maybe it could be a little smaller, 18 by 20, then, would qualify as -- Powell: Ten by 18, maybe or 18 by 20? Borup: No, that's for the two cars. Powell: Oh. Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 19 Borup: For the two bedroom -- for the two bedroom or more, 18 by 20 minimum. Powell: I'm sure staff and I can work up that language. Centers: Well, you're going with 10 by 20, so why don't you double it, 20 by 20. That was my note and you're pushing it when you have things stacked along the side and you're getting -- Borup: Well, you are, and you're pushing it with 10. It should be 12. A single car garage should be 12 anyway. We are already – Centers: Exactly. I'm known for my open mind, so I would concur with Commissioner Shreeve. I would term it one bedroom unit 10 by 20 and I would support if two bedrooms or more then 20 by 20. Borup: Well, Ms. Powell did mention the clear space, so that the furnace would be separate from that. McKinnon: Chairman Borup, if I could get some language that may be more -- may work for that. Strike all of Item Number 2 -- well, 11, 10, and 7 -- I don't know what page it's on. I don't have page numbers. The part where we are talking about duplexes and Item Number 2 and 3, the garage is a minimum interior dimension of 20 feet by 20 feet for a one bedroom unit or a 20 by 20 -- or a garage capable -- or a garage with interior dimensions of 20 feet by 20 feet for a two or three bedroom unit. Centers: Correct. With the furnace and support services, water heater, separate from the garage. Zaremba: Clear space dimensions. Yes. McKinnon: I think just interior dimensions. Borup: If we were taking about interior, there would be enough. McKinnon: As far as furnace, they would have to meet UBC requirements. Moore: Chairman Borup, be sure that when you put your language in there you use not less than and realize that you're setting a minimum standard here, not a maximum, so -- Borup: Right. I guess from a design standard, maybe to clarify, you had mentioned interior dimensions. Normally buildings are measured on outside dimensions. So a 20 foot garage is going to be 19 four on the inside. Centers: That's right. It's usually exterior. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 20 Borup: And that works on others -- I don't know if we want to limit and say 20 or -- you know, 10 or 20 feet on interior. Centers: Well, I think if we went to nine and 18 interior we would be fine. On the interior measurement. I think that's what we should do, because they are going to be attached. You're correct. Borup: That would be bigger anyway. Centers: Right. You get that -- Borup: Is that more confusing or less confusing? McKinnon: It makes sense what you're saying. Centers: Yes. McKinnon: I agree with what you're saying is that -- Powell: Chairman Borup, it's the exterior dimensions, I find, too, maybe a 12 by 20 on the exterior or 20 by 20 on the exterior. It does make sense. Centers: I think we ought to go interior. Borup: Well, a 10 by 20 exterior is going to be larger than a nine by 19 four interior. Centers: Okay. The larger the better. Borup: We are only talking four inches difference. Powell: So 12 by 20 exterior for the one bedroom and 20 by 20 exterior? Centers: Ten by 20. Yes or 20 by 20. Powell: Okay. Borup: Ten is small. Powell: Okay. Are we -- are we ready to move on? Okay. In the next section -- that was just a clarification. There was a little ambiguity on what was allowed outside the R- 8 zone. It didn't mention anything about the R-15 zone and how many dual -- or how many zero lot lines you're allowed, so I added that clarification there. Then the only reason I reworded that next sentence is to make it consistent with what was adopted in the PUD Ordinance. I thought it was a little clearer and I just went back and gave you consistent language between the two ordinances. On B, the reason that that whole thing is dropped is, obviously, if you have got a zero lot line, you can't keep a six-foot Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 21 wide Maintenance Drainage Easement on the lot line. I felt that the issues regarding drainage were adequately covered in the subdivision design standards. Your public works staff reviews those and has plenty of power to get what they need as far as that's concerned. I just struck it completely and you don't see it picked up anywhere else. Common drive design standards. A lot of this I picked up from your PUD Ordinance as far as the width of the driveways and talked with staff. That's where we came up with a maximum of four dwellings. Originally, I just had it two, because I didn't know how far I wanted to go, but staff asked me to make it four, so we bumped it up to four. Then anything over that would be a private street and you have -- for two dwellings, it's 16 feet, which is -- ACHD typically uses eight feet as a length. It's quite enough to get two cars by, basically 24 feet if you have got three or four dwellings. What that allows for is -- you don't allow parking on it. Just in case somebody parks on them you can still get by is, what the deal is on three or four. Now the one thing that we do disagree on is the common driveways shall be constructed to Ada County Highway District standards for a local street, with regard to gravel base, pavement depth, and compaction testing. For two homes, this is quite excessive. For three or four homes, it's still quite excessive. The issue was -- and I understand this. Mrs. Stiles brought up that they have no standards for driveways so what happens when these things become a mess? What we'd like to do is -- we recognize the need for standards and she had two concerns. One was just the appearance and their durability. The only one was fire access so we would propose one or both of the following. As far as construction standards for short ones, the ones less than 150 feet, because then the fire trucks are not an issue, they won't be driving on them. If a house is less than 150 feet from the road, which a lot of these probably will be when they -- if you're talking about attached units they would be. If it's less than 150 feet, the common drive, then the standard would be six inches of compacted, two inch minus gravel, so a nice road bed, basically. Then two and a half inches of asphalt paving on top of that or concrete paving, and that would give you a nice durable surface. That's the standard that Ada County uses on their private roads. Those get quite a bit of use, because you can have a lot more than two or three houses on those -- on some of them and they seem to hold up quite well. That would be our preference for a short one. Regarding the long ones, if they get over 150 feet, like -- and, as I said, some of these common driveways, someone decides to maybe use it for a half acre property, so if they do get long, then maybe you go with the local street standards regarding compaction, pavement depth, and gravel base. Centers: Are you proposing that for the upcoming project or are you proposing that for this ordinance or -- Powell: For this ordinance. Centers: Yes. Did you discuss that with staff? Powell: I didn't get a chance to. Shari and I -- I e-mailed the file over so that Shari could make these changes and she couldn't do it, so we did it over the phone yesterday at about 3:00. She threw in that -- she didn't throw in -- she asked me to add Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 22 the Ada County Highway District standards. My first reaction was, oh, that's way excessive, but we really didn't have time to think about it. I talked to Shari about it a lit bit yesterday. I talked to Dave about it but that's the only chance I have had to talk about it. It was kind of a -- it just came up yesterday. Borup: I agree on that, on -- Centers: Yes I don't say that I disagree, it's just I didn't know we were going to write an ordinance tonight here. You know, I thought it was already written and we were going to approve or disapprove it with minor amendments, but -- so I guess maybe we should talk to staff. Are we in agreement here? McKinnon: We are in agreement. I don't have any hard language that I can present to you tonight to be adopted in such a manner. I think Anna can probably -- do you have something where we can come up with the standards tonight? Borup: Well, I think she did. Zaremba: Ms. Powell just proposed the standards for under 150 feet and saying it would comply if it's over 150. Powell: I can -- would you like me to read it into the record? Is that what you're asking? McKinnon: If you could read exactly what you had into the record and we just could adopt it -- Powell: Okay. McKinnon: -- per what she said, I have no problem with what -- the reduced standards from the Ada County Highway District standards, because those are much more restrictive. Zaremba: For less than 150 feet. McKinnon: Exactly Powell: Okay. Borup: I might make one change, perhaps. You had mentioned two and a half inch paving, which is fine, but you said or concrete. Are you saying two and a half inches of concrete or four inches? Powell: Four. Borup: Okay. That's what I would -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 23 Centers: In addition to reading it, you could leave us a copy of -- correct? Powell: I can write one out. Okay. Let's give this a try. Common driveways greater than 150 feet in length shall be constructed to Ada County Highway District standards for a local street, i.e., gravel base, pavement depth, and compaction testing. Common driveways 150 feet or less in length shall be constructed with six inches of two inch minus gravel compacted -- well compacted gravel, excuse me, and two and a half inches of asphalt or four inches of concrete paving. Borup: Right. Zaremba: And on that same paragraph, questions that came up when we were considering an earlier issue, was whether or not the ordinances require that in addition to that there be sidewalks. When we were discussing whether the 12 houses facing this private driveway, whether that was really a road or not, the issue came up whether the road had to have sidewalks in addition to its 24 foot width. Do we need to clarify that sidewalks are not required or -- McKinnon: Commissioner Zaremba, the private -- this is going to clarify the problem that we had last time with Berkeley with the requirement for the sidewalks. A private driveway, a standard driveway, has no requirement for a sidewalk. If it were a private drive, as we have listed in our Planned Development, for any more than four homes, then the sidewalk would kick in, typically because those are going to be longer. These are typically going to be fairly short, unless we run into the situation that Anna just mentioned where we would have 150 feet or more. Zaremba: So that's clarified elsewhere? McKinnon: Yes. It's clarified elsewhere. Yes. We don't need to add it. Zaremba: One other question on the same subject. Since we did take out the one before about Drainage Easements and stuff, do we need to say anything here -- ACHD would probably ask that no more than 20 percent of water runoff should empty onto the adjacent street or is that elsewhere? McKinnon: Commissioner Zaremba, I'm going to defer to Bruce on that. I know that Bruce may actually have a few comments on this. I'm glad that you came back to that. I'll let Bruce address your question. I believe he has some additional comments on this issue, if that's okay. Freckleton: Commissioner Zaremba, could you repeat that question about the 20 percent. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 24 Zaremba: The question was do we need to say anything like this, that no more than 20 percent of water runoff shall empty onto the adjacent street or some wording to that effect? I have seen that in some of ACHD's notes on other projects. Freckleton: I think it would probably be better just to defer that decision to ACHD and not write it into our ordinance. I have seen it to where they totally restrict no drainage into the right of way. I would hate to get it written into ours to allow it and then get crossway with them. I did want to -- I did want to do a little thinking out loud here. On the easement, if we strike this whole paragraph -- Borup: Are you backing up to B? Freckleton: B. When you have a situation where you have a zero lot line subdivision -- we have -- we have in the city some single-family detached zero lot line subdivisions -- you will have one unit built at the lot line, the next door neighbor holds his house back. If we do away with this easement requirement for drainage, we are kind of losing a little bit of the intent. The intent of this, of course, is to make sure that they maintain their drainage between those units. I can understand when you have an attached unit, like a townhouse, you know, there needs to be something to do away with the easement, because, of course, it's not necessary, because there is no -- Centers: Could we add something at the end, Bruce? Does not apply to zero lot line single-family attached dwellings? Powell: Can I clarify, Bruce? This -- B only applies to zero lot line building lots right now. That's the only place it's being stricken from. Borup: But I think that's what Bruce is saying. You can have a detached zero lot line. We have zero lot line detached lots where the structure is up to the property line on one side, but on the other side -- Powell: Well, then they are not keeping it clear of structures. I mean the issue is still the same. If you have got one that's right up against the lot line, you can't have an easement where the structure is. Freckleton: But the way that the ordinance is written right now it says six foot wide Maintenance Drainage Easement shall be provided on the lot adjacent to the zero lot line property line. In other words, it's the lot that is setback -- or that the unit would be setback. Powell: Chairman Borup, I'm sorry. I didn't get it -- this is a new issue that has come up, so Bruce and I had not got a chance to talk. I just want to ask him one more question. Borup: Sure. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 25 Powell: Don't you think that the flexibility given in the Subdivision Ordinance -- I went through there and there is quite a few other standards that give you the ability to require whatever you need, basically, as far as drainage is required. Freckleton: Well, as does the Uniform Building Code, you know, you have to maintain your drainage there, too. I don't know. Like I said, I'm kind of thinking out loud on this and I'm not -- I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. Chairman Borup, in your experience with building would you -- Borup: You know, really, I don't think that we ever paid that much attention to the Drainage Easement. You just -- you know you have to do your drainage and that's part of the Building Code, but -- the only easement you worried about is the Utility Easement. Freckleton: Correct. The other thing that made me a little uncomfortable with striking this whole thing is when we strike patios and slabs at grade. I mean I have seen a lot of times people will come in and pour an RV slab along side their driveway and basically they are transferring their drainage onto their neighbor. We have seen some poured right straight up to the property line. Shreeve: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Shreeve. You got a solution here? Shreeve: No. I've got a recommendation, though. I would recommend that the staff and Ms. Powell -- rather than hastily putting this together tonight, that they go back to the drawing board, clean this up and present it to us again. Centers: I would wholeheartedly second that. My comment earlier -- you know, I didn't think we were going to write an ordinance here tonight. You did get our views on the garage and so I would second that, if that's a motion. Shreeve: Yes. Take it as such. Powell: Does that mean we are ending or do I get to give my presentation? Borup: Well, we are at the last item on your presentation, but -- Zaremba: I support that idea, but rather than closing the discussion right now I think we should hear the last item or two. Shreeve: Well -- and that's fine. Yes. Zaremba: But I agree. This probably should be -- one, I want to thank you personally for the work that you have already done on it. It's nice to have something brought to us with so much thought put into it already. Now having had a Committee add more Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 26 thoughts to it, I would support the idea of putting it off. I think it's too early to close the Public Hearing, because we haven't discussed everything yet. Shreeve: Go ahead and finish your comments, but I guess I would say let's move on. Borup: Maybe this should have been handled in a workshop. Powell: I'm not sure it could, because I brought it forward. It gets tricky when you have an applicant -- your Attorney can better advise you, but I have been told in other communities that I can't do that, so -- Zaremba: Well, I think we are generally supportive of the direction this is going and just want to see a cleaner copy of it after all the comments are made. Right? Borup: Yes. At this point we have a motion on the -- Shreeve: Well, I'll retract that motion. Let's continue with the comments. Zaremba: Well, we just don't call the question now. Borup: Well, I haven't. Shreeve: Table the motion. Powell: Okay. Thank you. Borup: Continue on then. Powell: Okay. I'll try to speed up a little bit. The Planned Development standards there, I don't -- again, I just went in to add the idea of, one, common driveways, and single-family attached units. Didn't change those standards, just massaged them, so to speak. Residential uses, just revised them to reflect the changes that we made up in the definition section. The one item that may take just a little bit of time to get through is up on the board, which is good, because it's going to be the confusing one to talk about, are the two tables. These -- all I did here was add the detached and attached so I put them in the same place as -- well, actually, the attached dwellings would not be allowed in the R-4 is what I had originally proposed. The townhouses added these in where it seemed appropriate, given the prohibition on multiple zero lot lines in the R-8, so I just started it in the R-15. There was a discrepancy about multi-family dwellings. I didn't originally address it. Staff has added that and just stricken that, because there was -- it was a bit inconsistent. The ones that I have changed here -- it looks like we changed a lot, but we really didn't. All we did was pretty much add the 6,000 on the R- 8, add the 6,500 square feet per dwelling unit, and then a separate one for the 4,000 square feet per dwelling unit if it was attached or if it was a duplex. Now it was already there for duplexes, so we just added it for the attached. Some of the other notes, all I did was take one of your asterisks out and actually make it a note. That street Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 27 frontage -- now this is -- the rest of this note is something I did add. You have got street frontage for two lots sharing a common driveway shall been a minimum of 15 each. Your definition section had flag lots had to have 30 feet of frontage. We took that definition out of there and it's in here now -- somewhere. Here it is, on the last line -- for a flag, lot shall be 30 feet. A lot of times the -- if you're sharing a common driveway you end up getting flag lots for the units in back, basically. If you have got just two units and you're trying to get the 30, then you have got 15 feet of frontage there. Then if you have got three or four lots sharing a common driveway, it would be a minimum of 10 feet. If you have got four, you're going to have 40 feet of roadway there for your driveway. Did that -- I think I lost some people on that. Borup: No. Does the Commission have questions on that? Zaremba: My eyes may be glazed over for a minute, but that's because I was thinking back to a four house subdivision that we were given that had a driveway down the middle, which ended up the bottom two lots were flag lots. We ended up solving it by requiring Cross-Access Easements and I wonder, rather than somebody having to remember that every time, should that just be written in if it creates a -- if a driveway creates a flag lot there should be Cross-Access Easements? Powell: Well, basically, a common drive you would always have -- McKinnon: And it's usually handled on the plat. Zaremba: Okay. All right. Borup: That is the understanding on the -- anytime we are talking about common drives there is going to be an agreement automatically? Powell: Pretty much. You would be kind to stupid if you didn't, I suppose. Zaremba: But I'm just wondering do we need to codify that? Do we need to put that in writing and require it or is that just too much logic? Centers: It would be on the plat and then your CC&R's. McKinnon: Yes. It would be on the plat. Powell: There may be some strange situation where you don't really need it and if you don't need to codify it, it might be best don't. Let's see. What else do I -- I think that's really -- the only other thing was the staff -- is they went through and changed it from 4,250 to 4,000 and the frontage requirement for duplexes used to be 50. We asked to change it to 40 and that went kind of with the -- if you have -- if you have got two single-family attached, you're going to have 80 right? Instead of just -- the duplexes used to have 40 and it does say 40 per dwelling unit. Before you used to get 50 -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 28 it's not really a reduction. Before you used to get 50 for a duplex, so that's basically 25 feet of frontage for each unit, now you're getting 40 feet per each unit. Borup: Right so instead of a 50-foot lot you're saying 80 feet -- Powell: It looks like we reduced the standard, but we actually increased the standard on -- Borup: Anyone -- any questions on the table? I think that that -- Zaremba: If I could go back to the residential one for a minute. Dave, you were talking earlier about C's and B's on the chart and I'm wondering since the multiple family in an R-8 zone used to be a conditional, should the new single family attached in an R-8 be conditional instead of permitted? McKinnon: No. Zaremba: No? McKinnon: No. Zaremba: Okay. McKinnon: One thing that -- as I looked up there I just realized that the multi family dwelling is stricken through, but three family dwelling is not on that chart and that also needs to be stricken through. Zaremba: Or duplex. McKinnon: Duplex is actually on the schedule of use control. There were no changes to that, so that's the reason why it's not in front of you tonight on the overhead or on your handouts. Powell: We can add that. That's adding -- three family dwellings wouldn't be a problem if that's the wish of the Commission and this was initiated by staff. I don't have any problem. Borup: Does that cover everything? Powell: Thank you for your patience. Zaremba: Thank you for getting the ball rolling. Borup: So at this point are we -- Zaremba: Any other testimony before we -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 29 Borup: Well, are we looking to having this rewritten and come back before us, then? Is that what I understand the Commission's desire? Shreeve: That's what I recommend. Centers: Yes. We have a motion on the floor. Zaremba: That was the motion, but the Public Hearing at the moment is still open. There may be somebody else here to speak tonight. We should at least ask that before we close it. Borup: Okay. Do we have anyone here to testify on this, the Zoning Amendment Application? Zaremba: Seeing none, I call the question. Shreeve: Well, I make a motion that the staff and the applicant get together, clean up the document there, and present it to us again. Well -- and so -- do we leave the Public Hearing open or can we? Centers: Yes we can. Shreeve: I would -- Borup: Well, we need to -- Centers: We don't have to re-advertise it then. Borup: Right. Borup: So we continue it. Shreeve: Just continue it. Centers: To the 18th ? The 18th is our continued items? Shreeve: The 18th , if there is room. Zaremba: Utility Subdivision will be on the 18th . I don't know what else is. McKinnon: Intermountain Outdoor Sports is on the 18th . Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if I may, if we are able to come to an agreement on this it shouldn't be a long agenda item. It may be something that we could place at the head of the agenda. If I could ask for some clarification on just one thing. It seems like we are in agreement Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 30 with the wording on everything except for the easement. Is that correct? Do we just want the easement language worked out? Centers: Yes. Item B, striking out all of the easements -- I think you need to get together with Bruce and -- personally, I think it should be left in and then additional verbiage added to it talking about common walls, zero lot lines, but that's how -- you guys are the -- McKinnon: Just -- I have one thought on that. I was just racking my brain trying to figure out if there is any situation where we would allow a detached single-family home on zero lot line and there is no situation, which we would allow that to take place. Centers: You do now. McKinnon: Do we? Centers: Yes. Borup: In an offset. Centers: As Bruce -- McKinnon: No. I'm saying detached. A residential on a zero lot line? Centers: Yes. McKinnon: Without an attached part of the home to it? I'm talking detached, not attached. Borup: Right. McKinnon: How do we -- Borup: So you still have the separation between the buildings, but one of them is on the lot line. McKinnon: Are we still in Public Hearing? Borup: Yes. McKinnon: Anna, could you go back up to the front real quick? I have a question for you. Anna, if we leave this in there without making any changes, does this affect your project, in your opinion? Powell: No. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 31 McKinnon: If we leave this unchanged would we be able to continue to go forward? Would you have any problem leaving this in the Zoning Ordinance at this time? Powell: It needs modification, because right now you have got it on a lot adjacent to the zero lot line property. Borup: The other question I have is on six -- Powell: It wouldn't work for townhouses. I'm sorry. McKinnon: Go ahead. I'm still thinking out loud, too. The direction I'm going is we have got an application before the Commission tonight that will be affected by this being tabled. If this is the only item that we are not in agreement on that has no bearing on your other applications, it may be something that we could work out on another night. We could move forward with the application that's before the Commission tonight for the subdivision and we could address this issue separately at a different time. Powell: You would need to -- and I think it was brought up earlier by either Mr. Shreeve or Mr. Centers that it needs to say for single-family detached zero lot line buildings. McKinnon: If Bruce doesn't -- if Bruce doesn't have a problem with that, I wouldn't have a problem with changing that wording. That was the only item that we are really at odds over right now without allowing this to go through. It seems that we could make those changes tonight, possibly we could continue this until the end of the regular Public Hearing, Anna could have some language written up and we could make a final motion on this at a later point tonight. I just -- Zaremba: Is your question that if we continue Item 4 we cannot deal with 5 and 6? McKinnon: We can deal, but we can't make a motion on it, because if we don't make a motion on the Zoning Amendment we cannot make a motion on the other items, because -- I mean Items Number 6 and -- well, Items No. 5 and 6, Amberstone Subdivision, because they rely upon all the changes in here. If these changes aren't made, we can't take any action on Amberstone. Centers: That's -- you know, and that's unfortunate, but it appears -- you know, it just appears that you kind of rushed into things on this ordinance without giving it full thought. Ms. Powell stated that she talked to Shari Stiles this afternoon and changed the wording on the -- on the asphalt and that type of thing. I mean last minute -- I concur with Commissioner Shreeve, I think we should table it you rewrite it, get it done the way it should be done, present it, we will vote on it and go forward. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 32 Borup: Did you hear David's final suggestion? Maybe we can give that up -- or make that the choice of the applicant. We could continue it until the end of this meeting or to the 18th , whichever you prefer. Centers: I think they need to take it back. Shreeve: I do. Borup: To who? Centers: To Shari Stiles and their staff and rewrite it the way they want it written. Bring it back and I -- it's unfortunate for the Amberstone Subdivision, but -- Shreeve: I think that the point is is just not to rush into something that there is no reason to. I mean if this is an ordinance, something that's in place, let's make sure there is plenty of thought going behind it. Centers: Exactly. Zaremba: My opinion is I would like to be able to sit down quietly and read the final wording. Centers: And it's obvious, too, that this was written for this applicant and this project. I don't think a lot of thought was gone into the exact wording. I think you should give it a couple more weeks. Shreeve: And also some thought that beyond this project. Centers: Exactly. Shreeve: You know he has this probably written for this project, but let's consider what if on other scenarios. Zaremba: The forever impact of it. Borup: Well, I think that's why this on Item B came up, because it was -- does affect other projects, not theirs. Centers: I seconded it earlier. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, if I may ask a question of Legal Counsel. Larry, I was just kind of curious with this Zoning Amendment we have applications that are based upon these changes. Moore: I understand that. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 33 Freckleton: At what stage does this Zoning Amendment have to be before it can -- the subsequent applications can proceed? Does it have to be second Public Hearing through Council or -- Moore: No, but it has to be approved by this body and be in the process of going through the other -- through the City Council. I think the City Council should be given a copy of this at the same time you give it to this body, so that they can review it and have an understanding of it before it comes before them. No, once this body approves it, then they can go ahead with their project. Any changes that will be made in it by City Council will not be significant, to my understanding. Freckleton: Okay. Thank you. Borup: So we could still go ahead and continue this to the 18th and hear the other two applications, we are not able to act on them tonight, is that -- Zaremba: Get the ball rolling. Borup: -- the way the Commission -- if it's not going to the 18th , we would need to get that out of the way or we wouldn't have time. Zaremba: So they have been published for hearing tonight and there may or may not be people here that want to talk to that, so -- Borup: Did we ever vote on the motion to continue? Do we have a motion to continue? Shreeve: Yes. Centers: And I seconded it. Borup: And second. Any other discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. Is that the 18th ? Is that clear on -- MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 5: Public Hearing: AZ 02-003 Request for annexation and zoning of 3.84 acres from R-1 to R-8 zones for proposed Amberstone Subdivision by Jim Jewett – south of West Cherry Lane and south of North Summertree Way: Item 6: Public Hearing: PP 02-002 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 19 building lots and 2 other lots on 3.84 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Amberstone Subdivision by Jim Jewett – south of West Cherry Lane and south of North Summertree Way: Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 34 Borup: Okay. Item Number 5 and 6, hearing AZ 02-003 and PP 02-002, both on Amberstone Subdivision. First, request for annexation and zoning of 3.84 acres, R-1 to R-8, and the second, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 19 building lots and 2 other lots on the same 3.84 acres. I'd like to open both these Public Hearings and start with the staff report. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. As we already talked about just previously, that these two applications before you tonight were contingent upon the approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment that we just continued. Just to give you a rough overview of what the project is, it's 19 lots. It's located on Cherry Lane. There is the project right there. Bruce, if I could borrow your laser pointer really quick. The north part of the project would be the aforementioned attached single-family houses and the rear portion of the property would be single- family homes that are detached. The far west side of the property would be a vertical curve that would run adjacent to the property here and this would be a fully improved right of way. There will be a sidewalk on the same side as the housing that runs adjacent to all the housing. Stop right there. As I mentioned before, the entire project is based on the Zoning Ordinance Amendment taking place. They are utilizing shared parking. They are utilizing the driveways and the one-car garages for this project. One thing that I think does deserve some consideration tonight that we should talk about would be the alternative compliance issues. I would appreciate some discussion on this tonight. The required setback for a residential subdivision on an entryway corridor, of which Cherry Lane is included, is a 35-foot landscape buffer. The applicant has provided a 25-foot landscape buffer and has requested alternative compliance based on two findings that they have made. One -- the first finding is that they are on a lot that is small enough in size and oddly enough configured that they feel that they shouldn't be required to meet the maximum required 35 foot landscape buffer. Staff does not agree with that. Staff finds this project is large enough in size and scope and the property is not oddly shaped enough to allow alternative compliance based on their request. The second part of their request -- based the alternative compliance request on utilizing design standards that are innovative based on neo-traditional design, new urbanism, or current planning topics. We have -- we don't know if they will be able to utilize those current planning topics at this point. Staff doesn't feel that the project with detached single-family homes is enough of a justification for a reduction in the 35-foot setback buffer to 25 feet. In the application, the applicant correctly states that many of the projects up and down Cherry Lane do not have a 35-foot wide landscape buffer. A majority of those properties, if not all of those properties, were approved prior to the adoption of the Landscape Ordinance last year. The property directly to the west was required to put in a 35-foot wide Landscape Easement. Further to the west is Blackstone English Gardens. They were required to put in a 20-foot landscape buffer. However, keep in mind that they were approved prior to the Landscape Ordinance requiring a 35-foot landscape buffer. Additionally, the applicant correctly pointed out that upon adoption of the new Comprehensive Plan this part of Cherry Lane would no longer be part of the entryway corridor system, would become an arterial. The Landscape Ordinance says that anytime you front onto an arterial you are required to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 35 have a 25-foot landscape buffer, rather than a 35-foot landscape buffer. If this project came before us after the adoption of the new Comprehensive Plan, we would only require a 25-foot landscape buffer. The current Comprehensive Plan states this is an entryway corridor, the current Landscape Ordinance says that they do have to provide a 35-foot landscape buffer. Those are really the major issues with this project, other than the Zoning Ordinance Amendment and I ask if there are any questions and turn the time back over to the Commission. Borup: Any questions from any of the Commissioners? Would the applicant like to make her presentation? Powell: Anna Powell, B&A Engineers, 5505 West Franklin Road, Boise, Idaho. 83705. We certainly are discussing current-planning topics, though. I did make that qualification. Backing up let me just give you a little tour of the site here. This is an in-fill project. We have got a subdivision that wraps all the way around like this. This was a recently approved two-lot subdivision I believe where they weren't required to build half the street, which was an oversight on the part of ACHD. I will explain that a little bit further. What we tried to do back here was match our lots with the lots of the surround property. This guy here, he's got one lot house behind him. This one, one house behind them, that one one house -- and you get a little overlap through here, but we really did try to match the other homes that were our neighbors. There are a number of -- it looks -- it's a 3.84 acre piece and in some cases that wouldn't be a tricky site to in-fill, but we have got a number of constraints on this property that I wanted to point out. One of them is this street right here. It forced us to put our street right along this property line. If we had been able to move it toward the middle, you could get some double loading going and a little more variety in what you could do as far as lots. We were basically forced into this situation right here, which basically forces you into this situation right here. A lot of this design is a result of just having that street right there. Then you're left with this area here and what do you do with it. Well, Mr. Jewett decided to do something a little different, provide a large landscaped lot here in the middle and then put these single-family attached homes ringing around it. You have one, two, three, four, five structures, basically, that will be along this little loop road, 10 homes, five structures, and they look out onto this open space right here. We are not utilizing a single garage. I wanted to clarify that. This will be double car garages. This is the one outstanding issue, which were the 25-foot landscape lots. Part of my description so far is to try to convince you that we do have an unusual shaped lot. It might not be an unusual shape, but it's got a lot of constraints on it and that's, obviously, what this -- the determination for alternative compliance is intended to do is address situations where you have got something a little different going on. Our depth was severely constrained unless we just stripped out tiny little narrow lots there, which wouldn't do anybody any good. We were stuck with kind of smaller lots ringing around here and, quite honestly, we just can't fit the 25 feet. If we could get you -- I mean we can't get the 35 feet. If we could get you 10 more feet, we would, but we are just barely meeting the -- what we thought would be 40 to 50 maximum there as is. Even dropping down to the 4,000 square foot maximum on the lot size I don't think will get us an extra 10 feet. The other thing that I wanted to point out is that -- and staff will have to correct Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 36 me if I'm wrong on this. I think the current Comp Plan -- when it talks about the entryway corridors it just lists them on the map. It doesn't -- it just lists them in the text, it does not show them in the map, it just says these are our entryway corridors. Well, part of the clarification that's going on in the Comprehensive Plan -- and I would note that it's just a clarification -- is that in Idaho some of those roads go five miles. Obviously, that's not any entryway statement. The entryway is where that road comes into your community and that's what the Comp Plan has done is really defined it. Okay. Here is our entryway. It lasts for maybe a quarter mile or half mile. It's not the full length of this road as it travels through town, that you get those entryway statements. They really make a punch, so to speak, if they are just done in one short area. I would argue that what's going on in the new Comp Plan is just a clarification, that this was never really a core -- an entryway corridor going the whole way. This has been in the middle of the city for sometime now. Also -- and I was not able to get this drawing off to -- for staff to put on. These are the subdivisions -- these are the landscape lots, basically. We start with a 23 here, 21 there, 20, 25, 25 -- and this one, as Dave mentioned, just had to do a 35. This one is 20. These go down to seven, 10 -- so much of this stretch has already been developed. This is the little out -- these out- parcels right now and will probably never get platted, so I don't know when you're going to get your landscape strip there. We have got a short segment here and you're not likely to get 35 feet anywhere else. We are willing to put in all the required amount of landscaping that would be required for the 35 feet. Just kind of scrunch it into the 25 feet and would ask that you consider that, along with the fact that when staff first wrote this I believe they started the Landscape Ordinance and the Comp Plan just about the same time. The Comp Plan is taking a little bit longer to get through than the Landscape Ordinance did, so, actually, when it was written they anticipated that that clarification would be in there, probably, regarding the entryway corridor. That's really all the presentation that I had. Again, please consider that alternative compliance. It seems like a small issue, but it -- we really are constrained on this site. It is kind of a large issue and we do compensate by having a large landscape area available to all these folks and you can see it -- you will be able to see it from Cherry Lane also. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Centers: Well, not really, but I agree. You know, you have 35 feet there you have it one other place. Because the ordinance was in place we didn't get 35 feet, because all those people came in -- or were in there before the ordinance of 35 feet. I concur with you and I think -- I commend the developer on his innovative design for that little parcel and in-fill is great. Powell: Thank you. Zaremba: I would add that I think I could support that. If all the other properties were 35 feet, then I'd argue about it, but it's consistent or even greater than some of the other properties around it. Twenty-five feet probably can give us enough of a feel along there. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 37 Borup: Well, I think the other controlling thing is the new Comp plan. Centers: Yes. Zaremba: If may, I'd address something on a totally different something. In ACHD's comments -- Page 2, Item J, they are talking about your landscape item. I agree with Commissioner Centers, we like to see things like that creative and -- there is complaining that you're proposing a one-way street around that. Their opinion is that the residents won't treat it as a one-way street. Could you address that? Powell: Yes. In the revised drawings you got we met all the ACHD requirements so that you should have a drawing in packet that meets all the standards that they asked us to meet. Zaremba: Okay. Powell: It's a two-way street now. Zaremba: I may have looked at the older drawing. Powell: Well -- and it's hard to tell the difference, in all honesty. They don't look very different from one another. Borup: So the width -- the present width is 30 feet or -- Powell: I've got to go look at the drawing. I think it was 42 feet, wasn't it? I think we went with the 42-foot road section. McKinnon: It's 42. Borup: It is 42. Okay. Powell: It's two travel lanes and one parking lane. McKinnon: No. It's 40. Borup: Increased from 30 to 40. Powell: Okay. Borup: We had one of each. Any other Commissioners? Centers: I have a question for staff. Thank you, Mrs. Powell. I see that we are going to require a Development Agreement. McKinnon: Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 38 Centers: And that's primarily because it's a Planned Unit Development? Borup: This is not a Planned Unit Development. Centers: Okay. Why we are requiring a Development Agreement, just for clarification? McKinnon: In order to require that when this project does develop that it is developed with attached single-family dwellings. Centers: With the specified lots that they are indicating for attached zero lot lines? McKinnon: Commission Centers, 50-foot frontage lot that is 83 foot deep does not have to be developed as attached single-family dwelling. Centers: Okay. The Development Agreement is to make sure that they put specific properties on each lot? McKinnon: That it's developed in the manner, which they presented to us. In annexation when they say we are going to develop it this way and with our Development Agreement we say this is how you're going to develop it. It's sort of catchall. Centers: Well, can't that be handled at the next hearing? We cover that and specify each lot that's going to have a specific type property on it? McKinnon: You could. A Development Agreement, like I said, is -- Centers: It could be covered on the plat. McKinnon: Sure. Centers: Well, you might think about that prior to April 18th , then. Borup: Do you understand, Anna? Powell: No, I -- Borup: He was saying rather than a Development Agreement, have a statement on the plat designating the -- well, actually, I guess a zero lot line attached would be on specific lots. Powell: Anna Powell again. We would definitely be in favor of that. We can bring that back on the 18th . Centers: Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 39 Borup: Does that work, Dave? McKinnon: Yes. Absolutely. Borup: Was that the only issue on the Development Agreement? McKinnon: We just have a standard development on annexations and this is part of our -- Borup: That's just boilerplate almost. McKinnon: Everybody in Meridian has done it. Borup: Okay. Powell: So my understanding is that we are to make this change on the plat and, therefore, not be required to do a Development Agreement? Centers: To specify what's what on each lot. Powell: Okay. Then can I ask a question? Would there be any benefit, Chairman Borup, to approving the annexation tonight ahead of the Preliminary Plat and the Zoning Ordinance, dependent upon the -- Borup: We can, but we wouldn't want to send it on to the City Council. They'd like to see them all together. Powell: Okay. Borup: So then are we getting into a time -- possible time problem by approving the annexation and not -- you know if we didn't get it to the City Council within the 45 days? Moore: You're looking at me like you want a legal opinion. Borup: Well -- Moore: It has to be within the 45 days, obviously, to meet the ordinance and, therefore, it would be best if you just waited until -- Borup: That's what I was trying to get to. Powell: Okay. Thank you. McKinnon: Chairman Borup, if I may. If we did annex it without a Development Plan, such as a Preliminary Plat, then staff would absolutely recommend a Development Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 40 Agreement. The Development Agreement itself would slow down the process. If I understand Commissioner Centers, staff can modify the staff report to remove the condition to require a Development Agreement. Centers: If they specify -- McKinnon: Consider it stricken. You won't see it again. Borup: Any other comments? Do we have anyone here from the public to testify on this? Centers: Do we want to leave the Public Hearing open? Shreeve: Continue it. Centers: Continue it. Leave it open. Zaremba: Continue it. Borup: Well, to the extent -- Centers: I move that we continue Item Number 5, AZ 02-003, request for annexation and zoning of 3.84 acres from R-1 to R-8 for proposed Amberstone Sub by Jim Jewett. Continue that to the April 18th meeting. I would also move that we continue PP 02-002, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 19 lots and 2 other lots on 3.84 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Amberstone Sub by Jim Jewett, continued also to April 18th . Zaremba: I second both continuances. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? It looks like it's covered. The first plat we have shows 20 feet in the landscaping and the second one does show 25, the lot adjoining stay the same. I assume the whole project slide to the south? Okay. I was confused on that. Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Ayes have it. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Would the Commission like a short break at this time? Okay. We will take a short recess at this time. RECONVENED AT 9:00 P.M. Item 7: Public Hearing: AZ 02-004 Request for annexation and zoning of 127.74 acres from RUT to C-G, L-O and R-4 zones for proposed Sutherland Farm by Sutherland Farms, Inc. – east of South Eagle Road and north of East Victory Road: Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 41 Item 8: Public Hearing: PP 02-004 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 308 building lots and 30 other lots on 127.64 acres in proposed L-O, C-G and R-4 zones for proposed Sutherland Farm by Sutherland Farm, Inc. – east of South Eagle Road and East Victory Road: Item 9: Public Hearing: CUP 02-005 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development for residential, commercial and office park development for Sutherland Farm by Sutherland Farm, Inc. – east of South Eagle Road and north of East Victory Road: Borup: Okay. We'd like to reconvene our Planning and Zoning meeting for this evening. Start with Items Number 7, 8, and 9. Seven being AZ 02-004, request for annexation and zoning of 127.74 acres from RUT to C-G, L-O, and R-4 zones for proposed Sutherland Farms. Public Hearing PP 02-004, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 308 building lots and 30 other lots on the same 127.74 acres, and CUP 02- 005, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development for residential, commercial, and office park development for Sutherland Farms by Sutherland Farms, Incorporated. Open all three Public Hearings at this time and start with the staff report. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I guess I'll start with the visual tour on the overhead if we could first. On the overhead the highlighted areas adjacent to Eagle Road and Victory that goes towards the center of the square mile between Overland, Victory, and Eagle Road. You can see that this is actually a pretty wide and varied project with frontage both on Eagle and on Victory. The project is just to the east of the Thousand Springs Subdivision. On the lower part, you can see the existing barn that will be replaced by the development. The next picture you can see is the property looking north towards Silverstone from the Ridenbaugh Canal. That's on the west side of Eagle Road looking towards Silverstone. Directly adjacent to that picture is a picture looking towards the Ridenbaugh Canal. The reason why I thought it would be important for you to get an idea of where the Ridenbaugh Canal is is because it's going to be the northern border of the property. There will be a pathway that runs immediately adjacent to all the Ridenbaugh Canal until it dead-ends into the Muir Wood Subdivision. This is Victory Road looking east to Sutherland off of Victory Road towards the entry area. The house you can see in the background there I believe is the Sasser home. I believe they are here tonight. They have given some written comments. As you will notice in your packet there are quite a few written comments, there is a petition, and some other notes. Those are some noted by staff. The second picture you see is Victory Road looking north just a little bit to the -- this is looking, actually, a little bit to the north of the Sasser property, just showing it's a green field development we are looking at. The picture in front of you right now is essentially a plat map showing what they plan on doing. If I can stay on this picture for just a few moments and I'll use the laser pointer to guide you into some different parts of the development. The property is not completely bordered on the north by the Ridenbaugh Canal. Immediately to the north of the Ridenbaugh Canal where Silverstone II ends -- too much shaking. They have some commercial property and it's going to be zoned C- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 42 G, exactly like they have got for Silverstone. They are requesting that that not be included as part of the Planned Unit Development, but rather that that be included as just part of an annexation and rezone for that property to be zoned C-G. In the future, they will be providing a connection over a bridge over the Ridenbaugh Canal at this point to connect the residential to the commercial property. At this time they are not intending on providing the entire bridge, but they are working with ACHD to determine how much of the construction cost the developer will have to bear and how much will have to be borne by the other the landowners to the north. We can follow down Eagle Road now coming from Silverstone. I'll turn in here this is Easy Jet Way. These pieces of property that I'm highlighting right now would be for office uses, in addition to these properties down below on the south side of Easy Jet Way. Those would be for office uses or, as the applicant has requested, to be allowed for multiple family housing and apartments. Those are continuing to progress -- to progress to the east. This area with the very small lots -- you see that it actually runs directly behind it and through that area. That is what we have been talking about it seems for awhile tonight, attached single-family housing, town homes, with alley loaded garages so that, actually, the homes would be able to be brought closer to the street, rather than -- and then have the garage in back. You actually would have a softened streetscape, more like you see on the north end with homes closer together or attached with the alleys in back. It's -- we don't see a whole lot of that in Meridian, so it's kinds of an innovative feature. The alley that runs behind the town homes will also service the homes immediately adjacent to that that are detached single-family homes. As you continue to go east you can see there are -- to the south they have included a number of lots. The large home that I showed you in the visual picture is the Sasser home. It sits right here, and there are a number of homes that back up to that property. It's the most impacted piece of property by this development in terms of size and number of lots. Continuing east there is a park right here. It's essentially four acres in size right now. It's a little bit more than that. The pathway system that we talked about previously runs on the Ridenbaugh Canal and attached to t at this point, to the Parks System and continuing on to Muir Wood. As you can't tell on this -- by this site plan that I have got in front of you right now, but there is a large pond that will sit immediately in the middle of this of project, the pathways will go around it. Staff, as you will note in the staff report, does have some concern with placing these seven homes immediately surrounding this park area. By putting these homes around this park area, you essentially block off all open viewing of that area and it decreases the visual appeal of that area. Some sort of modification that would be requested by staff to make that more open, more accessible, so that more people can actually view it from that, rather than surrounding it on all sides. Tom Kuntz has given you a memorandum dated today that he brought in. It's kind of a 12th hour memorandum, but it includes all of his requirements for the pathways. I just wanted to make sure you guys all had that. As you continue back the lots get larger, as we go east. Muir Wood Subdivision in Boise is immediately to the west -- immediately to the east of this project there was -- western property would abut the eastern property of the two developments. The applicant has matched up width lot for lot of the subdivision Muir Wood in Boise City. At that spot, the lots are not quite as deep as Muir Wood, but there is not a requirement in the City of Meridian for those lots to match up. It's a Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 43 developer's design that he's put in. The Meridian Comprehensive Plan for this area, the current Comprehensive Plan that we have, shows that this area -- essentially if we were to draw a line across here and up to the Ridenbaugh Canal, shows that area as mixed residential. In the current Comprehensive Plan, there is no specific definition for what a mixed residential lot is. Our own staff interpretation of that is to allow for different types of housing type and this -- the project that's before you tonight does include that, it includes the townhomes with possible multiple family housing, detached housing with larger lots adjacent to it. The developer has taken steps to make sure that these lots in the back of the -- along the south and the east properties -- and the east property line is actually the largest lot within the subdivision. This project is a Planned Development. There is a land use exception allowance for the developer to have this property zoned R-4, but to have a use that would typically be prohibited in an R-4 zone. The applicant has requested that that excepted use be used for townhomes, which are currently a prohibited use in an R-4 zone, and to allow the office and the multiple family housing within the R-4 zone. There is some confusion among the paperwork that you might have that this property here is to be zoned L-O. It is not to be zoned L-O, it is to be zoned R-4 with a land use exception of 20 percent for all those projects. You will note in the staff report there is a breakdown of what percentage that is. It is below 20 percent of the entire project for the excepted uses. If I can go down to another picture now. You can see the landscape that they have provided. It shows a pathway with quite a number of trees that run through this and it shows the perimeter landscaping throughout the project. A little more detail as we go through this. The pathway along the north. This is the park area. You may have to refer to your own plat maps to see -- the revised plat maps to see the pond in that area. This is the entryway out onto Victory Road -- onto Victory. It shows their landscaping for that. The landscaping that they have submitted does comply with the Landscape Ordinance. That takes us to the end of the visual pictures. If I can go with -- if you can follow me now to the staff report, I just had a few items I want to touch on that I haven't touched on yet. If you would turn with me to Page 2. In front of you, you will see the requested setbacks that they have requested to be reduced. You will see that it's pretty much in line with other projects that we have approved recently with reduced setbacks concerning townhomes, Woodbridge, Berkeley Square, they requested the same type of setbacks for their Planned Development. The lot sizes -- they have proposed lot sizes within the subdivision, if you go down to the lot size section, showing that they have a minimum of 6,500 square feet for single detached -- for detached single-family housing. It's the minimum lot size that they are proposing. You will note in the additional note that there is 105 of the 292 lots that don't meet the R-4 requirement. As a Planned Development, they can ask for that to be reduced, so that we can allow them to have reduced standards. Just to point out, approximately a little more than a third of the homes in this project are below the R-4 standards in size. I thought that was important to note. The applicant, besides providing the park area and the pathway, they are providing some tot lots, two tot lots throughout the development. If I can have you turn to Page 7 now, just on some additional considerations. The applicant has requested a number of the blocks be allowed to be beyond the maximum allowable block lengths. Staff does not have a problem with the exception that they are requesting for the 1,000 foot block lengths, except for the areas that have to be revised with the addition of a Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 44 micropath and, of course, the Landscape Ordinance. That runs between Lots 4 and 5 and Lots 16 and 17 of Block 18 and the addition of a micropath on Lots 9 and 10 of Block 19 and those comments under that additional consideration are found in the staff report as a condition of approval. The staff report you have in front of you right now is a draft staff report. You should have received a memo with your packets from myself and Bruce Freckleton that states that we have not yet received any documentation from the ACHD concerning approval or any of their recommendations that they may have for the city beyond their recommendations. From time to time -- not on a majority of the case basis, but from time to time ACHD staff comments have required a revision to the plan and we'd rather have their comments in place before we present to you with a recommendation. In addition to that, in talking with the applicant just recent in the last week, they have come to you tonight with a new phasing plan. We would like to have the opportunity to review their phasing plan prior to making a recommendation. The reason for that is if the phasing comes from Victory Road, we would essentially be annexing a piece of property and allowing a non-conforming use. The property right now is being used to raise racing horses and other horses on the site. They would like to be able to continue using that. If they start from Victory and move up, they wouldn't impede the ability of the properties to the north adjacent to the Ridenbaugh Canal to be used in such a manner. However, if you start from Victory Road and move to the north we are creating a piece of the city that's really actually outside the city, it's not contiguous with the rest of the city. We'd annex the entire property and then we'd start from the outside and move back into the city. The Planning and Zoning Commission and Council denied Springdale Subdivision just in the last few years when they actually requested annexation on Black Cat and McDermott in that square mile between there. They proposed a phasing schedule that started from McDermott and moving back into the city. The staff does not feel that such a phasing plan would be orderly development within the city. For those reasons we'd ask that you take testimony tonight, so that there are some changes that the Commission would like to see changed prior to the next Public Hearing, that they can make those changes. We would request that you not make any formal action to approve or deny this application at this time. With that I'd ask if there is any questions. Centers: Yes, I have -- McKinnon: Or any comments. Centers: You mentioned that the existing Comp Plan is a fit. How about the upcoming Comp Plan? McKinnon: The upcoming Comp Plan actually shows the density to be a little higher than what they are proposing. It shows between three to eight dwelling units per acre. The applicant is proposing around three units per acre on a gross density. Zaremba: I don't know whether this is a question or a comment, but if I'm understanding correctly, the applicant is asking for much of this to be zoned R-4. For much of that to have exceptions that should be zoned otherwise. If we have Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 45 established a meaning for R-4 zone, my feeling is that should be consistent throughout the city. When there is a Planned Development I realize there is a little bonus that they get for it. We have had other projects where the entire project actually had two or three different zones that were more appropriate to what was happening in that area. Is there some support for making this R-4 and then making 50 percent exceptions? I just feel it dilutes the R-4 zones that we may need to enforce somewhere else. McKinnon: Mr. Zaremba, give me one second to formulate an answer to that. I had a similar question that I posed to the Planning and Zoning Director when we accepted the application. My opinion was that it should be zoned L-O in the front, rather than requiring the separate -- Zaremba: And probably R-8 in the middle or something? McKinnon: R-8 in the middle. We toyed with the idea of making a recommendation for the entire project to be zoned R-8 with the 20 percent land use exception being in the R-8 zone. The majority of the lots do meet the R-4 zoning requirement. A minority of the lots meet the R-8 requirement. The Planned Development Ordinance does allow for a 20 percent land use exception. The reason that it was explained to me is that right now there is no physical separation between this piece of property and this piece of property. The reason why we allowed this piece of property to come in and be annexed under a different zone -- there is a physical separation between the two. However, it seems cleaner to keep the entire project under one zoning definition and allow the land use exception to take place in the mind of our Planning and Zoning Director. That's what we have in front of you tonight. Borup: It looks like from your staff report that that exception is some 15 and a half percent? McKinnon: Approximately. Borup: So that -- I mean under the 20, though. McKinnon: It does come in under the 20 percent. You could go back to -- just rewind about a year ago, Bridgetower Subdivision was approved in the same manner with R-4 lots that are to be used commercially with office and private land development. That's how it was approved for Bridgetower. This is very similar, along the same lines, that this would be a separate zone, rather than what -- this would be zoned R-4, just like everything else in this area and is all one project. It just seemed like it does fit the Planned Development Ordinance. It fits within the guidelines of the Planned Development Ordinance and it seems to be a cleaner fit to allow everything to be the same with the 20 percent land use exception. In addition to that, there is one great safeguard that the Planned Development Ordinance does have that zoning this separately wouldn't have. That is these lots would be required in the future to come through a Conditional Use Permit. If we strictly allowed this to be L-O, they could come in and request -- without a Development Agreement. Granted, if we purposely put a Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 46 Development Agreement on this and required a Conditional Use Permit we could zone that L-O and require a Conditional Use Permit with any kind of development. The Planned Development language in and of itself says every single one of these lots would have to come back to you, the Commission, to determine whether or not they can meet the conditions of a Conditional Use Permit. That's one safeguard that you wouldn't have if you changed the zoning. Centers: Well, Item 9, really, the CUP applies to the whole project, even though, really, technically, it would apply to the lots in front. McKinnon: Correct. It does apply to the whole project, because the R-4 lots are reduced to the R-8 standards. Centers: Right. Borup: Any other questions from any of the Commissioners for staff? Zaremba: I don't know whether this a necessary question or not, just talking about the town homes and the alleyway. We have talked about revising them earlier. We discussed changing definitions of driveways, private roads, and roadways. Are alleyways included in there somewhere? It's a different name. McKinnon: That's a great question. In fact, we just -- Brad Hawkins-Clark, one of the other planners, and I were just discussing today about how the Planned Development Ordinance actually has no standards for alleys. The alleys would have to meet ACHD's guidelines for alleys. There is nothing specific in our ordinance that says it has to be done to a specific standard, such as we talked about tonight with Anna, you know, a certain amount of compacted fill or a certain amount of concrete. Zaremba: And it differs from a driveway somehow. McKinnon: Sure. Somehow. It's -- obviously, with an alleyway you're not going to have the ability to park in the alleyway, you would have to park off the alley in a private driveway or a shared driveway. You have the ability to park in that driveway if it's shared. Zaremba: Isn't the assumption that trash trucks would have to be able to make it through there and -- McKinnon: That is the assumption, if a trash truck should have to go through there. It may not be possible and they could have to drag their trash out there. As far as comments from Bill Gregory -- I don't know who it was from SSC. I think that they stated in their comments that there were no dumpster locations provided on this and they had no comments at this time. If I remember correctly. I will double-check that as you're talking. Borup: Okay. Is the applicant here and ready for their presentation? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 47 Fluke: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, thank you very much. My name is Daren Fluke with C&G Engineers, 250 South Beechwood in Boise. We are representing the applicant in this matter. Appreciate your time in going through the application. What I would like to do tonight is just go through and hit some of the high spots for the application, maybe address some of the concerns that we have heard already and see what you think of it. First of all, let's deal with the overall layout of the project. As you know, we have got a mix of land uses in here. Primarily we are looking at a residential subdivision, but we also include -- what we have asked for is all the uses that would be allowed in the L-O district would be allowed in this front area. This does a couple things for us. One, we have Eagle Road, which carries a whole lot of vehicles right now and gives some good visibility to those office uses. More importantly, the offices, being large buildings and being held to a higher landscaping standard than residential uses, provide us a really nice buffer between that busy roadway and our residential land uses. We then move into a higher density residential situation here. As staff stated, we do have alley loading here and behind the lots here. ACHD does require a minimum of 20 feet for an alley, 16 feet would typically be considered adequate, but ACHD likes the roads to be bigger than they need to be. Twenty feet will be adequate to get both streets sweepers and trash trucks in there. This alley is actually 25 feet in width here. Then we move to a little bit higher density here. These lots typically run in the 6,000 square foot range, you know, in the 60 by 100 foot. That's at the lower end of what you use -- or what we use for detached single-family dwellings. You can fit a detached dwelling on about a 5,000 square foot lot and that's about as low as you go for a detached dwelling. That's what we have in this area. Then we have our park, which is -- comes in as configured here at about a little over four acres and the pond sits in this area here. That's an existing pond. It's used to irrigate the property currently and it will be used for that as well once the project is built. Then move into our lowest density phase. These lots in this area run in the 8,000 to 12,000 square feet, as do these lots in the southern end of the property here. Those are your typical R-4 lots that you would see, 80 by 100 foot lots, and that's an ample -- it's not a large lot for a detached single-family dwelling, it provides quite a large yard. The park here provides - - part of the rationale of having our smaller lots here is that we do have the park in close proximity to those, as these lots don't have a lot of area of their own to use. Those -- the people living on those would have the open space available to them right there should they choose to use it. Overall, the project has a really nice location for this mix of land uses. I guess I neglected to mention that we have our general commercial lots up here next to Silverstone. As staff mentioned it really is separated from the balances of the project by the Ridenbaugh Canal. It just made a lot more sense to match the land uses that were already approved for Silverstone. I'd point out as well that all of this is generally consistent with what you have, not only in the existing Comprehensive Plan, which is what we have to evaluate it under, but also in the new Comprehensive Plan. We are consistent either way. As far as the overall location of the project, as you're all aware, I'm sure, we are about a mile from I-84 to the north. The traffic study indicated that the majority of our trips will be exiting the project either, obviously, from here or here initially and going to the north and to the east into Boise or perhaps into Meridian where the employment centers are. We have really great Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 48 access to the freeway and you can put those trips on there quite readily. In addition, we have got, you know, a similar type development with Thousand Springs here to our west and Muir Woods, which was platted in Ada County here to our east. The lots in this neighborhood tend to run in that same eight to 12,000 square foot range or a little bit larger, perhaps. Centers: The planner indicated earlier that Muir Wood was in Boise City. Is that correct? Fluke: It's in their impact area. Centers: So it's not in the city. Okay. Fluke: It was platted in Ada County, as well as these two acre lots or so here in the Los Altos Subdivision. The site did present some design challenges for us. It is a large piece of property. It's about 127 acres total, but we don't have super access, you know, that small little access, the road frontages on Victory and a small little one on Eagle Road here, with large parcels surrounding us on essentially, you know, two sides. That did, you know, present some design challenges for us. We have tried to be sensitive to our neighbors and I will go into that in a little more detail here in just a little bit. We did decide to use the Ridenbaugh not only as a buffer between these more intensive uses that have been approved up in Silverstone and El Dorado and, of course, our own small portion of that development. We also have included a pathway along here, which is also supported by both your existing and your new Comprehensive Plan. I don't think that Silver Springs was required to put a pathway in here, but there will always be that option to make that connection. I know the Comprehensive Plan does support a pathway all along the length of the canal. With regard to the Comprehensive Plan, we comply in other ways as well with the mix of residential lot types. We go from perhaps multi-family, although we are not -- we can't commit to multi-family. It's really a market question, we have asked for that to be left open in the L-O portion of the project in here, which would be something in between probably on these lots in between the office type uses and the attached single family if it were to occur. We have the option for that. We have got the attached single-family and the detached single-family dwellings as well, as well as some commercial uses. The Comprehensive Plan -- both of the Comprehensive Plans do encourage a mix of land uses and so we really tried to comply with that. The next issue I'd like to talk about would be traffic and if I could just get it out in the open. I have never worked on one of these where traffic wasn't an issue, so we might as well just talk about it right now. Of course, you don't have a report from ACHD. We don't have any good indication what they are going to do, as we still haven't heard from them either. The best indication that we have right now is that they are going to be able to talk about it at a hearing in the first part of May and we don't even have any feedback from staff yet on our traffic impact analysis. I don't have a lot to report to you, other than again, we are well located with respect to traffic. With residential land uses you would expect about 10 trips a day from detached single- family dwellings, something less on attached, and something -- I'm not sure what the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 49 number is per square foot for office. It turns out that the traffic study did note that the warrants would be met for a traffic signal here at Easy Jet and Eagle Road. Although they did recommend that, it not be built at this time, just because it would further impede traffic at this point. Now our client would like to see a signal there and that is something that we will work with the Highway District on. When they are ready for that I'm sure that there will be a signal at that location. Again, you know, the majority of the traffic that's going to be leaving this development or accessing the development will be coming from the north, primarily from the freeway. The traffic study showed that we wouldn't have an inordinate impact on our neighbors or on the existing roadways. The traffic study did look at the whole square mile as far over as the Cloverdale and Overland intersection, as well as the Victory and Cloverdale Intersection. When you think about it, it doesn't make a lot of sense to -- if you're going to the north or to the east to leave our development to the east through Muir Wood and have to then take a left on Cloverdale Road, which is, of course, an uncontrolled intersection at this time and quite a challenge. The traffic study does corroborate that. With regard to traffic, as you probably know, the stretch of Overland between Eagle Road and Locust Grove is now set to be improved, as well as that intersection there at Eagle Road and Overland. That will further help the development. We are also dedicating right of ways to -- so that this road can be widened to an ultimate section of five of lanes. Silverstone and El Dorado have done the same thing. That's not in the five-year work program yet, but as impact fees are, collected for this development they will be dedicated to road improvements in the neighborhood. This will actually speed the improvement of Eagle Road from Overland to Victory to a five-lane road section. We have made some changes to the layout that you have in front of you based on comments that we received from the Highway District, from our neighbors, and from your own staff. I'll just quickly touch on those and I have got them on this drawing down here. With regard to ACHD, before we ever laid the thing out, the Highway District required a number of stub streets that we hadn't shown initially. We complied with those, most particularly Knapp Avenue here, which is currently -- ACHD owns half the right of way from our property boundary down to Victory Road. They wanted to maintain the option to make this connection at some point in the future were those large parcels to develop any further. There are no current plans to make that extension at this time, because they would have to go in and either buy the right of way or -- we'd have to buy it either way. They do have to get a willing seller or they have to condemn it and the trips aren't there to warrant that at this time, but they wanted to leave their options open. The other one that we hadn't planned for, but that ACHD and the city both wanted, was this stub street to the north. Once the bridge is built across the canal and the property develops here, it will provide a connection to Overland Road to the north, which will ease some of the pressure off of Eagle Road and Victory Road to the south that we don't have much control over. We are still waiting to hear from the Highway District on what the scheme is going to be as far as how much and when -- how much we pay for the bridge and when that gets built. Those sorts of details have not been worked out yet. We, of course, don't have any control over when our neighbor here to the north develops his property and makes that ultimate connection to the north, so we are somewhat at their mercy there. We did hold a neighborhood meeting and listened to the concerns of the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 50 neighbors. We tried to incorporate those the best that we could and do things that were practical without, you know, impacting the development to a high degree. The lot owners here in Muir Wood were concerned about the lot sizes next to their lots. Muir Wood had platted some large lots here. These are actually 200 feet in depth or so and about 80 feet in width. We were showing lots that were about 100 feet deep and about 85 feet in width. Based on their concerns we bumped those up to 90-foot widths and 120 feet in depth. Those -- our lots next to them run at of minimum about 10,800 square feet. Those lots in that tier of lots here in Muir Wood run anywhere from about 11,000 up to one lot that I think is approaching 15,000 square feet. Primarily they are in the 12,000 -- 11 to 12,000 square foot range, so we match up pretty well. We are almost 11,000 square feet. Same deal here on the southern part of our property. These are inordinately large lots. The Los Altos Subdivision was developed in the County at a time when there was really nothing else out here. Those are -- like I said, I think they are about two acre lots, because it makes a real challenge for a more urban type subdivision like this or a more urban type development to fit into those lot sizes and we have done the best we can. Those lots are running about 110 feet wide by 110 feet deep. Those come in at about 12,000 square feet or a little bit more at the smallest. We would have some that are a little bit larger and you can see they match up reasonably well. Same deal here. We have got a five-acre lot next to us, Mr. Sasser. We went out and spoke with him and we are going to try to work with him the best that we can to address his concerns. These lots come in at about 90 feet wide by 120 feet deep. That gives us about 10,800 foot lots or somewhere in the neighborhood of a quarter an acre or a little bit more than that. We have also told him that we will work with him to find a buffer scenario that's acceptable for him here on his western property line or our eastern property line. If he decides that -- you know, that a berm is something that he wants, we simply ask that we share that berm and run it down the property line, so that the crown of the berm would be on the property line. We wouldn't have a maintenance issue with that slope being on the back of these lots and really no access to it. The feeling was that he was probably going to want some kind of fence on top of the berm as well, which provides for a maintenance problem if we don't center it on the line. I believe he was amenable to that and, you know, we will work with him on that the best that we can. The other thing that we can offer up is we heard a lot of concerns about blocking views to the mountains. The views are to the north and to the east, to the Boise front. What we would propose to do is along this tier of lots here to restrict the building height -- that should probably be shown on the -- sorry about that. What we would propose to do would be to restrict the building height along this tier of lots here to single story, so that we wouldn't further block their view of the mountains. Shreeve: Let me just interrupt you right there. I understand that there is some fill material that's been put in there many years ago? Fluke: Well, that was a comment that was made to us that six to eight feet of fill had been placed there. We don't see any evidence of that on the property. There is currently a ditch that runs along here and it is a bit higher than the rest of the property Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 51 that they do irrigate from to the north that sort of angles off towards this pond right there. There is another pond in this area here. We do know that there was a pond built over in this area. When they scraped some of that fill material out they did bring it over here, but it was nowhere near the amount of material that it would take to raise this area six to eight feet. We don't show any evidence of it on the property. Our clients have owned the property for six years, I believe -- six to eight years and they know that they have not put that amount of fill in that area. With regard to the staff concerns on the park and the pathways, I need to show you on this board. Both parks and the Planning and Zoning staff were asking that we eliminate these seven lots that are around the park area to open it up. We don't disagree that it makes for a nicer park to eliminate the lots, it's just a matter of, you know, eliminating the lots is an expensive thing to do. What we have done is we took these four lots that you see here and we moved -- we were able to move two of them here by creating 60-foot road frontages on the east, so we have two more lots here. Then we also added two lots, one to each side of that block right there. Four lots were eliminated from there, two of them moved into here and two of them moved into here. We left three lots thinking that was a nice compromise. Rather than eliminate seven we eliminated four and then we made these just a little bit smaller as well. What that did for us is we picked up just about an acre of park area by doing that. Now our park does come in at just under five acres the way it's configured here on the drawing. We did go ahead and add the pathways here and here for the audience, coming right about here, and then from here down to this lot, as the staff requested. What that did -- what that did was a couple of things for us. Again, it opened this up and it makes it -- we agree it makes a nicer amenity for the development. It opens it up and just actually improves the layout quite a bit. What it also does for us, though, is it relieves any pressure that we think might have been placed on this particular lot. This is open space, it will be grass or sodded, but it will also be slightly depressed to accommodate some of our drainage. It's not primarily an active open space. What it was intended for was to accommodate the drainage and also to provide some green space, some open space for the users of the office building, as well as these town lots. You know, we will have a picnic table out there and that's just meant to be more of a passive open space, rather than an active open space. We disagree that it needs to be opened up anymore by eliminating this lot, particularly since we have opened this area up now. Again, we have also provided the pathway along the Ridenbaugh Canal, which will provide a good -- we are at that Meridian eastern permanence right here and so you will have this pathway connection from your eastern boundary. With the ability to make connections as you see future development along the Ridenbaugh canal. Centers: Let me interrupt here, please. You mentioned pathways through here, somewhere in this area. Without me looking, do we have them on our plans that have been submitted or are they something new that you're going to come back with? Fluke: We have them on -- Centers: They are on that only? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 52 Fluke: Right and will submit those to you. We can certainly do it by the next hearing. Centers: Great. Fluke: We hadn't done it until we heard the staff comments and we had to reconfigure those lots a bit to do that. With regard to phasing, this appears to be an issue for us. I think we would respectfully disagree with the staff about this being noncontiguous development. What we are asking you to do is to annex the entire piece of property. The entire piece of property will be within the City of Meridian. We are contiguous at Thousand Springs here and Silverstone here, but we would like to begin our phasing from this Victory Road. What the client would like to do would be to have Phase 1 be down here on Victory, Phase 2 would be here, Phase 3 and 4 would be over in here and then Phase 5 would come up here and include the attached single-family, as well as the park and the pathway. The idea of that is a couple of things. We get our sewer from Silverstone right in this area here. We will go ahead and extend that all the way down to Victory. Everything is going to flood to the north and out or to the north this way, rather. I guess it will flow here and to the north. What this allows us to do is to continue to operate the ranch as a horse ranch until such time as we get up here to develop. The anticipated phasing on this development would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 years. Of course, depending on market conditions before you see the entire thing built, particularly for the commercial. Now it's possible that we could see a demand for commercial sooner, you know, we might come in with a plat for this sooner rather than later, you know. What the intent is right now is to develop all the residential before we come and do either side of the commercial. We'd like that flexibility to be able to do the commercial and I see the conditions are written in that way. We are pleased with the way those are written. We would just respectfully disagree that we would need to begin platting over here or up here and just simply because that's where the current city limits are. The city limits, once annexation occurs, will be down here. We feel that that's perfectly acceptable. I think that hits all the high points on the development. In summary, we think that we have developed a really nice, attractive development here that fits in well with the neighborhood, particularly with the other land uses that you have approved just recently. Thousand Springs, Silverado and El Dorado -- Silverstone and -- whatever the name is. We would just ask that you approve the development as we have laid it out. If there are any questions, I would be happy to take those now. Borup: Questions? Shreeve: Yes. Probably several questions, Daren, just to take a few minutes of your time. Looking at a letter by a lot of the neighbors that -- I'm sure you have got a copy of, a couple of questions -- actually, several questions. First of all, just kind of going down their list of items of a couple of things that come to my attention. The family dwellings on the -- that are adjacent to the two to five acre lots. As you were -- yes. Right up Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 53 there. As you were talking about the changes that you have made, I noticed that there were no changes from some of the plans that we have to that one there as far as the area. You have decided not to increase those -- they have thrown out a half-acre, that they would like to see a half-acre transition lots. Fluke: Well, these lots are already large. I mean there are 110 feet wide by 110 feet deep. We have got sort of competing interests here, because your staff has told us that the city is trying to obtain higher densities within the impact area to more efficiently use the services. We are already at only three units to the acre and as we start shaving lots away and making inordinately wide lots here, they are going to be wide lots without much depth now. They are already square, you know, at 110 by 110. It just presented the design issue for us. It seems like the more effective thing that we could do was -- would be to restrict the building heights to single story here. The other thing is, as the lots get bigger the market will tend to dictate larger homes as well, i.e., two story homes. It becomes awfully difficult for us to market half-acre lots and tell those people that they can't build a two-story home. Shreeve: Well, my only thought on that -- and just something to think about -- is just simply the transition. Of course, we also have in our ordinance that it says there needs to be some kind of a transition that is fair and equitable. I simply bring that up also by virtue of -- again, also at the Sassers -- I hope I pronounced that correctly. You know, a similar situation -- not to skip over the same lots, but basically those are the two similar type transitions that I think I would certainly be looking for, too, to see some kind of larger lots for transition, somehow squeezing in additional lots. I guess I would concur with the neighbor’s thoughts on those particular items. I don't know what you can do with that or what options would be available to you. Fluke: Well, I mean the one option that we can do is we can begin to eliminate lot lines, which makes awfully long skinny lots, you know, which are much wider than they are deep. Shreeve: Well -- but there is some adjustment that you can make to the road, too. I mean, you know, there some adjustment of the road, it's not a matter of just simply moving lot lines, and there is some adjustment to the road that you can make. Fluke: You can, yes. Like I say, I suppose if that's the Commission's preference. First of all, I would just say that we don't have any guidance with the code. You know, the plan does say that you want a transition. In our mind single-family residential next to single-family residential is compatible. We don't have any guidance beyond that one sort of broad policy in the Comp Plan as to what we do. Can we have two lots next to one existing, three, four, and so we tried to strike a balance. If the Commission's preference is to have larger lots, then we would request that we could have two story houses there, because, again, it becomes very difficult to market those lots if people can't put a two story home on it. Shreeve: Well, I'll guarantee you we will come back to that one. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 54 Fluke: Okay. Shreeve: But let's leave that for the moment, but just so you know certainly where my opinion is on that anyway. Zaremba: Commissioner Shreeve, before you go on, can I deal with the area where you just were? Just a thought, maybe, for consideration. If you look at this area -- I think we have two comments. The people -- the Sassers that have this were objecting to having quite as many lots backing up to their lot. I think there was also a comment that this road as it comes out on Victory is going to be facing headlights and other stuff onto a house that is just being built there. Just a suggestion to think about. If you considered this square and flipped it Muir image, so that instead of this road being here, it was a continuation of that road and the whole thing was backwards, you would have one less lot against the Sasser’s. The only issue of that would be -- and you wouldn't be coming out facing the house where the headlights are coming out. The only issue with that is now you have a very long road that other people might think is a through raceway, but is that something to consider? Fluke: Yes. Mr. Chairman, if I might. We did certainly consider that and I do have a -- I have a drawing that I can show you that shows that this roadway lines up -- this is a fence here, I believe. The egress to the subdivision right here shines right into a pasture that is right on the other side of this fence. I have got the survey to show that. If I were to flip it, it actually impacts a dwelling that's over on this side that's already there. That's why we didn't do that, because that -- you're right, that's something that we could do relatively easily, but we didn't, because we felt this way the headlights don't impact the house where this way they do. Zaremba: Thank you. Shreeve: And, in fact, just before that, the comment I was going to come up with was the entrance of that one as well and -- so, hopefully, that's been addressed then. Just, again, with the fill of material apparently that was in there, I guess you would know if that was done or not, so we will leave that as it is. Of course, there has been some request for berms and fencing, which typically has been asked of developers to help certainly offset those properties and talked about with the Sasser’s having a berm there, so it sounds you're in agreement or amenable to at least working with the property owners. Fluke: Yes. Certainly on this property line, we are amenable to that. Shreeve: Now -- and what about, for that matter, the whole boundary? Fluke: Well, no, that's -- we had spoke with the Sasser’s, simply because of the number of lots that they had against their one lot there. I don't know that it's necessary here, particularly if we are going to be restricting our homes to single story homes that -- that we build it up any further. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 55 Centers: You're going to fence? Fluke: Certainly we will fence. Yes. That's -- Centers: Right. I think that was in the comment. Fluke: Yes. Absolutely. We will comply with code as far as fencing goes. Shreeve: Probably just my last question is on Knapp Lane where you come out with the stub -- and this I don't know, but wouldn't ACHD require some kind of a cul-de-sac there for a temporary turnaround? Fluke: Yes. This drawing doesn't show it, but we do have a temporary turnaround designed for that lot and, in part, that's why it's so much deeper, because, again, we aren't expect this to go through in our lifetime. Shreeve: Right. Okay. Borup: Maybe just along those same questions, the very last item, Number 12, talks about this property having access to Easy Jet. Any problem with that? Fluke: Not at all. No. Borup: You're right. That's down on your phasing, but -- Fluke: Yes. The Highway District -- this will be designated a collector from this point here to here and so there will be a minimum offset from the intersection here. I believe we could get that 250 feet, but I'd have to check the regulations. Anywhere -- you know, whatever complies with ACHD we are happy to provide an approach to that road. Borup: Okay. Any other questions? Shreeve: Well, now so you're talking an approach from the -- Fluke: Easy Jet onto -- Borup: Oh, yes. On the east side of the property. Fluke: Yes. Shreeve: Okay. Borup: Any other questions from the Commissioner? Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 56 Centers: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: You have a sign-up list. Borup: I do. Centers: I don't know if you need a motion or -- I would like to propose -- of course, we have a number of people here tonight. I think that's great, that's what we are here for, but I think the people here tonight understand we are not going to be able to make a decision tonight. Are you aware of that? Probably got the drift. I would like to propose -- and I think you can't disagree with me -- that if you speak tonight, then you would forego your speech at the next meeting. Take your pick. The next meeting will probably be decision night. I would like to propose that. Do you need a motion to that effect or -- of course, we do have the -- I don't like the word authority -- to limit each little talk to three minutes, because as you can see, sometimes we are here until 2:00 and 3:00 in the morning and you can see the need for that. Borup: That's been standard procedure with a large group. Centers: Yes. Borup: Now the exception to that is if there is a spokesman for a group, that spokesman is allowed the extra time and we also practice that. A spokesman may not speak for everybody, but if, you know, we have people raise their hands and say he's speaking for, you know, 20 of us -- Centers: You can be assured that we have read the letters. I have and -- but you can see where we are coming from, too. You talk tonight and then you talk again and you -- repetitive. Zaremba: The other issue is you may be talking on a plan that's going to change. Centers: Yes. Right. As a group, you may want to decide if you want to talk tonight at all. We are going to leave the Public Hearing open and continue this meeting -- or the hearing to a date to be determined, which you will be notified of before you leave. Borup: The other thing -- and, again, the Public Hearing is open and there may be some that this may be their only opportunity. They may not be able to come back another time. Centers: Exactly. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 57 Borup: So that's the other reason why we want to take testimony tonight for those that would like to. Do we have a spokesman? Let me ask that first. If not, we will continue with the three-minute testimony. Well, do you want -- Zaremba: It looks like one's being nominated. Roundy: I'm not a spokesman, ladies, and gentlemen. I really am not a spokesman. I'm Spregg Roundy and I'm on Los Altos in the Los Altos Subdivision. We used our home for the get together for the family a time or two to -- and we kind of come with an olive branch in our hand. You know, I think we are all pretty much in agreement that it doesn't do a whole lot of good to smack the podium, threaten, suggest, shake your finger and call names. We certainly don't know all the 50-cent words that the people who do this all the time know. You know, just as neighbors and people who -- and we don't say this braggingly, but have five or 600,000 dollar homes right along in this area and certainly Sasser’s would be every bit of that, if not more -- we do have some concerns. We were voicing them saying why -- you know, why can't we work together and here is what we'd like to see. You bring up the point about the fill in there and they said, well, Sutherland Farms certainly doesn't have any knowledge of that, but Sutherland Farms does. They are the ones that did it when they bought the property from Girdner. They did it because they were farming, they are still farming it, and it was for the purpose of irrigation. Along the back of our property line there is the irrigation ditch and it flows into a -- I wish I had a pointer. If somebody would let me use a pointer -- thank you. Right back in here is the irrigation ditch right now and it flows into a beautiful collecting pond right in there with grass and knolls and everything around it. There has been just a lovely home built right around in this area here to take advantage of that. Our suggestion was why do you have to put the area here when it's already here. It's already there. Why can't you have your walking path come right along here, right along back in there and take advantage of this and that would be a gorgeous view. These homes back in here are nothing to sneeze at. That would entice the area of that water collector, geese and ducks and one thing and another in there right now. Right in here, that was filled about six to eight feet deep all the way into this area here. About half of our property over through Preston's property and down to this Knapp connection right here. It does have fill dirt in it and a goodly amount of it. I think that probably gets rid of my concerns. It was brought up on the home that this connector coming right out here was -- there wasn't a home being built in here. There is a home with small children in here and their concern was that it's close to the driveway. There is already a lot of traffic on Victory Road and they had concerns for their kids. Borup: Mr. Roundy, I need you to clarify something, then, whether you were speaking for others. Roundy: I don't know. Anybody who doesn't agree with me raise your hand. Borup: Well, no, I need to find out how many. Those that Mr. Roundy is speaking for raise your hand, because -- okay. You can go ahead and continue. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 58 Roundy: Well, I don't know as I have anything else to add to that. Our idea was to make the transition from what has been developed in this area here -- if we could have larger lots back in there and bring into the center of this area here -- make it -- the density of the area with -- right along in here being the townhouses or whatever backing up into this area along in here. It seems to us logically that it would just make -- would make better sense and better use of what's already there. Not being an engineer and not being a developer I guess I can't speak to that, but from the general opinion of the neighborhood -- and I know Muir Wood -- the Muir Wood people have their own concerns as far as the traffic and everything going out in there. I guess that's another time and another subject, but I think that's all I have. Centers: Your name was Mr. Roundy? Roundy: Roundy. Yes. 4178 Los Altos Drive. My other comment was if we didn't get to speak tonight, how could we make a decision next time we met? To give you at least something to throw around in your mind so when we did meet we wouldn't have to hash it up again and we could get it off our chest. Borup: Any other questions? Zaremba: Yes. If I may. Can I -- let me pursue this fill question a little bit more. The four properties that are along the north end of what would be your back property line. Roundy: Right. Okay. Zaremba: Along the north end from Rancho Los Altos Subdivision. Is there a grade difference between the back of your property and the back of this proposed -- Roundy: It starts -- it starts about the middle of our property, our -- we have two acre lots. The one acre is -- just starts to go down and the last acre is where it goes all the way down into the six or eight foot -- Zaremba: They are lower than you are? Roundy: No. They are higher. They put -- they put the fill dirt in there to get higher so the irrigation water would run that way. See, that's the wastewater -- used to be the wastewater area down in there -- of the irrigation wastewater. Zaremba: But the slope is entirely on their property, not on yours? Roundy: Yes. Yes. You can stand on our property and you can't -- by standing on the corner of our property down there you can't see anything but their fill dirt. Shreeve: How wide of an area? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 59 Roundy: Oh, I'd say probably 100 yards. Shreeve: So wide enough that a house could be built on there and -- Roundy: Oh, sure. Oh, sure. They had to get the slope going this way, so -- it's for the drainage area for their irrigation. Thank you. Borup: Is there anyone else that would like to -- come on up here. Roberts: My name is Joe Roberts and I live in the Muir Wood Subdivision. There are several of us here from Muir Wood. My major concern, recognizing that subdivisions will be built, but my major concern is the traffic. The presumption presented here by the developer that the traffic will all go to the west and to the south. We take exception to that, because Boise is to the north and to the east. The shopping centers are to the north and to the east and without the -- on the original plan that they showed us at the public meeting. They did show going out to the north and access to Overland, which would feed the major amount of the traffic out of that subdivision. I believe and many of us believe that without that street going out to the north, you would take the long way back to Eagle and the freeway. Oftentimes it's very busy early in the morning being where people have to go, the city streets and the flow of traffic will be pushed -- a great deal of traffic through our subdivision, that Muir Wood Subdivision's back door will become the front door for much of the traffic. That's a small subdivision, that street through there was designed for a very nice quiet subdivision. It's not designed to handle five times as much traffic as what it's been built for. I'd point out that when we -- point out that we should probably make that street coming in from Overland a very nice boulevard coming in there. They told us, well, we don't really own that property and we can't do that and our comment was, well, so go get it. I mean why -- just because you don't want to go to the trouble to obtain the property to put yourself a good road in there, but you want to make our back door -- Borup: Mr. Roundy, you're talking about this street right here? Roberts: Yes. The bridge and the access out there. We would ask you to require them to make a good access out, so that they are not just planning on using our back door as their -- Centers: I can understand your concern there. Go back -- thank you. This was going to be Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3, approximately, and -- so something maybe that they couldn't start this area until they had access. Roberts: That's what I -- Centers: That would be agreeable, wouldn't it? Roberts: Now you have got -- you have a lot more -- a lot less objection from all of us on that side. That's -- Muir Wood is a very nice subdivision and -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 60 Centers: I don't know that they would disagree with that. I can't speak for them, but the way he's talking, this looks like three, four years down the road until they get to here, you know. Anyway, I understand. Roberts: As long as the plan requires that and it needs to be more than just, you know, an incidental street, it ought to be -- I mean I believe that -- and I don't -- we haven't seen their traffic study, so we have no way to know -- we haven't. So -- but all I can do is say I don't believe the results of that traffic study, but that's not logical. Borup: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Roberts. Walsh: My name is Paul Walsh. I live in 2655 South Simsbury Way in Muir Wood. I'm also a realtor with Remax Capital City. I work with several developers, Home and Land Development and Dakota Company. I have been on both sides of the fence here. My concern as a homeowner and semi-resident of Meridian -- I consider myself Meridian, even though I'm excluded over to Boise, is that this section is turning largely commercial. Okay. We probably have a 30 percent -- percentage of that is going commercial. It's starting to turn into like an Emerald. I see -- Borup: Now what's going commercial? Walsh: Well, we have Silverstone commercial, the -- Borup: Okay. You mean the several miles around you. Walsh: Well, that's our section. Borup: Okay. Walsh: Okay. Walt Lander, he's putting a -- going for a limited office up on our southwest -- southeast corner. The parcel next to Silverstone at R-1 is currently on the market at 2.50 dollar a square foot. He's going for a commercial zone. Walt Lander has -- is trying to purchase the one that's in an RUT. He's also going to push for a commercial zone. We are looking at the majority of the frontage of Overland going commercial, okay, and then you pull the commercial down Eagle Road across from Thousand Springs. I think you're starting to get a saturation in there when we already have about a 40 percent vacancy in commercial development in the valley. My other concern is his -- the engineer's representation of Muir Wood. Our smallest lot is 11,800 square feet. Centers: Let me interrupt you. If you were listening earlier by the applicant, he wasn't going to develop that commercial until they were done with the residential. That's their intention, unless the market demanded it. I don't think you have a person going to spend their money foolishly and develop commercial. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 61 Walsh: Well, I think they'll just land bank it and let it go to weeds until somebody buys it is what I was saying. You know, one concern with the size of the lots in there, our homes range bottom end 200 to 700,000. We have 47,000 square foot lots. The average in there is about 17,000 square foot lots and the average home is right at about 300, 330,000. Well, when you're backing up to 6,500 square foot lots -- Borup: Wait a minute. Clarify that. Where are you backing up against? Walsh: Right here at Muir Wood. Borup: No. They are 90-foot lots. Walsh: Ninety-foot frontages and 200 foot deep. Borup: No but you're backing up against 90 foot lots. Walsh: Right. That are -- Borup: You said 65-foot lots. Walsh: 6,500 square foot was an average for the area. McKinnon: Not for that area. Borup: No. These lots along here were 90 by 120. Walsh: Okay so 9,000. Okay. Borup: No. More than that. Close to 11. Walsh: Eleven thousand. Now as far as the square footage minimums on there, are they going to maintain an 1,400 square foot as part of the zone or -- McKinnon: Fourteen hundred square foot minimum is part of the R-4 zone. That's correct. Walsh: Okay. I guess our concern as Muir Wood residents is we perceive a Hubble Home or Corey Barton Development going in behind us. Nothing there shows any otherwise. Also I was looking through the Comp Plan and it shows a proposed future school site there that has disappeared and I don't understand why. It shows it right there where that pond is and now it's gone. We are adding about 4,300 students on average with 2.4 kids -- Centers: Proposed is the wrong word on a Comp Plan. Walsh: Future. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 62 Centers: It's possible. They put those on a Comp Plan and there could be. Not proposed. Walsh: Okay. Centers: That's the wrong word on a Comp Plan. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'm looking at the Comp Plan right now and, actually, the -- is it Paul? Walsh: Yes. McKinnon: There is no school on that side of Eagle Road. The Comp Plan is right over here -- Borup: He's looking at the new one. McKinnon: Oh, the new one. That, of course, is up to the school district to determine that. If the school district does not purchase the land in that area, it won't happen. Shreeve: And we got a letter from the school district basically saying that, yes, the schools are over capacity. I mean everybody knows that, it's no vision or revelation on that, but they pay from -- I don't remember. I don't have the letter in front of me, but that there was not a need for a school at that site. Zaremba: I think the letter said that they felt they had enough property near there. Shreeve: That's it. Walsh: Yes. I haven't seen it, but -- Borup: Anything else, Mr. Walsh? Your time is up. Walsh: Just one quick thought. Walt Lander has paid 35,000 dollars for a crosswalk at Muir Ridge and Cloverdale. That has been bonded, I believe. Seeing how it's Boise it's different, but when we with him he was telling us he had set aside 35,000 dollars for a crosswalk at Muir Ridge and Cloverdale. That was a requirement of him to get his subdivision. Eventually we may see some additional traffic. I realize it's down the road and in the event we don't get an extension through there, if could we get a proposal for a traffic light? Half of it's paid for. Shreeve: Where? Walsh: On Cloverdale and Muir Ridge, which is the access to Muir Wood Subdivision. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 63 Shreeve: You mean to the -- Walsh: Cloverdale to the east. Yes. Shreeve: I think that would be something you'd have to talk with ACHD about. That would be out of this body's hands. Walsh: Okay. Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Come on up. Hapenfus: My name is Herbert Hapenfus. I own the three acres there that's on Eagle and would also belong -- yes. Right in there. The only question I have is in checking this at the office last week they mentioned it would be both gravity and pressurized irrigation. As long as we are looking at this right now and it's going to come back, I just want to see that they don't forget that I need irrigation there with that -- those three acres. That's basically all that I'm concerned with right now. Borup: And that is a requirement. They will not interrupt your water supply. They are required to continue water supply to your property. Hapenfus: Okay. Borup: Come on up. Deangelis: My name is Annette Deangelis and I'm on the board of the Southwest Ada County Alliance. I'm also in the Rancho Los Altos Subdivision. My first comment would be in regard to Mr. Fluke's statement about limited access into the subdivision. It seems to me if on Victory -- kind of like Boulder Creek. Do you know where Boulder Creek is? Five Mile and -- when you enter at Boulder Creek it's green on both sides and you go in kind of like a wonderful corridor. The Sassers, then, would have a lovely berm without houses right there and that would be a lovely entrance. It would be much more accessible and traffic would flow much nicer in and out onto Victory and the same I would say on Eagle Road. If you leave that to future development or you leave it undecided what's going to happen there? I mean you have 200 and something homes or whatever is in there and you entered by the what, vacant fields or unidentified territory. I mean -- Borup: Ma'am, when the road goes in it will need to be landscaped at that time. Deangelis: Right. Right but -- Borup: So if there is no road there wouldn't be, but once the road goes in there will be. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 64 Deangelis: But what is adjacent to the road is so beneficial I -- you know, as a plus or minus to that particular development. As was mentioned, the open space -- since there is existing pond and existing open space to the south, it kind of would logically flow to want to leave part of it there, also continue it down. Then you have access more to -- contiguous throughout the entire subdivision. Compatibility is a large issue and I don't care if your house is worth a million dollars or 65,000 dollars, they are building this subdivision with our subdivision with open space. Which I mean that's fine for the developer, but when you walk through our subdivision you will see nothing but backyards and probably barking dogs and old cars and whatever. I do think that there should be some respect and I don't care how much, you know, they charge for these homes, but there should be a degree of respect and compatibility for those folks. I mean I see it with Muir Woods right now and if Mr. Lander gets his office on the corner, we will get to see his limited office. The rest of Muir Woods probably won't, because he's going to build a big berm he says, but we will be able to see it. Here we are -- and, again, the Sasser’s -- boy, that is just unreal. Oh and as far as not being able to sell one acre -- I mean single story homes, one of the contingencies upon building in Rancho Los Altos -- and they are between two and five acres, is you have to be a single story home and we are all single stories. Thank you. Borup: Any questions? I had one, ma'am. You talked about the lot sizes against Los Altos. Was the same concern expressed with Muir Woods? Deangelis: Oh, indeed. Indeed and, you know, the folks there are lovely. If you walk down our street -- and, actually, there is one home that was totally impacted. They can see what the folks are having for breakfast in the morning and we bought out there, you know, with open space in mind. Yes, development is inevitable, but, wow, I mean literally you can see what they are having -- and they have -- I think it's three or four homes that they, you know, can look right in through there and vice-versa. Borup: So you objected Muir Woods going in also, just as much as this? Deangelis: Well, but in a positive way. We tried to make positive suggestions. We really did. We are still in the process, since 1997, we are still going for the Muir Woods thing, so -- Borup: A lot of old cars in their backyards and stuff, is that -- Deangelis: Well, not in Muir Woods. Not -- no. I mean that was an exaggeration, but I mean -- Borup: Okay. Deangelis: But there are barking dogs, you know. Centers: Mrs. Deangelis? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 65 Deangelis: Yes. Centers: You would have to agree that it would be almost impossible to put acreage subdivisions back to back. Deangelis: Oh, absolutely. Centers: Or half-acre subdivisions back to back, unless -- unless you had landowners in between that you told you cannot sell your land unless you develop it into half-acre lots. So -- and that's what we are faced with. You look at subdivisions throughout the Treasure Valley, R-8 backs up to R-4, R-4 backs up to half-acre subs that might be in the Boise impact area. I mean it's virtually impossible to keep them compatible so everyone is totally happy. It can't be done. Impossible. Deangelis: No and I would agree there. Centers: Thank you. Deangelis: But as far as salability of large lots -- large lot subdivisions -- and I'll use Mr. Lander as an example, he developed Hialeah, which was half acre plus and, you know, they were sold right away. Centers: And I would tend to agree there is probably a good market for that, but if you can find the land at the price. Deangelis: Right. Well -- and, again, without having dollars and cents in front of me, I do contend that if he's going to say these apartments or townhomes or whatever and have it, you know, pretty dense near the entrance there -- and I hope it's not going to be office and commercial -- he's going to recover his dollar value -- and, actually, he will probably enhance his subdivision and be able to get a better return on his dollars because it will be -- they will be upscale sections. Again, I think it sounds like you're a snob, but you don't lose money by adding amenities if you do it within reason and his surrounding area adds to that reasoning. I mean he's not backing up to the Beverly Hillbillies. I don't know. Centers: Well, I don't think you or I want to tell him how to develop it, though. Deangelis: But if he's developing in my backyard, I think I have a right, because he's going to make money on my open space and everybody else's in this room. Borup: But then would you also want them to tell you what you can do with your backyard? Deangelis: But they did. Before we could build in our subdivision, we were told. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 66 Borup: No. I mean your neighbor. That's the subdivision you chose to move in. Would you want your neighbors saying they don't want you to put a swing set up out there or -- Deangelis: But they would and they do. Borup: Your neighbor’s do? Deangelis: Well, I mean -- okay. There is enough mutual respect. I thought that that was the whole purpose of this, to have some sort of a meeting of the minds. I mean -- because I guess if you can develop -- as long as you've bought it, you can put whatever you want there, and that defeats the purpose of -- Centers: No. No. That's not true. Deangelis: Okay. Centers: It meets the Comprehensive Plan, the mixed-use development. They have met that criteria. That's why we are able to come here tonight. Deangelis: Right. Centers: And there are certain things that we want to make note of -- I certainly made note of that northerly exit, you know. My point is it's tough to satisfy adjoining landowners where if you sit on two acres and you're going to have four or five houses behind you, as you said -- your key statement. I realize growth is inevitable. Deangelis: Right. Centers: Quote, unquote. That's -- you know, that's the unfortunate thing. Or fortunate. I don't know. Deangelis: But in the Comp Plan, both Boise's and Meridian's, I think it states compatibility and so if the term compatibility is in there, it must mean something. Borup: The definition of compatible would be like type zoning, residential against residential. The buffering is needed for something that's not compatible, like commercial against residential. That's where the buffering aspects kick in. Shreeve: Mr. Chairman -- and just -- you know, compatibility, but I guess the word is transition is one of the words that maybe I would use. I think, Commissioner Centers, that you're right, they are not going to have two acre lots butting up against there, that's not practical, nor is that proposed, obviously. I just seem to think that there is some room for making those lots just a smidgen larger for a more transitional size of lots between those lots there on the south. I guess that's where I use -- not so much compatibility, as much as it is just a transition. That is also in our ordinances that we look to some -- there is some -- I have to use the word compatibility, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 67 some transition, at least consideration there anyway. That's why I guess my earlier comment would be that -- my opinion would be that the developer look at -- you know, for example, there on Los Altos Subdivision you got, what, two, four, six -- maybe six lots there. Centers: How many do you want him to have? Shreeve: One. Centers: Five? One? Shreeve: No. Borup: You mean the lots bordering the other lots? Shreeve: Right. Well, I think it just needs to be looked at to be considered. Because right now they are quarter acre lots right now. Roughly, if you removed one, made five, say it would be less than a half acre -- you know, maybe -- I don't know. Of course, if you removed one -- Centers: A quarter acre is a good size lot. Shreeve: Yes but butted up against a two to five acre lot? Well, that's all I'm presenting, is I believe that there needs to be more of a transition. Borup: Do we have anyone else that would like to come forward? Come on up. McKibben: I'll be brief. My name is Dennis McKibben. I live at 1820 S. Eagle Road. I live on the southwest side up there and I own a commercial dog kennel there, which nobody has mentioned. I haven't had any problems with noise, but the development with the commercial there -- I talked to Daren there about it briefly and the only problem that I would have is the commercial lots. I know have to have a Conditional Use Permit to do that, too, but it would be nice to my neighbors -- the new neighbors and the new neighbors that live just across the street at Thousand Springs, if they could be a berm with a solid fence -- Centers: Let me interrupt. Every time they want to build something on those commercial lots -- McKibben: I know. Centers: -- we have another one of these hearings. McKibben: I know. Centers: For a Conditional Use Permit and you will be invited. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 68 McKibben: I realize that, but I just wanted to get you guys to know that there was commercial, you know, on the property surrounding the area. Borup: This is your -- one of these two lots here? McKibben: I own both of those lots. Borup: Okay. McKibben: My house is on the small lot and the kennel is on the big lot. Borup: Okay. McKibben: Just to let everybody know that there is -- I might not be -- I work out of state, so I can't guarantee I will be at any of those at the time it comes up. I just want to bring that back up and Daren said that he didn't consider the noise factor, but it's there. You know, I had to -- when I went through the Ada Planning and Zoning with Ada County, it was a huge issue. I put vinyl fencing all the way around it to keep the noise down from dogs coming. You know, dogs -- they hear a car door shut, they think it's mom and dad to come and get them and they starting going off, you know. You know, I don't -- I haven't had any problems with my neighbors and I don't want to start, you know. Like you say, there will be a meeting, but I just wanted to make sure. Another thing, they also -- all the property on that southwest section there, all those people have horses. I have horses. There are llamas and -- I don't know how it fits and they mentioned fencing. I don't know what the code is or the ordinance is as far as type of fencing, but I would imagine everybody would know wooden fences and horses don't go along. That was my only -- my brief thing in there, so -- Borup: Okay. Thank you. Who is next? Brown: My name is Scott Brown and I live in Muir Wood. I'd like to kind of voice my opinion and I'm going along here with Mr. Shreeve. I think that this area right through here there needs to be a -- more of a transitional area and, for example, if you look at -- I think it's called Quail Run, just off Overland, where Canonero Street is, those lots there are like five acre lots. They butt up against Pepperhill and when Pepperhills was developed, the surrounding lots around Quail Run were -- they are half-acre lots. You have half acre butting up against, you know, five-acre lots. You know, I'd like to see more of that type of thing done around the border here. I'd like to see larger lots butting up against already existing lots, larger lots. That's my concern. I agree with Keven Shreeve's statement. Borup: Question, Mr. Brown. I don't disagree with that. I guess the question I would have specifically, maybe in your case, why don't you feel that should apply to Muir Woods? I mean it almost looks like you're in your subdivision, you didn't have to do that, and now you want to -- but it should apply to someone else, but not your -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 69 Brown: I think the lots in Muir Woods are bigger than what is being proposed here. Borup: Not half acre and -- I mean they are looking at the same frontages and -- I mean I'm looking at these -- these along here and, you know, they have got the same type of frontages as these are even, these are just smaller. You're going to have more houses backing up with those lots, but I just find it curious, I guess, that -- Brown: Well, I see those lots butting up against Muir Woods -- you know, just looking at them they are a lot smaller and the density of that whole area -- Borup: But there is the same amount of lots. Lot count. Brown: But they are smaller. The density is more compact than Muir Woods. Borup: Right. The lots are. Brown: Exactly. That's my point. Borup: The same as the lot count. Brown: Okay. What about around Los Altos, though? Borup: Yes. Brown: So I think the lots butting up against Los Altos need to be bigger. Borup: For their subdivision, but not for Muir Woods. Thank you. Who's next? Lyon: My name is Julie Lyon. I live one of the big five-acre sections near the Sasser’s. My horses currently are in the middle five acres and then mine is the longer property. Just as the gentleman with the kennels pointed out, there are a lot of us there that have agricultural horses, llamas, and stuff in that area. My concern would be with all the houses, young children, dogs, and cats, that kind of traffic that could get into my pasture. I have and raise American Quarter Horses that are show horses. I have some horses that are probably worth a little bit of money that I wouldn't want injured. I also have electric fencing around the property. I wouldn't want the children from the subdivision to be getting into the electric fence. I think it's great that they are going to work with the Sasser’s with a berm and everything. I might maybe recommend they might work with some of us with some of the bigger properties. I have some pasture back there. I am also concerned about some of the water that they take for -- three of their irrigation lines come off of the same box, which is the corner of my property. How they are going to get that water into their subdivision in order use it for pressurized irrigation? Those are my concerns. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 70 Centers: What was your name again? Lyon: Julie Lyon. Centers: Thank you. Borup: Anyone else? Reyes: My name is Amber Reyes. I live at 3465 East Victory. I'm one of the properties that's right where the entrance off of Victory is and I have four small children. My house sits maybe 25 to 30 feet away from the road so I have some questions. I want to know will Victory Road be torn up to have water and sewer brought in for the subdivision and then the construction -- Freckleton: Want me to go ahead and answer that now? Borup: Yes. Why don't we go ahead and answer that now. Do they -- Reyes: I'm new, so help me. Freckleton: The frontage of the subdivision that fronts Victory Road, they will be responsible to install water main. I believe they would have to put in sewer mains in that area, too. It would just be the frontage of their subdivision. They wouldn't be going any further east or west. Reyes: They wouldn't come across the road? Freckleton: Across Victory? Reyes: Yes. Freckleton: We have certain corridors that the water and the sewer have to go in. The water would be on the other side of the road. Reyes: Okay. Freckleton: So, yes, Victory would be tore up along the frontage of that subdivision. Reyes: Okay. Will they widen Victory, then, to accommodate this subdivision also? Freckleton: That's Ada County Highway District's call. Borup: The subdivision will have some right of way here. Yes so the property will be available to widen it, but they are not going to widen just that little area. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 71 Reyes: I know that. Yes. I think -- but my house is one of the closest. It sits on Victory, so -- Borup: So you're on the other side? Reyes: Right here so -- there was a comment made about people entering the subdivision, the headlights shining in -- Centers: Coming out. Reyes: Yes. Coming out. Yes. My house does sit a little ways over from that, but it would be affected, so you -- okay. Sorry. Borup: Do you have any landscaping or anything in front of your house? Reyes: No. Borup: Okay. Reyes: I don't -- no. I like the view, so I haven't put anything up. Okay. Then my other concern is the school. I know for the zoning that we are in, Lake Hazel -- they are already all overcrowded and so -- and I know that there are three new subdivisions going in in that area that are supposed to go to my children's school. With them being built -- they are already started. Then this subdivision, a school will be needed. Oh. Okay and then, my other thing was -- we had a -- last year a thing with Idaho Power. They wanted to run their transmission lines down Victory Road and they were going to take those lines into our property, because there is some -- again, I don't know quite what it is, but -- Centers: Easement? Reyes: Yes because there is something about them widening the road. They were going to come -- will we be going for a battle with Idaho Power, then, for these transmission lines for this subdivision or will that be a debate again? I don't -- Centers: Talk to Idaho Power. Reyes: Okay. Thank you. Borup: Who is next? Daren, did you have any final comments? Centers: Mr. Chairman? Just so you know, I took notes. I have names. Those that didn't testify or appear tonight -- this gentleman is coming back, I have a feeling. You can certainly do so at the next meeting. We will be deciding shortly when that will be. Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 72 Fluke: I'll just try to address some of the concerns here in a general way. Again, I guess what I'd like the Commission and our neighbors to think about is this situation that this landowner is in at this point in time trying to develop the property. It's not necessarily a fair comparison to Los Altos, which when it was developed all they needed was a 24 foot strip of asphalt to provide access to those lots. No sewer, no water, no curb/gutter sidewalk, no streetlights, no fire hydrant, no nothing that we have to build. So, it's a different economic reality today. That's the first thing. That probably doesn't elicit much sympathy, but, on the other hand, the City of Meridian has adopted plans. They have made a decision that they have an area where they are going to grow. They said that we will provide services to these areas, sewer and water, and we will have -- they will be standard streets. We will have streets lights and we will have fire protection with four-minute response times and on and on. To do that you require density, you require rooftops to spread those costs out over -- over a greater number of places. It makes sense if you are going to provide the services, that you have people availing themselves of those services. That's why you don't typically see, you know, half acre and larger lots within cities, by and large, because you cannot afford to provide the services. Our reality is that we have to build those things and we need a certain number of lots to do that. We also have the reality that we have some larger lots next to us. We try to balance the two things out. We made, by urban standards and by what the City of Meridian is looking for -- bear in mind that your new Comprehensive Plan is looking for up to -- I think it's 10 dwelling units to the acre. This is designated as medium density residential on the plan. We are at three, you know, and so we tried to balance these two things out. Quarter acre lots by those standards are large lots and so that's what we tried to do with the 110 foot lots next to Los Altos and although we didn't necessarily agree that we needed larger lots next to Muir Wood, we went ahead and made those lots larger and they are almost 12,000 square feet. Centers: When you did your calculations on three per acre, did you include the office areas or how did you calculate that out? Wait a minute. The residential and the open space, that area is three per acre? Fluke: There is approximately 100 acres with residential development and there is approximately 300 dwelling units on that 100 acres. Centers: Thank you. Fluke: So I think we have taken a really good run at it here. We have got a mix of residential lot types. We have put those away from our neighbors with larger lots, we have buffered ourselves from the busy roadway with some office development, and we fit in with what the city has been approving in this area. We think we have done a really good job designing this subdivision and fitting in the best that we can, given the realities that we have. With regard to schools, we did approach the school district. Wendell Bigham told us that he has land in the area. We -- you know, we did that before we ever laid out the subdivision, because if we needed a school site we wanted to do it up front and he declined on that offer. With regard to the fill -- I mean our client Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 73 bought the property in '94. We had the property flown at that time, which was where the topo came from. Our topo doesn't show the six to eight feet of fill in that area. We will go -- we will send a crew out, we will shoot some grades out there, we will see where we are at with that and we will make it right. Just so you know, six to eight feet of fill is going to be a lot of yards of dirt in there. What our client tells us is he spread some dirt over in that area when he grubbed out a pond up in the northwest portion of his property and put it over there. When you think about it, why would a guy be putting six to eight feet of fill in a pasture when he's got horses sitting on that ground? So -- but we will make it right, we will go out, shoot some grades out there, compare it to the topo that we have and we will deal with that you issue. Borup: Daren, maybe while you are on that, do you have any idea of the -- when you talk about topography, the grade of the two roads -- grade of the roads in Los Altos and about where it would fit with this one? Fluke: No, I don't. Our topo extends about 100 feet beyond the boundary line there. Borup: Okay. Fluke: So I don't have those grades. Borup: Mr. Centers? Centers: Yes. Aren't you going to determine if you can build on that fill? Fluke: Well, that would certainly be required by the Uniform Building Code. Centers: Yes. Fluke: But I would say we would go out there and see what we have for fill. I mean just eyeballing it doesn't appear that there has been a significant amount of dirt put there, so -- Centers: All right. Fluke: Really, that's all I had for you now. I just wanted to sort of address things in a general way. We think we have done a really good job with this subdivision. We'd just ask for your consideration. Borup: Mr. Fluke, Mrs. Lyon asked about -- on the irrigation, where you would be bringing your pressurized irrigation water from? Fluke: That will come from the pond that's in the open space. Borup: Okay. That's what I thought. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 74 Fluke: All of the irrigation water will be stored here and then it will be pressurized from there. Borup: So you're not going to be affecting anything down here? Fluke: No. We will -- I mean we will take water from there, as we do now, but all of that water will just simply run into the pond where it will be pumped. Borup: Just as it is doing presently? Fluke: Yes. Shreeve: I have just a couple of questions. Just -- now this is just a matter of -- just for fun. I actually was intrigued with the idea that the entrance road on Victory Road -- and I forget the lady's name that talked about shifting that over and making that a nice -- did you look at that -- just curious -- as far as just giving some kind of a buffer to the Sasser’s. Basically removing those lots, moving them over to -- as I understood it, the border, basically, of the Sasser's property. Still -- and I don't know if they can move a lot or -- I don't know, but, then, of course, theoretically, those lots would shift over and be a part of the cul-de-sac. Fluke: You're saying to single load that road? Shreeve: Yes. Fluke: Oh. Okay. No, that's not something we looked at. Shreeve: Because it sounds like -- you know, the -- of course, on the east side of the road, you know, have some trees, maybe be a nice buffer for the Sasser’s. I don't know if that would be something maybe certainly just to look at and see if it might work. Borup: And the question may be would you rather have the noise from the cars or have some houses there buffering it? Shreeve: And I guess that would be for you to look at and maybe the Sasser’s to see if that's an impracticality. Fluke: Yes. We will take a look at that. We are -- I was just throwing a scale on the drawing there to see, but I think we can only go 450 feet with the cul-de-sac is that right? McKinnon: That's correct. Fluke: So we will -- I mean that would be a consideration. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 75 Shreeve: How far are those cul-de-sacs now? Fluke: They are about 250. Centers: So you may have some room. Shreeve: Well, I was intrigued with the thought anyway. Fluke: Okay. Shreeve: But then when you shift it over, you know, of course, then the next question where are the headlights. Of course, you maybe in a whole other property with a whole other concern with headlights. Whether that's able to be shifted over or not, if in your working and dealings with the property owners across the street, would you be agreeable that, if necessary, to put up some kind of shrubbery or landscaping or something to try to use as a shield to those stop lights -- with those headlights? Fluke: You mean if we were to move the road over and we were -- Shreeve: I'm talking in either location. Fluke: Yes. That is certainly something we could look at. Shreeve: Because I know that's been done before, just some kind of a shield of some sort. Fluke: Yes. We would have to see if -- Shreeve: Right. Right. Okay. That's all I have. Zaremba: Let me revisit the ponds a little bit, if I can. If I'm understanding, the current layout is that there is a pond here and there is no pond there. You're proposing to fill this one and create a new one over there, is that what's happening? Fluke: No. There is a pond in both locations. This is the -- this is the big pond here that's there now and then there is a smaller pond here that does flow into that pond. Borup: Anyone else have any question at this time? Okay. Thank you. Fluke: Thank you. Borup: Oh, wait a minute. I do have one more. Sorry. You said ACHD would be hearing this in May. Do you know when in May? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 76 Fluke: Well, we are -- I'm sort of hoping they'd get us on that -- the 24th of April, but I don't think they are going to be able to make that. The next night meeting in May is -- I don't know the date. It would be a Wednesday. It would be the 8th . Borup: May 8th ? How long, maybe, after that before we have a staff report? Fluke: Well, we should have a staff report at least a week ahead of the Commission hearing or -- we will go and talk to the staff about what they come up with. Borup: Which Commission? The ACHD Commission? Fluke: Correct. Borup: Oh, you mean you would have a staff report a week ahead of May 8th ? Fluke: Correct. Borup: Okay. I was trying to decide when we would have a staff report, so we could look at -- Centers: Well, staff and, Mr. Chairman, I'd look at May 16th , which is our normal meeting for a continuance items. I -- could we make that? McKinnon: Yes. Borup: We should have a report around May 1st , then, if they are going to have a week before May 8th . Fluke: Well, they like to -- I'm sorry. Borup: Go ahead. Fluke: They would like to send you their -- you know, their Commission action, rather than just the staff report. Borup: I know they do. We would rather sometimes get their draft report, I think, just so we could have a little extra time. Well, is that your preference? McKinnon: There are two issues of timing. One, I don't have a problem getting our staff report in line with the ACHD staff report. One of the time constraints that we will have is how soon you guys will have our report in front of you. If we get comments from ACHD, we will need at least a couple days in order to do that. If we get it on Friday, I couldn't promise anything until probably Tuesday, Wednesday. Centers: That's the norm. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 77 McKinnon: That's the norm. Yes and I'd get it to you guys, but you guys might not get it time to actually take a big stab at it. Centers: As long as we had it by the 15th, David. McKinnon: Okay. If ACHD can work with us and get it to us, I -- no problem getting it to you guys. Our staff report is already 15, 16 pages long and can't add too much to it, I'm sure. We'd like to incorporate that. We would also like some time to sit down and review it and make sure that we agree with it as well, because sometimes staff comments from the city don't always line up with ACHD's comments. Borup: Dave, wouldn't that help if you could have the draft report and then -- McKinnon: I have requested the draft report -- Borup: -- to put your report together, then when you get the final it's easier to make the few changes, if there are any, rather than starting fresh at that point. McKinnon: Chairman Borup, I agree with that. I tried to write the report based on that. I did request the staff report on ACHD and they said they would try to get it to me. The comments I received back from ACHD -- and I will relate those to you -- are that the interior area of the subdivision was not something that they were overly concerned with. It was Eagle Road to Victory and the accesses and what type of improvements would be required in those areas. That's the major push for them wanting to review the traffic information study, the TIS, they prepared and whatever other information that they would like to incorporate as part of their report. Borup: And the reason I ask that, Daren, and maybe you might encourage them a little bit if they could get a draft report, it may speed things on up this end. Fluke: I have been giving them all kinds of encouragement. Borup: Okay. I meant shortly after the -- around the 8th , if it could come in then. Fluke: Okay. Borup: All right. I think, Mr. Centers, you had mentioned the 16th and that would be the first available date. We are definitely full all up until then. Centers: Well, I move that we continue Items 7, 8 and 9 on our agenda to our May 16th meeting. Item 7 is AZ 02-004, Item 8 is PP 02-004, and Item 9 is Conditional Use Permit 02-005. Continue all three until May 16th . We meet at 7:00. Zaremba: I will second that. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2002 Page 78 Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Thank you all for coming. You want to go ahead and do a motion, somebody? Mathes: I make a motion that we adjourn. Zaremba: I'll second that. Borup: There is a motion and a second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Thank you. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:50 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: / / KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN DATE ATTESTED: SHARON SMITH, DEPUTY CITY CLERK