Loading...
2002 07-18Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting _ July 18, 2002 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M. on Thursday, July 18, 2002, by acting Chairman Jerry Centers. Members Present: Commissioner Jerry Centers, Commissioner David Zaremba, Commissioner Keven Shreeve and Commissioner Leslie Mathes. Members Absent: Chairman Keith Borup. Others Present: Bruce Freckleton, Steve Siddoway, Nicholas Wollen, Sharon Smith, and Dean Willis. Item 1. Roll-call Attendance: __X David Zaremba __X__ Jerry Centers __X _ Leslie Mathes __X__ Keven Shreeve __O__ Chairman Keith Borup Centers: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We'd like to start our regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission for July 18th . I'm Jerry Centers filling in for our Chairman Keith Borup, who is absent tonight, which is a rare occasion I might add. Would like to open by calling the roll call. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Centers: Yes. Zaremba: Would you entertain a motion to move Item 7 on our agenda ahead of Items 4, 5, and 6? Centers: I would and I talked to the applicants involved and I think that's appropriate. Zaremba: So moved. Shreeve: Second. Centers: We have a motion and a second to move Item 7, becoming Item 4. Four, five, and six would be become five, six, and seven. Motion approved. So we will open -- Zaremba: We didn't vote on -- Centers: Excuse me. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 18, 2002 Page 2 of 65 Zaremba: Moved and second. Centers: Moved and second. All in favor? Opposed? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from July 11, 2002: CUP 02-013 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for four 4-plex units on 1.08 acres in an L-O zone on Lots 4 and 5, Block 2 of Scottsdale Subdivision by C.W. Construction, Inc. – West Alden Drive, at the southwest corner of West Franklin Road and SW 7th Avenue: Centers: We will open the hearing for item -- actually, Item 4 now. A Continued Public Hearing from July 11th , CUP 02-013, which was a request for Conditional Use Permit for four 4-plexes on 1.08 acres in an L-O zone on Lots 4 and 5, Block 2, of Scottsdale Subdivision by C.W. Construction. Located at West Alden Street or Alden Drive, at the southwest corner of West Franklin Road and Southwest 7th Avenue. We'd like to start with the staff comments, please. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I'm going to go really quickly just through the overheads that we have got presented. I know you have seen these. This is the third time with them. There is the location, the site photos, photos of the existing 4-plexes to the east of the project. This is the project looking northbound towards the day-care center. I believe that's the Dreamland Day-Care Center. You should have received in your packets for tonight's meeting a revised staff report that replaces the original staff report dated May 22, 2002. The revised staff report contains information regarding the revised site plan and information regarding the last Public Hearing for this project and I incorporated your comments as you wished to be included in that each time in the staff report under the site specifics. On the site plan, it's a little washed out. I'll try to point that out with a laser pointer. They have modified the angle of the housing within the project so that the only part of the project that faces towards the residential to the south is the side of the building. The reason that they have done that is, as you have requested, they have modified the elevations to include only two windows on the south -- I guess it would be on the west exposure of the property and on the east exposure as well. Only these windows would be allowed to be facing the residential lots as you have requested at your last meeting. They have proposed a basketball court and we, as staff, agree with the Commission that the basketball court should not be lighted at anytime, nor should the picnic areas be lighted. If I can get you to turn to Page 4 of your revised staff report. Item Number 1 underneath the site specific requirements, the last sentence emphasizes all trees within the subdivision to be planted shall be at least three inches in caliper. That's a one- caliper inch increase over the minimum that we require. I know it was a request that you have made. Item Number 2 is all second story balconies shall be prohibited within this development. We have eliminated the site plan that they have submitted with the balconies and said only the site plan that we showed you earlier with no balconies Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 18, 2002 Page 3 of 65 should be approved. Number 3, exterior lighting of the basketball court and picnic areas shall be prohibited. Item Number 4, 4-plexes -- the 4-plexes shall be built with no more than two windows on the side. We discussed that. Item Number 10, all -- it's new as well, that all walkways and sidewalks within the development shall be at least five feet in width. Those are all the new items that were added from the last time. If you have any questions I'd entertain those at this time. Centers: Commission? I have one question for staff. Item 12 on the staff report. McKinnon: Sure. Centers: I think in fairness to the applicant could we expand on that? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, be happy to. This is a boilerplate condition. As you make your recommendation from here to the City Council, City Council has the ability to add additional -- Centers: That's -- okay. Additionally, we had talked about a maximum building height. McKinnon: The maximum building height -- I did add to the report the actual height of the buildings that they are proposing. They are proposing the buildings to be 30 feet in height. That's actually in the body of the report of the application summary. Centers: Okay. Thank you. McKinnon: You're welcome. Centers: Would the applicant like to come forward, please? Zaremba: While he's coming forward, may I pursue a question on that subject? We have had some discussion about whether 30 feet means the actual peak height or some other top of the wall upon which the roof is built. McKinnon: That's the peak height, Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Thank you. Breinholt: My name is Richard Breinholt. My address is 1976 Star Lane in Meridian. I don't know that we need to go over all of the discussion that we have gone in the past. I'm pleased with the staff report and -- with the one exception. I would like to discuss a little bit the three-inch caliper issue on the trees. I have -- since we met last time I had the opportunity to price those trees and talk to a landscaper about them. The cost for going from a two inch caliper to a three inch caliper is a difference of about 150 dollars a tree and as I look at the plot plan which you have, there is about 17 trees across the back perimeter of that property, which would be an addition of over 2,500 dollars of landscaping. Also my experience and the landscaper's experience is that a two inch Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 18, 2002 Page 4 of 65 caliper tree does very well when it's planted, but if you go to a three inch caliper tree, they kind of sit dormant for about a year and after about one year or less the smaller tree actually will outgrow the larger tree. So, I'd like the Commissioners to consider maybe rescinding that request in view of the cost of the addition of those larger trees and then I think that we will all benefit, actually, within a short period of time by planting the two-inch caliper trees. If that's possible, I would appreciate it. If not, we will go forward with it. Centers: You have read the staff report of July 15th ? Breinholt: Yes. Centers: And you don't have a problem with anything else on the report? Breinholt: No. Centers: Okay. Commission have any questions or -- Shreeve: Well, just a question, then, of the staff. Why the three inch caliper size? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the reason for the three inch caliper tree was so that we would larger trees that would provide more screening than what's currently existing or proposed and that was one of the requested changes that was made by the Commission at the last meeting. Zaremba: As I recall some of the discussion, the goal was to have trees that fairly quickly would have the canopies touching, and the decision was that you would solve that by having bigger trees. I could be swayed by the discussion that the small trees would be growing to that size quicker. The point is to have them close enough together or big enough, whichever. It may take a landscape architect to say, well, if we went with two-inch caliper trees, then we need three more of them or we are -- I don't know how that decision would go, but that was the point. Breinholt: The spacing of these trees is actually closer already than the normal spacing of 35 feet and so we are already at a higher density. Zaremba: And that's in addition to the evergreens that are already there. Breinholt: Right. Right. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if I may. They are not actually -- and Mr. Breinholt -- the requirement between multiple family housing and single- family housing is that they provide a buffer that's at least 60 percent enclosed. It does not tie to the 35-foot on-center spacing that's applied to parking or applied to buffers between non-land uses. There is a requirement that they have coverage of that and so we decided that three-inch caliper would be better. And, Commissioner Zaremba, you Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 18, 2002 Page 5 of 65 are correct in saying that we would need a larger number of trees if we went to a smaller caliper inch tree in order to get the same amount of coverage. But as far as saying that you already are exceeding the minimum, you're not exceeding the minimum in the fact that the landscape ordinance requires that those -- that that screening be in place regardless of the 35 foot on-center requirement. Breinholt: Right. I was just referring to the 35 foot for the size of trees that are -- for a shade tree typically is just a 35-foot spacing. We are going closer than that now, so that's all I was saying. As they grow out, they will be a full canopy. I just feel like it would probably -- it's been my experience that when I plant a two inch tree that hasn't been brought in by a spade, that they just go a lot faster. A three-inch tree is a very difficult tree to get going. Centers: Anything additional from the Commission? From the applicant? Thank you. Breinholt: Thank you. Centers: Are there any other people here that would like to speak for the applicant or opposing the applicant? Very good. I guess we can entertain a motion. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Public Hearing be closed. Mathes: I'll second that. Centers: Been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Centers: Discussion? How do you feel? Shreeve: I'm not a landscape person by any means, but I could be easily swayed, too, about that two inch. I think we ought to go with the two-inch caliper, go ahead, approve as per the staff comments, and change it to two-inch caliper. Centers: With the same number of trees? Shreeve: Yes. Centers: Okay. Shreeve: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we approve CUP 02-013. Request for a Conditional Use Permit for four 4-plex units on 1.08 acres in the L-O zone on Lots 4 and 4, Block 2, of the Scottsdale Subdivision by C.W. Construction, Incorporated, West Alden Drive at the southwest corner of West Franklin Road and Southwest 7th Avenue. To include all staff comments, dated July 15, 2002, except for Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 18, 2002 Page 6 of 65 the correction on Page 4 of site-specific requirements to change instead of three-inch caliper size that they be two inch. Zaremba: I will second that. Centers: Moved and seconded to recommend approval of CUP 02-013. All in favor? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from June 6, 2002: AZ 02-010 Request for annexation and zoning of 354.38 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for proposed Lochsa Falls Subdivision by Farwest LLC and Daniel Gibson – south of West Chinden Boulevard and west of North Linder Road: Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from June 6, 2002: PP 02-009 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 876 building lots and 59 other lots on 354.38 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Lochsa Falls Subdivision by Farwest LLC and Daniel Gibson -- south of West Chinden Boulevard and west of North Linder Road: Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from June 6, 2002: CUP 02-012 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a PUD for 862 single family dwellings, 171 multi-family dwellings, 11 office buildings, one commercial building, one fire station lot, one city park and one private park for the proposed Lochsa Falls Subdivision by Farwest LLC and Daniel Gibson – south of West Chinden Boulevard and west of North Linder Road: Centers: Moving right along. We would like to open the Public Hearing -- actually, three of them at this time. Items 5, 6 and 7 on our agenda -- revised agenda specifically AZ 02-010, PP 02-009, and CUP 02-012, and we'd like to call for the staff report. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. It looks like we have a little audience with us tonight, so I will take a little bit of time to give you an overview of the project once more and then we will get into some issues that I'd like to discuss. Then we can address some of the issues that the developer has brought up concerning the last staff report that was prepared for you. On the overhead, you can see the site for this project. You can see it's rather undeveloped at this time. It's a large farmland area. It's roughly one square mile in size on the overhead, as you can see. If I go to the next overhead, you can see the darkened areas, actually, the part of the one square mile that was just shown to you that's part of this project. A quick overview. This is Chinden Boulevard along the north. Below is McMillan. Ten Mile and Linder. In this project is going to be some major developments that you will want to -- that I'll point out right now. This is a park in this area. Twenty-five acre park. A six-acre community park in this area. Office along the north. Office and multi-family along the south and Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 18, 2002 Page 7 of 65 residential and where my pointer is at right now would be a fire station. The picture you can see on your left is an easement road that runs back to the Moss property and we will be discussing that in a little bit. Looking at the other photos. Looking west on Chinden Boulevard from the commercial lot on the north side of the project. Adjacent to the park that's being proposed on Ten Mile is an existing -- a church that exists on Ten Mile and a little bit further down south of the church there is a home that exists that will not be removed, it will be surrounded by the park as well. Looking north you can see the park area. On both these photos is where the park would be planned. This is the site. It's one large flat piece of land ready for development. It's farmland. This is the project. I'll go over this really quickly and then I'll go back and cover a few issues. Along the south talk about some office uses. This one mile here for up 171 multiple family dwellings. The Moss property is this 1.5, roughly, acre parcel located north of McMillan. As we continue to go up from there -- go back. This is the project. This is a little bit north -- looks like they cut off the park, which is actually this direction. There is a park, 25-acre park over here. Eventually there may be a school in this location. That was an item that we had discussed in the past. Right here in the center that I have highlighted right now is essentially the center of the project. That's a turnaround. The project itself does have a vehicle turnaround, rather than a standard intersection in the middle. It's a one-way traffic roundabout. This is the six-acre park right here that I talked about. Within this project, there is one commercial lot. That one commercial lot sits right here. It's on Chinden Boulevard. It's on the far northeast corner of the project itself. The rest of these lots you can see are all designated as L-O. In front of this for an access road they have removed the access that went to Chinden Boulevard, now there is a private road that would run across the back for access to the office lots and the one commercial. The fire station lot is located where my pointer is at right now on Linder. You can see the traffic circle a little better now. Right there. There is a small approximately one-acre park in the south part of this project. There are two collector streets that address Linder and go back to the project overview. Lochsa Falls, request for Conditional Use Permit. They have reduced the number of lots in the subdivision from 862 down to 856. That's because they eliminated some lots adjacent to the park, as we have requested in the past. I'll go back and cover a number of issues and we will address Becky's letter that she wrote in response to the staff report. We are going to start off on the south portion of the subdivision. We showed you a picture of 25-foot wide driveway access that accesses the Moss property that runs immediately to the north to their property. That property is owned by the people developing Lochsa Falls. However, they have an exclusive easement to access their property along those 25 feet. Unless the easement is relinquished, the Mosses will have the ability to access their property along this path -- along this easement, even though it is owned by someone else. If the developer is unable to get a relinquishment of the easement from the Mosses, the staff is suggesting that that become a lot as part of the subdivision, owned by the homeowners association, and not part of the lots that back up to the project. It's hard to see with the scale that we are at, but right now, the 25-foot easement is included as part of the lots that back up to the easement. If they can't get the relinquishment of the easement, we are going to suggest in our new staff report that will be available after we have a few issues worked out, that this easement through here is not relinquished to those common lots owned and maintained by the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 18, 2002 Page 8 of 65 homeowners association. While we are on the topic of the Moss property, there are some issues that will need to be addressed tonight concerning the annexation of the Moss property. The Moss property is now going to be completely encircled by the City of Meridian if this project is annexed. I know that Mr. Moss and the developer are in negotiations right now concerning what types of things they'd like to see happen. However, as part of this project the city would like to see the Moss property be brought into the city, rather than leave an enclave in the project. You'll notice that I have got an area highlighted on the overhead right now. This is Lot 5, Block 8. On the plat that you have in front of you, it is not labeled as open space. That is open space as part of the subdivision. That is not a buildable lot. It would have to be revised to show that that's either storm drainage or open space and it's not a buildable lot. The fourth item that I think that we need to address is the issue of a collector street running form Anatole adjacent to the park. I'm going to have to go. Oops. Went backwards. Go forward where the park is at. The park is located over here. This is just a little bit north of what we were looking at earlier. There is a 25 acre park right here. There has been some discussion as to whether or not there should be a collector that runs to Ten Mile. Right now, there is not a collector that runs to Ten Mile. This project has no connection to Ten Mile, other than the park. There is no roadway connection to Ten Mile from this property. City staff would support a connection, whether it's a collector, or whether it's another street connecting to Ten Mile. We believe that anytime there is a connection that's made to Ten Mile, the majority of the traffic using that connection to Ten Mile will be generated by the Lochsa Falls project and not by the project the street would remain on. We would like to see that there is some sort of resolution as to how there will be a connection, whether the connection runs across the south of the park to Ten Mile or whether or not the property owner to the south offers to connect at some point to the collector Anatole. We would like to have that resolved before we approve this, because we have no connection right now to Ten Mile and the applicant is proposing to develop a large portion of that half-mile section. The fifth issue that I want to bring up would be the Parks Department. The Parks Department is here tonight and when I finish, Tom will address some issues concerning the park, how he would like to see that park developed, and his comments concerning the collector. You should all have received a memo from Tom Kuntz dated today. He brought it in prior to the meeting. When you have a moment if you could, please, take a look at what Tom has presented to. Item Number 6 on my punch list that I have created there would be a pathway system. Currently the applicant has proposed a pathway system leading from Linder to the horse circle, which is what they have called the traffic circle right here that would connect the six-acre park. Our Parks and Rec Department has a Master Plan that shows that the pathway would connect all the way across to the park. Currently the path system ends at this location and we would request that the path system be continued further to the west, so that it will connect to the city park, so that people can access the walking path on Linder Road and be able to get all the way over to the park that fronts Ten Mile. Another item that -- I need to go back and visit the south area as well as this area. We do need to have two turnarounds, fire emergency vehicle turnarounds on the two private streets that they have been proposed. One on the north that would end at this location immediately south of the commercial lot and we need a turnaround that would be shown on the plat at this location immediately between the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 18, 2002 Page 9 of 65 multi-family housing and the office uses adjacent to McMillan. Back to the north section of the plat again. In the staff report that was originally presented to you, we discussed the number of parking spaces that would be allowed. We requested that they not be allowed to have more than 120 percent of the minimum parking spaces for these office uses, because these office uses are supposed to be uses that are used by the people in this subdivision. The reason they are allowed to have these offices uses here in opposition of the Comprehensive Plan that's adopted is because this is a Planned Development. In a Planned Development, those uses that are part of the 20 percent exception are to be uses that are used by those people in the Planned Development. We wanted to limit the number of parking spaces. I had a conversation with the Planning Director this afternoon and we realize that limiting the number of parking spaces in those locations may be hurting the marketability of that. We don't want to go that direction, so we as staff have softened our position of that. We don't want to -- we want to emphasize to you tonight that those uses that go in, in those locations for the office uses and commercial use are uses that should be used by those people in the Planned Development for the residential people there. You will notice in the -- in the northern area of the project we, as staff, requested that they include additional storm drainage lots for the project. The applicant has stated that they have now included some new storm drainage lots within the subdivision in the northern area and that they will include more as they get further into their development. There is going to be an issue that we as staff will push for and explain right now. The reason why it will be in the new staff report and the reason we will push for it tonight is that right now we have two connection points to Linder Road. Go back. Right here we have one right at the half-mile and we have one a quarter mile, but on the north, we have no connection to Linder from the subdivision. These homes in this location will have to travel over one mile through the subdivision to get to -- and then along Linder Road to an arterial to get to that intersection. Staff -- we believe that an additional access point should be pushed through at Linder in order to ease the burden of bringing all of these people either through the subdivision back to here and through to get to here. There may be concerns by the applicant that that's too many access points in a location for this project, but please keep in mind that the applicant has proposed three access points on McMillan, but only two on Linder Road. The idea having too many access points is something that we disagree with. We believe that an access point on Linder Road would ease the burden and would ease the burden on people driving through the subdivision to get to the major arterials. Bruce wants me to point out that they haven't proposed any accesses to the Ten Mile as well, but I think we have addressed that issue with the collector through the park. Centers: Excuse me, Dave. Was that on your original report? McKinnon: The connection? Yes, it was. Centers: Okay. Good. McKinnon: It was. Item Number 11 that I have written down on my own punch list -- I'm sure you're not following this, but it helps me. The phasing of this project is a multi Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 18, 2002 Page 10 of 65 phasing project, just for the applicant to know that Phase 1-A is listed twice. There is no phase 2-A. If you guys could make that correction, Justin and Becky. Item Number 12, the new Fire Department comments, you should have received comments from the fire department today. I know we passed them out. We received those at 4:00. If you could take notice of Item Number 15 on those Fire Department comments. The Fire Department is requesting that the developer pay the cost of an Opti-Com system. That's a system that the Fire Department uses for getting through lights. They can change the lights to green, so that they can cross through with a safer use. They believe the developer should bear the burden to pay for those if their project is requiring the need for traffic lights. The final project that I would -- the final thing that I would bring up before I jump to Becky's information is -- and it kind of ties into what Becky had written. In our original staff report, we requested that the six-acre park be completed prior to the 101st occupancy of the homes within the subdivision. We've reviewed your comments on that and based on the fact that this is a very large project and by the time, they have the 101st Occupancy Permit, it's essentially only 10 percent of their project. Requiring a park in the center may be too much and we would like to have the opportunity to work with Becky and the other developers on this project to find a number that would work. I know Becky has proposed the number 250 and we could probably work from there. If you guys could all, grab the letter that you received from Becky Bowcutt. We can address a few of those issues. Start with the annexation and zoning analysis. Staff recognizes that there is no problem with Idaho Power. If you could -- Commissioners, please understand that they have resolved that issue to the satisfaction of the staff and it's not an issue that we will have anymore with this project. Page 7, J, underneath the annexation and zoning analysis comments. The City of Meridian -- we as staff -- and we have discussed this on a staff wide basis -- still would like to see some sort of access to Ten Mile, some sort of resolution to that before we approve this project. On Page Number 7, they have noticed that we had put 11 stub streets, rather than 13. We have corrected that in the report. If we can go to the annexation and zoning comments. We agree with the applicant's assertion that we cannot include the Tony Moss parcel as part of this project. However, we would like to see the Moss property annexed in the future and that will be something that will have to happen at some point in the future, whether or not it's approved with this annexation or not. It's still something that will happen. The Moss property is less than five acres in size and the city could forcefully annex if necessary. If you could turn to Page 2 of Becky's letter, Item Number 8. This is what I hope to address that the Moss property -- we don't -- I think I addressed this at the last meeting -- is we don't want to tie the Moss property -- relinquish any easements to the approval of the project. We can't tie the Moss property to this project. However, we would like to see that there is some resolution to what happens with the Moss project, whether or not there is a relinquishment of the easement and whether or not the Mosses will take the small block that is granted to them in this plat for access in the future. Item Number 9 on this letter on the second page, the applicant disagrees with the condition that they put in some sort of roadway adjacent to the park. I think I have beaten that enough, that we still support access to Ten Mile. Additional considerations, comments on Page 2, we still would like to see that road on Linder. We have taken a look at where they could put some pathways and some bike pathways in this project. However, we still believe that Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 18, 2002 Page 11 of 65 the additional access to Linder for vehicle trips would be appropriate to cut down on the number of vehicles traveling through the roads and causing congestion within the subdivision and that the bike and pedestrian paths to Linder Road would not provide that same break in the vehicle trips. Item Number B, they said they needed some flexibility in phasing. I believe that's where we have gone with that is we'd like to allow flexibility in phasing and not tying the commercial and office uses to the residential uses. Site specific comments on the Preliminary Plat, still on Page 2 towards the bottom there, Item Number 1, which correlates to Item Number 1 in the staff report. They have requested to see some modeling information from the Public Works Department. The Public Works Department does not yet have the modeling information. We will provide that when we have it. Item Number 2, again, the Linder Road issue. Item Number 3 I have addressed that already concerning the relinquishment of the easement. Staff does not believe that once we get to the Final Plat stage if they have to revise the plat to show that those are an additional lot for the homeowners association, they should start over. The reason why it's not shown as a common lot right now is that the developer understood that if they added any lots to the Final Plat stage it would be considered a significant change. We as staff do not believe that it would be a significant change in the future if they include those additional lots in the Final Plat that they would have to start over with the plat. Item Number 10 -- and Item Number 9, I have addressed that, that we would like to see the pathway continued to the west from the east side of the project. I think Becky will address this issue concerning the fact that they are no longer on a collector road once they get passed the horse circle. Item Number 13, they said they added more open space to the northern section of the project, which they have. If you can refer to your own copies of the plat map. The overhead is a little hard to see those storm drains and where the exact locations are and they said that they would add more. Item Number 15, the applicant has requested a five-foot non-sight obscuring fence. We as staff agree with that, a five- foot tall non-sight obscuring fence with the Planned Development would be just fine. If we can turn to the final page of her letter, underneath the standards for Conditional Use Permits. Address the issue concerning parking. We can budge on the parking. I don't know if we want to go straight to the five spaces per 1,000 as requested, but we do understand that the market conditions would and do request that they have that many parking spaces, but based on the fact that this is a Planned Development, we would like to see some limitation of the amount of parking. We don't want this to become an access point for all people in the area. We would like to keep the uses in this area extremely accessible and usable by those in the Planned Development. Finally, Item Number 6 underneath the site specific comments concerning the occupancy when the park would have to be completed. We as staff would like to know what the Commissioners would like to see with that, when the park should be developed, when it should be completed and at what point. Whether it's tied to occupancy or Building Permit, we'd love to hear what the Commission has to think about that and what the developer would feel would be appropriate if 250 are not the number that we can agree upon, if that number does have some flexibility with them. Bruce, do you have any comments? I'm going to turn some time over to Tom Kuntz just for a moment and then when Tom's done, we are just going to open ourselves up for questions and comments if you have any and be happy to address those at that time. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 18, 2002 Page 12 of 65 Kuntz: Mr. Chairman and Commission, our comments tonight pertain specifically to the Preliminary Plat of this applicant. Our original comments were submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission on May 31st and some our comments mirror those comments and I would point out which those are. By this project being delayed to later hearing, it enabled our staff to review the project in more detail and so some of these comments are a result of those reviews that we have made. The first one is Number 1 and I believe Dave has already discussed that thoroughly as far as the pathway system and how integral that is to this project because of the size and getting pedestrians between Linder Road and Ten Mile. The second item, according to the new plat that I saw today, has been addressed. Those Lots 7 through 12 on Block 12 have been eliminated, which is good, because on our new parks action plan, this community park size it calls for 30 acres. By eliminating those three lots, we are getting closer to that 30-acre size, where the original park was 24.639. The third item Dave has discussed and the parks staff, it is an issue with them. Community parks require a collector along one side. We do not feel like the Ten Mile serves in that capacity, because of the church and the large house that's going to be staying on that property. We would like to see a collector to the south of the park. The discussions that we have had with the developer, we have no problem with the collector being south of the park, not on his property, and aligning with Anatole Street. We do want to make sure that the developer helps us get to the table with the owner to the south and make sure that that is in place before this development moves forward. On the second page -- I hate to read to you, but I will read to you. The Bear Creek Developer, which was a 326 building lot development off of Stoddard Road south of the freeway, that developer provided an 18- acre community park, including the irrigation system, seeding, in exchange for the impact fees generated from 326 building lots. Based upon that precedence, the Parks Department would support the Lochsa Falls development if the 25 plus acre park were to be provided, along with the irrigation system, the grading and seeding, in exchange for the 800 and now 56 single-family lots and 171 multi-family lots. I have done some quick calculations, because it's important to our department that what we are asking for is not out of line with what has been done in the past and in our impact fees we use a formula, 95,000 dollars per acre for land and development. So 95,000 per acre land acquisition and development. At 18 acres for Bear Creek Park, it would come to 1,710,000 dollars. The impact fees at 326 lots at our current level of 529 dollars a lot, the developer claim, then, 172,454 back in credits. Out of pocket was 1,537,546 dollars and that's for an 18-acre park and 326 building lots. A million five. This development is approximately three times that size, if you include the 856 single-family lots and the 171 multi-units that comes to 126, if my math is correct. Of the two developments, Lochsa Falls is approximately three times the size as Bear Creek was. If you take 25 acres at 95,000 dollars an acre, it comes to 2,375,000 dollars. In credits the developer would receive, back approximately 500,000 dollars. The out of pocket would be about a million eight for a development three times the size of Bear Creek. We feel like what we are asking for comparable to what has been achieved in the past and that was within the last year. The fifth item, we know that we have gone around and around the block on the collector to the south of the park, so we were trying to come up with an option. That option would be on the area -- the southern portion of the development that butts Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 18, 2002 Page 13 of 65 up to McMillan and then is bordered on the middle by North Goddard -- excuse me. Do I have that right? Here we go. North Goddard Creek Way and if we were to take the area included in Block 1, Lots 1 through 10, and then possibly continue north in lots -- Block 1, Lots 11 through 29, and possibly take Block 5, lots 1 through 22. I don't have the calculations on the actual acreage, so I'm just throwing out some suggestions, but we'd like to get as close as we could to 30 acres and relocate the park in that area and we just throw that out as a possible option. This letter just came to you tonight and the developer just received it tonight. I apologize for the lateness, but after talking with David in Planning and Zoning, he felt it would be important to at least get this before you tonight. I'll stand for any questions. Thank you. Centers: Thank you. Any questions? Zaremba: I would have a question that encompasses several subjects, I guess, on that park. I agree that there needs to be a collector through there somehow, but then focusing on Anatole, which is not on -- the connection of that over to Ten Mile is not part of this property. We would have to get another developer involved in that. Even so, that road would have to curve to go along this property line, so that it was not put in with houses between the road and the park. My question is, wouldn't it make more sense for this developer to contain the road entirely on their project and actually connect West Laddle Rapids to Ten Mile, which is the street above Anatole? Now that there are no houses fronting the park there, it might make sense to me. The question would be, this road would run along this applicant's property line, it actually would make the park smaller by the acreage the road takes up, but I'm just wondering if that's a solution to be discussed? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, if I might just have a couple comments on that and let Tom address the issue of whether or not he finds it acceptable to reduce the size of the park by the amount that you have requested and if there is some other options with that. I have taken a look at a couple different options, the options are similar to what you propose, and I will go ahead and highlight it up here for the rest of the Commission and for the audience tonight. West Laddle Rapids runs right through here. This is the park in this area over here, but if you take West Laddle Rapids and drag it right through the park, we do lose quite a bit of park area. Tom could probably address, as to whether that's an idea or not. Zaremba: My thought was not to run it straight, just swing it down to the property line and the other one would have to swing up. McKinnon: To contain the entire road on the project we still would chew up quite a bit of property by doing that. One way that I have looked at -- I have looked at a similar situation to that, how would we pick up the additional park space? One way is you can see that these lots essentially line up with each other. They are both narrow lots and frontages going north and south. If you were to eliminate one of those lots throughout this block right here, you could shift the entire street system to the east. By shifting the entire street system to the east, you could pick up some more acreage here for the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 18, 2002 Page 14 of 65 park. You would lose -- you would lose four lots here. That's an idea that we have come up with. It's something we have played with and I don't know if I'm comfortable in making a recommendation on that. That is something that we have looked at. Another thing that we have looked at -- and I -- it has to deal with your comment you make concerning Anatole and how if Anatole came -- continued through, that you would have houses that would back up to the project and that's not necessarily the case. If we had these -- this road that came through, we could say, one, you could have it curve up like you said, just like you could curve West Laddle Rapids down, you could make this road curve up and be curvilinear. Secondary to that you could drag this across, have houses fronting Anatole, but you could have a landscaped buffer across the back of those houses across the back, so that instead of having back yards that would back up to the park, you would have essentially back yards with more park area backing up to them. I'm not sure if Tom's comfortable with that. The final thing that you could do is run this as a single loaded road all the way out, do the curvilinear all the way out. I know Becky -- we talked at length about different options. There is a number of other options as well that we have discussed. I'm open for anything. We'd just like to see some sort of resolution as to what you would like to see tonight or -- and see what the developer is comfortable with. We do have another developer that we would have to work with here. I'm not comfortable, necessarily, saying that we can mandate the off-site improvements on another property be done without that. I think the developers need to work with each other on that, but I think it does need some resolution. I agree 100 percent with you that we do need a collector in this location. There are some options, rather than just dragging this straight through and double loading it with houses on both sides. Zaremba: Well, you're suggesting running Anatole across straight and single loading it would mean we would need to talk to the other developer about actually donating what would be lots along there into the park. McKinnon: Having the developers work that out with each other. Zaremba: That would add some acreage to the park if the other developer would -- the difficulty is, I think as you expressed at the end, I don't see how we can make this applicant make the other developer cooperate. That's a hard burden to put on somebody to make somebody else do something. McKinnon: I agree. There needs to be more work that's put into the design of the project as an overall, rather than piecemealing two projects together. Zaremba: Do we have any clue of how near the other project is to being presented? McKinnon: Until we have an application in front of us I would hate to make a comment on that. Zaremba: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 18, 2002 Page 15 of 65 Centers: I had a question for Mr. Kuntz. Item 4 on your letter, Tom, you mentioned a net cost to the developer in Bear Creek. What was that cost and what was the proposed cost for this applicant if they agree to your proposal? Kuntz: The net cost -- first you need to understand that we are using that 95,000-dollar figure per acre to acquisition development. Centers: Correct. Kuntz: I know full well that Bear Creek paid less per acre for land, but if we just use that as a comparison, the net cost to Bear Creek was about a million five. Centers: Okay. Kuntz: The net cost to this developer is about a million eight, using the same formula. The difference was 326 lots versus single-family 862, if you throw in the multi-family you're over 1,000. The project is about three times the size of Bear Creek and a million five for Bear Creek and a million eight for this development. Centers: Additionally, just -- we are on the record, but the thought came to my mind and on a casual basis, if the developer took that land and developed it to our standards, city park standards, and kept it and maintained it, what's the feeling about that? I mean let's tell it like it is. That park is a big benefit to the project for their sales of the homes. It would be called a city park, but the primary use is going to be Lochsa Falls. I mean that's just -- wouldn't that be true? Kuntz: Considering that you have got approximately three people per house, you know, you're going to have 3,000 people in this development. I think I made the statement in here that this -- even though it's a community park in size, will really serve as a neighbor park, especially with the pathway system that we are recommending. I mean you can look at -- excuse me -- Tulley Park, which is an 18 acre park on Linder Road. It's used primarily as a neighborhood park for those houses that surround that within a half-mile. Centers: So I guess what I'm saying is if they develop it to the city standards, they deed it to the city after they are done and they maintain it for their own use because it is a neighbor park. Then we resolve the collector issue, because it's a neighborhood park anyway, in my mind we have resolved the collector issue. What do you think, though? Kuntz: Commissioner Centers, the only concern I have got there is that we do have a plan, an action plan that is to address park land acreage in Meridian for the total build out of this city. By keeping that a private park -- Centers: No. I'm saying deed it to the city after they are done and they call it a neighbor park. Because you just mentioned, Tom, they would be the primary user. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 18, 2002 Page 16 of 65 Zaremba: But the city wouldn't accept it even as a donation unless it complied with -- I mean building it to the city's specifications, including -- includes having a collector road. Kuntz: Correct. Centers: So you wouldn't accept it? Kuntz: Well, if -- in a perfectly world, if you're saying they would build this park to our specifications and deed it to us as a community park, I would certainly accept that, because then I'll come in and put the collector in and I will be to the good. Centers: Yes. Kuntz: Sure. Centers: Well, I think the applicant's making notes and maybe they'll address that. Any other questions? Would the applicant like to come forward? Zaremba: I do have other questions for staff, but not for Director Kuntz. Centers: Okay. You want to hold off a minute on the applicant? Zaremba: That was all my questions on the park subject, but dealing with the subject of another access to Linder Road on the other side of the project. It would be my assumption that the 1,000 block length is in the rules for some reason and my assumption is that the longer the block length that is under a disaster scenario, the more difficult it is for emergency services to serve the middle properties of a long block. What I'm wondering -- the applicant has suggested that in the place where you're proposing the road, that they put the bike path or something. Could a bike path be made large enough that it could serve as an emergency access? I mean you put bollards in it or something that can be broken away and kind of solve both of those problems without actually making a usable road -- and I guess part of the reason I'm asking that is it looks like there is a stub street on the northeast corner that will eventually help solve the problem. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba -- Zaremba: That was a lot of things in one question. McKinnon: -- let me address the last issue first and then I'll move to the block length issue. The stub street issue as you have referenced is Girdy Place, North Girdy Place that runs into the project to the north. That property will not have access to Chinden Boulevard and they may have limited access, whether it's right in or right out, I don't know at this time. They may only have limited access onto Linder Road, if given any access at all. Let me go back to the 1,000 foot block length issue and we -- in our ordinance, the way it's written right now, we have a 500 foot minimum and a 1,000 foot Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 18, 2002 Page 17 of 65 maximum. There are a couple of issues for that. You have hit one item on the head, that's a safety issue that a lot of times we have the ability to go in on one street and come out on another. That's -- we have two access points. The safety issue is more addressed in the cul-de-sac block length issue, the 450 feet. The block length issue is more addressed towards where do we put a break in between and how do we make this a more livable community and where do we put the roadways? We don't want to see these large block lengths where nobody can get off and nobody can get through. What we have created is a situation where we have got a block length, which is block number 42 that is over 1,000 feet in length going across the back and it provides no access to Linder Road. All of the homes that are within the subdivision in that northeast corner will have to travel at least one mile to get to the intersection of Linder and Chinden Boulevard or State Highway 20-26. If we allow just the bike path to go through there -- and my interpretation of what the applicant is proposing is not just one bike path, necessarily, but they could provide a bike path at North Cougar Flat and provide a bike path that would be to the south of that at Cougar Flat again. They could even provide one in Rattlesnake Court, providing up to three pathways that run out to Linder, but the interpretation that the Planning Director has had is the reason to break this block length up is not for pedestrian access to it, but rather -- or for vehicle access to get to and through those large block lengths. Further back in your question you asked a little bit -- I've got to think for a second -- about whether or not you could use these pathways for vehicular access for emergency vehicles and the answer to that is yes. There are numerous examples of that in the City of Meridian that we have approved. Hartford Subdivision has one. We just recently approved one for Woodbridge and it's a very common that we do that. Turtle Creek, I believe, also has one that's adjacent to Tulley Park across the street, so that is a process that -- that's something that happens quite commonly and, yes, that is something that we could look in determining whether or not that's an appropriate way for vehicle access to go through there. Whether or not Fire Department likes to do that is another issue and they are not here tonight to address that, but that's an issue that definitely could and should be on the table. I appreciate you bringing that up. Zaremba: Thank you. Centers: Any other questions for staff? Would the applicant like to come forward? Bowcutt: Becky Bowcutt, 1100 East Valli-Hi, Eagle. I'm representing the applicants in this matter. I will just kind of hit on the key issues, since we did submit our presentation to you last time and so now it's just a matter of trying to iron out the wrinkles. The issue of the Ten Mile collector, I'll take that up first. In designing this project, we incorporated new ideas that were coming out of the north Meridian study groups. Those ideas included these half-mile collectors, continuous collectors, not the non-continuous ones that you would historically see in projects. Collectors are a very expensive thing. As you can see when you build a collector, there is front-on housing, so, really, there is no yield for the expense of that roadway. Yet, it does make for a better neighborhood, because you're not putting high volumes of traffic in front of the residential homes. In this particular project we are building -- this is one full mile here and then this is a half- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 18, 2002 Page 18 of 65 mile there. Basically a mile and a half in three different directions. On the City Park's Comprehensive Plan Map they had indicated that they wanted to see some type of a community park in this vicinity located along this Ten Mile corridor was their preference. Also, in their park plan they talk about not backing up lots to the parks. We have eliminated the six lots that backed up to the park, which -- oops. Too many boards -- which, therefore, added approximately an acre -- which added approximately an acre to the park. We are up to about 25 and a half acres. This particular street here is single loaded, so these homes all will face an open park, they will have access. Because we have no homes there, you could have parallel parking, even some handicapped parking spots that would be all along this corridor. Now Tom, in his community plan, stated that this particular park was designated for approximately 30 acres. In our meetings with him prior to our submittal we spent 10 months working on this, so it's not like we haven't met with these people three, four times from all different agencies. Tom said we want 30 acres. Our comments to him are all we can give you is around 24 and a half, 25 acres. He said, well, I'd really like to have 30. I said, well, if it means either you don't have a park or you have 25 or 24 and a half, he said, well, I guess in that instance I'd rather have a park, obviously. One of the things to take into consideration is this parcel to the north is narrow, has one single-family dwelling. We have got a stub street here. The way this property will most likely develop is this roadway will extend out to Ten Mile just like that and it will jut that property. Tom's indicated in his memo that to the north he does not want any lots backing up. However, to develop that property it would not be cost effective, because of its small size, narrowness, there is no ability for any flexibility to develop it without backing up. Then if we look at where is the opportunity to obtain additional acreage, it would, obviously, be to the south. The 80 acres to the south of this parcel is owned by my client Mr. Bews, who also did the Bridgetower Crossing project. I have discussed with him and Mr. Varialle the idea of potentially allocating some area for some more parks. I talked to them about the collector or single loading a residential street. Mr. Varialle's comment to me was at this time we have 400 acres south of McMillan that we are developing as Bridgetower Crossing and, therefore, we would be reluctant to make any commitments at this time. I made him aware of the fact that the Parks Department and the City Council, neither is going to want any lots backing up which, means you have got to have either a single loaded street or a collector. Whichever way it goes, you will have a street, which adjoins the park. Do you see what I'm getting at? Centers: Well, maybe. Bowcutt: Well, it was staff's, you know, strong recommendation that we remove those six lots. The Parks Department, you know, obviously, you have got to look at those requests from the agencies. I think the Council will take them seriously and that's why we, obviously, just said, okay, we will take those six lots out. When this comes through for development, they are going to be facing the same issue. If the roadway is placed along the park's south boundary, then you have cut off any opportunity to add any additional acreage. I want to clarify one thing. There was a lot of discussion on -- this statement was made, a neighborhood park providing play areas for this development. This is not a neighborhood park that is a community park. What Tom said, Tulley Park Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 18, 2002 Page 19 of 65 is 18 acres? This park is going to be 25 and a half acres, hopefully, if Tom has his way and he obtains additional acreage out in that area, it would 30. It's a community park. It's going to service, you know, a three, four-mile radius. You're going to have people coming for soccer, from all that north area of Meridian. This will, obviously, be the first park that's going to come on line for this whole north Meridian corridor. I don't know of any developer that's stepping up, because there are two additional community parks planned or designated in this corridor, this north Meridian corridor. This will, obviously, be the first one. Centers: Could I interrupt? Bowcutt: Yes, sir. Centers: I agree. I mean 25 acres is a good size and I think Mr. Kuntz would accept it but if you're going to call it a community park and there is going to be all kinds of soccer players, how are they going to get there and where are they going to park? Bowcutt: Okay. It has -- in their plan it states that they need to have access to two roadways, so they had access here, they had direct frontage here on Ten Mile. If you go out to Tulley Park -- I drove right by it on my way here. There is no collector road going into Tulley Park. There is no local street going into Tulley Park. There is a parking lot and there is a driveway that comes into a big parking lot just like that. Centers: Where are they going to park on this one? Bowcutt: They build it -- you have to build a parking lot. Mathes: Have you ever been to Tulley Park to a kid’s soccer game? Bowcutt: I have not. Mathes: You can't park. You're parking at the church two, three -- Bowcutt: Well, that was one of the things that we talked about as far as this additional parking along here. You could provide a parking lot back here where the ball fields are, which would be an excellent location for handicapped or elderly people, because then they wouldn't have to walk the distance. My point is if we build this roadway here, then they have cut -- and even if we bend it up, they have cut all opportunity off for any additional acreage. When this develops, whenever that roadway goes in, even if it's single-loaded, if it's single-loaded and it comes across just like that with lots coming down and then intersecting here, if it's a collector roadway, then they'd have landscaping on their side and lots that back up to it. In my conversations with Mr. Varialle, he said it would probably be his prerogative to have a collector, because these lots are going to have a lot of traffic in front of them, especially if there is any type of soccer or baseball event or something like that. The city will have opportunity to comment when that project comes in. The city has the ability to deny that project if their Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 18, 2002 Page 20 of 65 design is not, obviously, in compliance with their future plans. This developer took it upon himself to provide this park. The asterisk that's located on the future parks map, Tom has stated before is not on any specific property, it's kind of in a general area and if you can get in that general vicinity, then that is preferable and legally you can't say it's going to go on a particular property. This developer -- we had long conversations about this park and I said, you know, due to the size of it and I would think that this would be an excellent amenity for your development and excellent amenity for the city, because the project is large. What -- I always want to ask myself what is this project going to provide the community and the City of Meridian and, obviously, this would be the park. That's one reason that they agreed it would sell for future impact -- or park impact fees at cost, they would sell part of the property, 20 acres. The five acres would, therefore, be donated and they wouldn't get any reimbursement credits or anything for that five acres, it will be a donation. Moving on to the pathway. The pathway -- Zaremba: Before you move on, can I just -- I guess what I want from you is an opinion, since you stated that this other developer, who is not part of this project, is also your client -- Bowcutt: Yes, sir. Zaremba: Will you be designing their project? Bowcutt: Yes, sir. They have authorized me to start a concept design. Zaremba: But they will, of course, have some requirement for open space and stuff? Bowcutt: Definitely. Zaremba: Are you willing to suggest to them that their open space should, in essence, solve our problem of adding a little bit more to that park and putting a collector there? Bowcutt: Oh, yes. It would make my job a lot easier when I bring it through if it is, obviously, adding to this park. Zaremba: So you could support that? Bowcutt: Yes, sir. Zaremba: I know we can't force you to make the other client do something. Bowcutt: That's correct. I can't make a commitment on their -- on their behalf. Zaremba: Your concept is that you think that would work, they have to have open space somewhere? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 18, 2002 Page 21 of 65 Bowcutt: Yes, sir. That's the way I will be laying it out. My concept will be along those lines, laying it out with a collector and adding some areas to the park. That's just the way it's going to have to go, in my opinion. Zaremba: I could be comfortable with that opinion. Bowcutt: Okay. Zaremba: Now move on. Thank you. Bowcutt: Okay. Thanks. As far as the pathway, in my early meetings with Tom they have like a -- it's not one of their large pathways like they have designated along Five Mile Creek. I can't remember what the terminology was, but it was some type of a pathway. I asked him specifically can -- is that a separate pathway or can that be incorporated into like a sidewalk network that we are going to be doing in this development? He said, no, it doesn't need to be separate it can be incorporated into the sidewalk development. We took it upon ourselves to ask the Ada County Highway District Commissioners for some latitude in order to make this pedestrian network even more user friendly. Instead of having five foot detached sidewalks along both sides, we asked them to give us, the flexibility of going to an eight or a 10-foot enlarged pathway and running it all along this open space along that collector. Then it would either -- it would wrap down like this and then it would transition to a detached sidewalk. The Highway District Commissioners did grant us that latitude. They said get with our staff. If you can work out some issues with the staff concerning as the pathway crosses these intersections and how people would come across, like using stamped concrete or brick, something that is pedestrian friendly and has the ability to consciously or subconsciously make drivers slow down, that's what they want us to work on. What Tom is asking is Tom is asking for a pathway to be separate coming through here. Well, you basically are doubling up. We are trying to do an expanded pathway here, but when you get to this intersection, then you would have a four foot detached sidewalk to take you right into the park. I think it doesn't make any sense to me. That's -- it's a dual purpose. We have also provided, as you can see, a lot of shortcuts to get people up to the park. We have got pedestrian pathways that would come out of this block, come right up here and take them into the park. We have got pathways that come up from this block here. We have added a pathway here bringing the multi-family up through. We have added another common lot right here, based on Dave McKinnon's -- with a pathway that would come through there just like that. We have done everything we can to make this bicycle and pedestrian friendly and find as many shortcuts as we possibly can for the future homeowners or anybody coming into this neighborhood. We feel that taking the pathway to this intersection is the appropriate thing to do. Beyond that would be a duplication. As far as the park improvements, this is not Bear Creek. I did Bear Creek Subdivision. I pushed that park, too. The difference between Bear Creek and this is the fact that the property out there was half as much, because it was unsewerable without a lift station and was supposed to go -- be serviced by the future Black Cat Trunk, so the value of that property was severely diminished by 50 percent easy, even a little bit more. Therefore, they had the ability and it was necessary in order Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 18, 2002 Page 22 of 65 to get the project approved to go above and beyond what would normally -- normally a developer would provide. That was just part of the price that they paid to develop that property. I do know that when we started the first phase it had to be expanded, instead of like typically 50 lots as our first phase. I think they had 130 or something along that line, approximately, because no bank would finance them, because they had that park expense right up front. They said it's too lopsided and we won't finance it and so they struggled with that. In our industry, that's what we call an exaction and an exaction is not legal. That would be just like Tom saying if you write me out a 1.8 million dollar check I'll give you a letter saying this is a great project. I mean that's what it boils down to. It boils down to money. We are providing the park. We have told Tom we will donate five acres. We will sell it at cost. We dropped the six lots. Tom said now -- in our conversations, we told him we would not improve the park for you. He says, well, would you be willing to, when your contractor is out there, have some work done by them, so it would be done more cost effectively, say grading and so forth. We said, yes, that we would, obviously, work with him on that. We didn't have a problem but this is expensive property and we are setting aside and foregoing any profit on this. It took me weeks to convince Mr. Goldsmith that this was the appropriate thing to do. If the City of Meridian starts applying and picking apart and adding more things here and there on the park, I will never get another developer to do a park. Never, and I wouldn't recommend it, either, because if the process is not going to be established. We can't count on what we are told up front when we are in design stages. Things change, the wish list changes, the cost to my client changes, because that was one thing I expressed to the park. If I get a client to do this, they have to know exactly the bottom line, what is that cost going to be for that park. I can't have things changing, I can't have you adding things, and I was told we understand. Well, it's happening and, honestly, I won't -- I won't do another park if this is the way it's going to go. I just can't. I represent my clients, I have to look out for their best interest, and I can't go down that route. Centers: Let me interrupt. I'm just looking at the scale here. The park would have about 200 feet of frontage on Ten Mile, 100 feet on -- Bowcutt: Two hundred feet? No. There is about -- Centers: Isn't that about 100? Bowcutt: No. That's 183 and that's 195, so it's almost -- it's close to 400. Centers: I'm looking at the scale here. Front on Ten Mile? Bowcutt: On Ten Mile. Centers: Of the proposed parkland. Bowcutt: Yes, sir and the frontage here -- this would be -- well, one inch equals 100 feet, so that's probably -- this is probably about 800 feet of frontage on a local street. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 18, 2002 Page 23 of 65 Centers: So give me the frontage on Ten Mile in those two pieces. Bowcutt: One hundred eighty-three. One hundred ninety-five. Centers: Thank you. Bowcutt: And this is approximately 800 here. Also with single loading that, that is another cost, you know, that we incur. We are building sewer, water, streets, and sidewalk both sides, but only are able to take advantage of the one side. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, if I could interrupt? May I ask a question of the applicant? Centers: Sure. McKinnon: Becky, just a quick question for you. I know you discussed a little bit about the 14-foot wide gravel access road. It's going to have to be in place for the sewer to come over from Ten Mile. I might need to stand up. I'll grab my mike. I'll have to get you to turn -- actually, Becky, if I could use that one that you have got right there. Bowcutt: This one? McKinnon: Yes. Just leave it right there. In our original staff report we talked needing a -- the sewer has to come from Linder Road, that's -- from Ten Mile. Yes. Thanks. Sewer from Ten Mile Road. We are going to have a sewer system that's going to run across from Ten Mile to this project. This is the direction of the sewer. We made a requirement in the original staff report for a 14 foot wide gravel access road over the top of the sewer line, so we are going to have to have a location where that sewer is going to come in. If this roadway is going to be at this location, we'd rather see the sewer underneath the roadway, rather than in the park with a 14 foot wide gravel road that goes within the park and Becky would agree that if we put the 14 foot roadway off site in Bews’ property -- Becky, is this property, is that Bews? Mr. Bews. It's that 14-foot easement across Mr. Bew's property that may be the most appropriate location for the roadway. Where that 14 foot wide gravel easement would be for the sewer, that's where we would prefer to see the sewer easement is underneath the road, rather than within a park that would chew up the park space with non-green type surface. Just a point of clarification. I just thought you might want to keep that in mind as we are discussing that. There is that 14-foot road, we do have to bring the sewer in someplace, and I think Becky agreed that the best location for that would probably not be through the park, but actually underneath the road. Bowcutt: Mr. Chairman, for the record, typically, yes, we have to provide an access road next to the sewer trunks in the event that they have to do some maintenance out there. I do believe there are instances, are there not, Bruce, where there is no sewer access road, because whoever granted the easement wouldn't agree to it. I think that has happened. I have had at least one. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 18, 2002 Page 24 of 65 Freckleton: Where? Can you tell me where? Bowcutt: I can't remember, but I know I had one and I know Gary agreed to it. Freckleton: Becky, the only time I can ever remember that we have allowed sewer to go in through a landscape area without an access road over the top is if we have -- in other words, if we went through a landscape buffer between a road and the next street over and, in essence, you would have a manhole in each street that you can get to. There is nothing between. Bowcutt: Dakota Ridge. Dakota Ridge had a large trunk line through the center of the property with no access road and the manholes were set low, because I designed around the trunk. Freckleton: So when Dakota Ridge was developed, those manholes were raised and they followed the roadway system. Bowcutt: We put them in roads where we could and then we put them under pedestrian paths. Freckleton: Correct. Bowcutt: And widened them out for vehicular access but it had been there for years without access. It was a pretty old trunk. Freckleton: Very old trunk. Bowcutt: Obviously, Dave is correct. If we can put the sewer and the water under a street, that's, obviously, preferable. The thing is, we have to get an easement from Mr. Bews's property, which, therefore, would set his design, so if he designs two years from now or develops two years from now or 10 years from now, he would have to design around that and he would have to grant that easement to the city. Therefore, you put this particular developer at a disadvantage if -- in the event that that easement could not be obtained. Zaremba: Where do you see us going? Centers: Yes. What was your plan? Bowcutt: Right at the very, very, very edge. If it went right at this very edge here and then you ran a collector road through here and then it kind of dipped down, you would try to minimize that short stretch where it was not adjoining a roadway. That would be my -- Freckleton: Basically, you would have the manholes in the park, but at the edge. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 18, 2002 Page 25 of 65 Bowcutt: I try to keep them, right, at the perimeter. Zaremba: And where would the sewer access your property or would that go under Anatole? Bowcutt: It goes in I think through this street right here. The other issue was the access to Linder Road. When we designed this, we tried to limit the number of approaches that we had, concentrating our traffic onto the collector roads, instead of decentralizing our traffic like we have done in the past. We have all of our traffic converging on these collectors and then converging at the half-mile marks onto the arterials and that will allow for future signalization. On the east side of Linder, they are working on a concept for Paramount Subdivision. Paramount Subdivision will be even larger than this development. There will also be a high school that will be right on Linder right here and it will take access right there at that intersection. That's what they are trying to plan for, so this could be signalized and that Paramount goes on north clear to Chinden. I think it runs -- it's running a mile in two directions also. The more approaches we put, then the more conflicts we have with the arterials, the more we choke them up. As you can see if you ever go down like Fairview and you have all those accesses coming in, it creates conflicts and creates problems. Obviously, that's an extreme example, but, nonetheless, that's true. ITD has taken the position that they are going to try to limit any access to Chinden, except at that half mile, and they want these properties to interconnect with not frontage roads. Their own internal roadways and that's what we have done here with this private roadway, stubbing it to that property and then stubbing this public street to that property, because that property may not be granted any access to Chinden if ITD, obviously, sticks to their guns. We've tried our best to limit our access points. We also used to design subdivisions so it was convenient to drive wherever you wanted to go. Well, now we have charged our minds and said, well, then people drive -- if it's too convenient the cars are driving 50 miles an hour and there is too many trips in front of these homes. Then we started to make it a little more difficult for cut-through traffic and to make it so there is some places it would be better to jump on your bike or walk, than to jump in your car, because of pedestrian paths and shortcuts. That was, obviously, our intent when we designed this development was to try to minimize approaches and to make people walk a little bit and focus on these collectors. I'd like to jump over to -- Zaremba: While you're still there -- Bowcutt: Pardon? Zaremba: While we are still there before we move on. Bowcutt: Yes. Zaremba: You do have an access at the lower quarter mile point. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 18, 2002 Page 26 of 65 Bowcutt: Yes, sir. I have an access here, an access there and then this will be a future fire station lot that we are also donating to the city, and they will end up with an access. Zaremba: The fire station will, but the people who live around it still have some distance to go, don't they? Bowcutt: That's correct and that was -- Mr. McKinnon's comment was that if you live here you would have to come through and zigzag to get out to your collector roadway or come back this way, depending on which direction you were going to go. The majority of the traffic keep in mind will be going east toward Boise. Shreeve: And that's the question. Where did you come up with a mile? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Shreeve, if you lived at this house right here, this is a half-mile from here to here. You would have to travel one half mile plus some distance and then it's back one half mile. That's a full mile to get to an intersection that's less than a quarter mile from your home. Bowcutt: And also, 10 percent of the traffic they calculate will be captured traffic, because of the mixed uses that are being provided, the commercials, the office, the multi-family, single family, plus the amenity of the park, we will have some captured traffic. With these collectors, one thing that does is it takes heat off of the arterials, because that traffic is moving inside that section. In areas that develop like five years ago or longer, you find that typically, you can't drive all the way through the mid section you have got to get out to the arterials. Some of these subdivisions, the old ones, you didn't even have stubs streets. Well, with this design that takes that heat off of arterials and allows for this to be utilized, which therefore has the capacity to this roadway and this roadway, because you have got that half-mile collector? We also have -- this is about 12 acres of open space right there total. This is six acres. That's our own private park. In addition to the community park, we have to provide some open space under your ordinance, regardless of the fact that this is being provided. We will have play equipment. It would be the play equipment like the commercial type play equipment that you find. Those sets run about 3,000 dollars. They are going to put one in there and then two smaller versions than that run about 12 to 15 thousand dollars. There will be one down in this area and then one in the open space up in the northern portion. Zaremba: Not to get too far off the subject, but have you seen the new playground equipment that's in Storey Park that's made out of mostly recycled materials? It looks pretty nice. I haven't used it, but the kids are using it. Centers: And let me interrupt. Did the Fire Department have any issue with the additional Linder access? I don't think so. Bowcutt: It was not referenced in their memo. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 18, 2002 Page 27 of 65 Centers: And I guess I'm just -- it's just a comment at this time that I can recall the Commission approving a subdivision that I didn't particularly like where there was one way in and one way out. It was -- I don't know what the distance was, but it was quite the -- so I think of that and if the homeowners don't mind the one mile, as Mr. McKinnon states to that one corner, and that's a marketing situation and -- Zaremba: Well, the same issue that you're bringing up. It would take the fire truck almost a mile to get to that property or they'd have to go down to the -- well, they would have to go a quarter mile down to the collector and then a half mile back up to it, so you have suggested that you could put in a bike path or something in there. Do you have any problem making that an emergency -- Bowcutt: No. Zaremba: -- the width of an emergency access, but -- Bowcutt: It would be 20 feet. You would be going from five to 20 feet. Zaremba: So that a fire truck could go through there if they had to or -- Shreeve: So like where would be -- Zaremba: Just about where the B is, I think. Shreeve: Okay. Zaremba: Is that where you're picturing it? Bowcutt: Yes. The closest fire station is located one half mile south of McMillan on the west side of Ten Mile. That's the new station. Zaremba: Certainly. Bowcutt: So we -- the property is -- from that point to this point of this intersection is two miles and with most municipalities that's one thing in annexing property that they are looking at is the existing fire station within two miles of your project for their response time. With this particular property, yes. Then they would most likely come in through that collector roadway would be their fastest route in. Zaremba: But even eventually the park marked K, you're setting aside for this fire station. Bowcutt: That's right. Right here so then they come in that direction. Yes, sir. You're correct. Zaremba: And so what I'm saying is if you put a pedestrian path there -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 18, 2002 Page 28 of 65 Bowcutt: It could double as emergency vehicle access. Yes. While we are discussing fire, we did read the memo from the Fire Department. The requirement for like an Opti- Com in the event that new signals are required with this project being installed or at least paid for by the developer, we are in agreement with that. I think we are in agreement with all of his comments. The only thing that we had any problem with was Item 11. It talks about a minimum of two points of access will be required for any portion of the project which serves more than 30 homes. That's a new requirement that we just -- this is the second time I have seen that requirement. I talked to Mr. Silva concerning that, asking him where did that come from. Our rule of thumb with the Meridian Fire Department always has been a 100-lot limit. Ada County Highway District policy manual states that you can have one access point unless you exceed one hundred lots and when we were doing a project that was two or 300 lots and dealing with Mr. Bowers, we would have to put in that secondary entrance before we hit that 100 mark. Now they have got that at 30. The way the condition is written, it talks about for any portion of the project. My interpretation of that is anytime I build 30 lots, I have got to provide some type of a secondary access to those 30 lots. That would continue everywhere I go within the project what that translates into is we build a 20 foot gravel road that can handle when it gets 9,000 GVW and it's just wasted money and wasted gravel. Typically, like I said, when we hit -- when we are building these you want to get that second entrance on line as soon you as can for exposure purposes and, like I said, before you hit the 100. Thirty is pretty extreme and in my conversations with Mr. Silva, he said, well, that's coming from the International Fire Code. I said, well, have you guys adopted that and he said, no, but we are going to. Centers: Might have said the Uniform Fire Code. Isn't that was UFC stands for? Bowcutt: If you read the -- if you read -- I have got a copy of the Uniform Fire Code, it says more than one fire apparatus road shall be provided when it's determined by the chief that access by a single road might be impaired by vehicle congestion, condition of terrain, climate conditions, or other factors that could limit access. This is what Mr. Silva faxed me, which he said was the International Fire Code. It says the number of dwelling units on a single fire apparatus access road shall not be increased unless fire apparatus access road will connect with future development as determined by the code official. Mr. Silva said, well, we are trying to bring them in compliance with this, even though it's not adopted. I always have a problem when somebody says we haven't adopted it yet, but we are enforcing -- or we are imposing it upon you. It just wastes a lot of money, a lot of money on these temporary access roads. They are not cheap. On the parking limitation, I talked to Dave McKinnon, I agree with Dave, this is neighborhood compatible commercial. That's -- or compatible office and commercial. That's what we have submitted for. We are users. We are looking for something that, obviously, will compliment the neighborhood. We specifically ask that for conceptual approval only, so each one of these users will have to come in for a site specific Conditional Use Permit, come before you guys and the City Council for review. If someone comes in and they are not considered neighborhood compatible -- and we also ask for a single-story limitation, I would expect this body and the Council to deny Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 18, 2002 Page 29 of 65 that use. That's pretty much standard procedure when we do a PUD. I have had PUDs with the City of Boise, Bayhill Springs for example we had a 20 percent exception area with commercial and office. We had doctors, dentists, those went right through, the buildings were gorgeous, and then we had -- one wanted to be -- a car wash wanted to come in. The neighbors disliked it and the City of Boise said that's not neighbor compatible. It doesn't look that good, it's going to capture traffic as it goes down that particular arterial and we don't feel that's appropriate and that application was denied. As far as the parking is concerned, if somebody came in with a use that wasn't compatible, had excessive parking, you guys would have the ability to either, one, deny them or, two, obviously, make them scale back. On the record I do want to make sure that you know that it has to be neighbor compatible type office and commercial. So single level, building should be stucco, some rock, brick. I have done them off of Eagle Road corridor at Legends. I also did Eagle Medical Center I think it's called, on the west side by Bristol Heights. Beautiful buildings and the neighbors have been very satisfied with them. In fact, they kind of act as a buffer and that's the whole intent by putting them on the perimeter that they act as a buffer when these arterials become three and five lanes. They block out noise and, obviously, the visibility of the collector -- or the arterials. Centers: Isn't that what staff is saying, Becky, that, you know, if it is neighborhood friendly, you won't need five per 1,000. I guess I'm asking you is there any mid road here? I mean the staff has said they are willing to listen, but are you willing to back off? Bowcutt: Put me on the spot. Well, we have two applicants here and we have one that's in agreement and one that's in disagreement, I will put it that way. Typically, we find a minimum number of parking is -- is the requirement. We usually don't see a maximum, except the City of Boise has started doing maximums, because they want people to try to utilize public transportation, especially in that downtown area. They have scaled back their parking and have been limiting them. I have been told by people who develop offices that they need five. At Bayhill Springs, I had a doctor's facility where the employees started parking along the local street within the development on -- in front of homes, because the doctors needed those parking spaces for the patients. That was an example. The neighbors got upset, they petitioned the City of Boise to revoke their Conditional Use Permit. They ended up asking for a Variance of the landscaping from the City of Boise, we added some additional parking, and they agreed that they would no longer allow their patients or their employees to park on the street. That's just one example. Even though that was neighbor compatible, we still had some parking issues. It just depends on who that is. That particular instance it was a number of doctors. They had a large number of doctors in that building and they rotated around and that created a large number of patients. That's an example. Centers: I guess if you think about it, you're not going to have a dentist located there that's going to have all of his clientele from that subdivision. Bowcutt: That's correct. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 18, 2002 Page 30 of 65 Centers: Or a doctor or a -- whatever that's going to draw all of his clientele. I mean it's -- that would be nice, but I don't think that's the real world. Zaremba: Well, then, I would even add to that, even if it was patronized only by people from the subdivision, if somebody from the south end of the subdivision patronized a business that was along Chinden, they may not choose to walk that mile or ride their bike that mile. I know you're providing a lot of ways for them to get there, but an elderly or somebody who is going to a doctor because they are not feeling well -- Centers: You're saying people are lazy nowadays? Zaremba: Well, I'm saying there is reasons they would take their car and I know we are trying to encourage people not to and provide alternatives for them not to, but even if it was totally patronized within that area that could be a long distance. Bowcutt: That's true. Zaremba: And I'm in favor of having enough parking there. Bowcutt: The other thing I would like to mention for the record -- and I did discuss it with Dave McKinnon, I met with Commuter Ride, they had two requests of us. One, they want the city to notify them when anything comes in for a Conditional Use application, they want some van parking spots allocated, so that would be another reason. They want some here, along McMillan, and up here on the Chinden corridor and they -- you know, I don't how many they want. They couldn't tell me exactly, but if I do have an extreme limitation, then I don't know how I could reconcile and bring that in - - you know, incorporate that in a project. They also ask for -- it would be nice if they had some bike parking racks to encourage people to bike -- ride their bike down here to catch the van, instead of driving their car down here and catch the van. Those are things that, obviously, that's going to be down the pike, but they do want opportunity for input and send recommendations to your staff when anything develops. I think I covered most of the issues. Dave and I think are pretty much in agreement on most of the other items. Centers: Becky, how about -- let me find my notes. Zaremba: I think we had -- Centers: Number 6 on Page 19. I know what you said. It's the number of occupancies prior to the park being developed. Bowcutt: Well, I think Dave stated for the record that staff would be satisfied with the 250th occupancy. McKinnon: We could work with you on that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 18, 2002 Page 31 of 65 Bowcutt: When they analyzed it, it was just like 11 percent occupancy, then we would have to put in the park area and he thought that 250 was more reasonable. Centers: I'm glad it's mentioned again, because my note was 150 and I didn't hear him correctly. Bowcutt: So, yes, I think the staff and myself are in agreement with compromise. Zaremba: I am only aware of one hanging subject that needs to be discussed. What's happening with Mr. Moss's easement? Bowcutt: Yes. I have been meeting with Mr. Moss and trying to work out some of the issues that he has, since this development does surround his property. As stated before, he has an easement down to McMillan Road. This is gravel to about here and when it hits this property, it turns into an asphalt driveway. What we have indicated to Mr. Moss -- and this came from Mr. Gibson who owns this 80 acres. If he would agree to relinquish his right to that easement, then they would incorporate that into, obviously, these lots, whether they be common or buildable and then they, in turn, would deed this common lot to him and build an asphalt driveway to link up to his driveway. Therefore, he would have -- he would own to the public street and have frontage and that would be done when this project or this section develops. Mr. Moss also asked for -- if we could eliminate these lots and put park area here. In the conversations with my client, he stated we don't have need for open space here, because of where these are located and these are located, obviously, at low points, so that they can double for play grass areas, but yet they are marginally depressed, so that they will take storm drainage. My client said I would be willing to take three of these lots and limit them on the plat to single-story, because Mr. Moss's view is to the Boise front in a northeasterly direction like that. I have been out to his home a couple of times. Also, he asked that we cooperate with him on the style of fencing. He does not want to be walled in with six- foot solid cedar fence. We showed him the pictures that we submitted to you guys at the last meeting where we had the wrought iron with the wood posts. He seemed to kind of like that, it kind of tied in, -- he wanted something that would tie in with the look of his existing rail fence and his home so it didn't conflict. He also asked if we could do some berming fence combination. Mr. Goldsmith has agreed that he would work with him on berming or fencing. Mr. Gibson indicated he would work with him on the fencing, but did not see any benefit to the berming. If you were going to have a fence you could see through, why berm it. That would just elevate the fence even higher, which then could obscure, obviously, his view. I would recommend that Mr. Moss, you know, work with us on the fencing. I don't like to leave it up to the homeowner, because he will probably get some type of fencing that would not be acceptable. It is -- you know, it would be consistent all the way around. There are also some plumb trees along this western boundary. There is -- I think he said right -- pretty close right on the property line we have got a 20 or 25 foot common lot right along there and he asked if we could save those and incorporate them in the landscaping. We said definitely. Be glad to. He had concerns about any ditches that traverse next to him. We told him that we would comply with the ordinance. If any of these ditches adjoining him or us, we Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 18, 2002 Page 32 of 65 would, obviously, be responsible for piping them. If they are on the boundary, your ordinance states even you can just adjoin them you have got to pipe them. I think that covers most of the issues that my client's agreed to concerning the Moss property. Do you have any questions? Zaremba: The three, I think it was, lots that you agreed to have -- be single-story? Bowcutt: Yes. Zaremba: I can't tell from that, but I think I remember from looking at the material given to us, those are fairly large lots, aren't they? Bowcutt: Yes. If you look at them -- I tried to keep the lots large next to Mr. Moss. This is 16,000 square feet, 16,000. This one is 11 and this one is 12 so these really -- the only lot that abuts him is Lot 13. I tried to limit the amount of rear yard or number of lots that would back up to him. We only technically have one. These lots here range from 15,000 to 11 on this side and then 16 and this one is down to 9,475. I tried keeping my depths -- like this is 165-foot depth. Zaremba: Let me address just the three that you're saying would be single-story. Bowcutt: You would be right here. Zaremba: Okay. Bowcutt: Lot 11, 12, 13, Block 6, for the record. Zaremba: If there -- if the berming part of this discussion is not going to work out, would there be enough room on those lots to maybe increase their setback, their rear setback as well? Bowcutt: For these lots here? Zaremba: No. The three that you're talking about being single-story. Bowcutt: They have got 120-foot depth. Yes, they could -- with 120 feet you could have an expanded rear setback. Zaremba: You give up the berm and give them a little bit of rear setback? Bowcutt: Fifteen feet I think is what the ordinance requires. Typically, we see that there is usually about a 30-foot distance on lots like this, with this depth. The builders don't want to build anymore driveway than they absolutely have to, so they go to that 20 foot setback, boom, they set that garage and house. Zaremba: So it wouldn't be a great burden to make that official on those three lots? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 18, 2002 Page 33 of 65 Bowcutt: No, sir. Zaremba: Okay. Does that seem to be satisfying -- Mr. Moss is probably here, we can ask him directly, but does that seem to be satisfying Mr. Moss? Bowcutt: I guess Mr. Moss would have to -- Zaremba: He will come up and speak later, but you're working things out? Bowcutt: Trying. Zaremba: Okay. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if I could just make one comment. Limiting to a single-story in height doesn't mean a whole lot when you have a 9-12 pitched roof. Zaremba: Well, I think our comments from Legal Counsel earlier when we make the statement I think we are going to say single-story with a maximum peak height of 25 feet. McKinnon: Okay. Thanks. Centers: Any other questions for the applicant? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I have one question for the applicant. In reviewing -- just looking over the area around your park, the subdivision, we don't see any storm drainage retention areas adjacent to the park. Were you intending on using any of the park area as storm drainage? Bowcutt: In our conversations with Mr. Kuntz that was one issue that we had asked if there could be a possibility for like a 500 year event, it would have the ability to sheet into the park. Tom's main certain is, obviously, safety. You know, he does not want any swaling. What they did at the Bear Creek Park, I think, is they just barely depressed it. You can't -- I think it's a foot total over the whole park, over 18 acres or something like that, or six inches. You can't -- it's not even visible and in the event, we had a major event it would sheet over that. In my conversations with the Drainage Department at ACHD, they said we should take advantage of these parks for that purpose, because that water has got to go somewhere. A 500-year event usually your seepage beds are full and your ponds are overflowing. We do have to make sure that whatever we do would be acceptable to Mr. Kuntz. When the Bear Creek situation was all done very little money was saved by utilizing the park for 500-year storm, just because of the severe restrictions. I don't know if that's practical. We did ask Tom about it. McKinnon: Thank you, Becky. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 18, 2002 Page 34 of 65 Centers: Thank you. I have a sign-up sheet and have three individuals signed up that would like to speak for the applicant. Would Don Hobbs want to come forward? Hobbs: I'm Don Hobbs, 2683 West Chinden. As stated there, I am in favor of the project. I think it's a well laid out project. It's a terrific design. The first subdivision I lived in had no sidewalks, gravel streets, and all the mailboxes were along the main road and compared to this it was ugly. It's really a nicely laid out project I think. I live right here, so I'm very close to the project. I do have just a slight concern. We talked about drainage. This Harold Ditch runs right down through here. That's probably the low point. It drains quite a bit of that area here. They may have taken that into consideration, I heard some discussion on it, but that would just about be one thing that should be considered. That is pretty much the low point down through that northern part. This up here drains into the lateral, which comes down through like that. Currently that's the way it drains. This is -- my property is around here. Centers: How many acres, Mr. Hobbs? Hobbs: Thirty-eight acres. Some day I'm sure it will be potential development, too. I'm working on a Development Plan. The sewer line comes up through here, I think, and to have access to this property in case of future development should consider where the sewer could come across onto the property. We have discussed that a little -- I have discussed that a little bit with Becky and I don't anticipate any problems there. That's about all I have to say. I think it's really a nice project and it's really a beautiful layout. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, could you have him point out the low spot again? Centers: I was going to have the applicant address that. The drainage, you mentioned the ditch, which -- Hobbs: Harold Ditch. Centers: Harold Ditch. Hobbs: Probably one of the low spots -- quite a bit of this is probably right at this point. Comes off just north of the park. That ditch drains clear down to -- Centers: Any other questions of Mr. Hobbs? Thank you. I had a Marlene -- I can't read the last name. Is -- pardon? They left? Okay and then, we had a Robert Reed -- so husband and wife both left. Would anyone else like to speak for the applicant or in favor of the project? We have three names signed up to speak -- I guess it's noted against the project. Mr. Caskey. Come forward. Caskey: My name is Bill Caskey. I live at 3075 West Balata Court in Meridian and I'm speaking on behalf of a number of homeowners in the Spur Wing Subdivision, which is to the north and west of the Chinden side of the development. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 18, 2002 Page 35 of 65 Centers: Excuse me. Do you have something signed from them or -- Caskey: No, I do not, but I could get that. Centers: You're speaking for yourself, then, tonight. Caskey: Okay. I'm not opposed to new development, but I would say that I am opposed to a development of such a massive scale. A development that does not fully fund the services to support a development of that size. Putting it into perspective, I used a little different number than Mr. Kuntz. If we had five occupants per house, there would be over 5,000 residents in that subdivision. That would be equivalent to the size of Weiser or Hailey and bigger than American Falls. I respectfully submit that we do not need more traffic on Chinden or on Linder. At rush hour, you can wait five to seven minutes to get through that intersection. We do not need more students in the already over-crowded classrooms. We do not need further redistricting, continually moving the students from school to school, depending on which one is built in which year. We don't need a yearly bond issue to try and fund the infrastructure. We don't need commercial development in the middle of residential areas. That whole area would be surrounded by other residential areas and we don't need a negative impact on the adjoining property values because of the density of this development. I figure the density, based on -- it's some 350 odd acres, you take out what's in for roads, what's in for parks, what's in for non-usable space, you're probably looking at a quarter of an acre to a third of an acre per house. That's pretty small. When you talk about a 20-foot setback, that's from that wall to where I was sitting. You're going to have a lot of houses in a little space. I would submit respectfully what we do need -- and I guess I take a little different view of it. I think we ought to have substantial impact fees. I was stunned to hear that the impact fees are 500 dollars per location -- per lot. I would suggest that to fund the burden of the services that are to be required, police, fire, park, sewer, road maintenance, et cetera, that we ought to be in the neighborhood of 10,000 dollars per lot and treat it like a toll road. A toll road -- you know, the people who use the roads pay the toll and that keeps up the road and pays for the road. If you have impact fees you don't put the burden on the taxpayers that are already here, people that oftentimes don't have kids in the house anymore or are on fixed incomes and they are bearing the burden of these developments. A 500-dollar impact fee doesn't pay for virtually anything as it relates to the services that those homes use. My solution would be substantial impact fees on all developments, not just this one, but on all developments in the neighborhood of 10,000 dollars per lot. Thank you. Zaremba: Let me clarify for a moment, if I may. I believe the Parks Director, who mentioned the 500-dollar impact per lot, was only talking the park's impact. There are other impact fees that probably amount to pretty close to what you're talking about. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, there are no other existing impact fees in Meridian, except for parks and ACHD. We have no fire or police impact fees. We discussed it, but -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 18, 2002 Page 36 of 65 Zaremba: Only ACHD and -- Caskey: When we built our home in Meridian we were told no impact fee. We had zero. Zaremba: I know I have a golf course impact fee on my house. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if I could address Mr. Caskey. I have got a couple of questions for you just real quick. Your property -- is your property in the Spur Wing Subdivision? Caskey: Yes, it is. McKinnon: Which is outside the City of Meridian's city limits? Caskey: If you say so. I have a Meridian mailing address. McKinnon: You have a Meridian mailing address that's not part of the City of Meridian. That might be part of the reason you didn't have any impact fees when you built your home. Caskey: By the way, I think I should have. McKinnon: Okay. I have no further questions. That's okay. Caskey: Thank you. Centers: Thank you. Is there a Pete -- I'm sorry. Montaigne: Montaigne. I pass. Centers: Okay. All right. Thank you and Tony Moss. Moss: Good evening. I have been here before. Tony Moss, 2400 West McMillan. I'm the infamous piece of property right here. Famous, infamous, I -- whatever. I have got a list of things here that I'd like to talk about. I have been working with Becky on some of these issues, some of which have been worked out to a certain degree and some of which have been -- until I found out tonight, passed on entirely. I'm going to go down and read these and I'm going to cover each one individually. I think -- can I take the mike over here and do it that way? It might be a little bit easier. If you start with the whole project right here, I would like to see this -- these are my recommendations, because I think I'm probably the biggest factor of this whole -- Shreeve: Mr. Moss, I need to see as well, please. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 18, 2002 Page 37 of 65 Moss: I'm probably the biggest factor of this whole subdivision right here, because of the fact that I'm completely surrounded by it. I'm probably the largest piece of property, with the exception of the piece of property over here that is directly affected by everything that's going on in this subdivision. My easement is right here to here and the size of this piece of property, which I purchased 11 years ago. Heading over from living in Payette and in a rural farming setting, which was a beautiful area to me, has now turned into be a little bit different and is going to be a lot different in the future if this goes through. I want it put on record that I'm against this subdivision, unless certain things are changed to my -- to what I will agree with in the future. I'll go over the list right now. I'd like to see all the lots to the southwest here in this particular area be a 90- foot frontage, which in the map that I have received from Becky that we have been working with, the highest density area is in this piece of property right here. This piece of the whole subdivision, of which is against a piece of property, which goes to this 80 acres right here. I didn't realize how much joint venture this whole thing involved, but Mr. Goldsmith has this area right here and then Mr. Gibson has this area right here. Mr. Goldsmith has been very reasonable to deal with, but Mr. Gibson over the years that I have experienced has not been -- and even until the time that was suggested that I wanted to make effect around our piece property that -- this is because this is the highest density in this particular area. Everything around me in this area right here is 80 foot frontage and I'd like -- if it's at all possible, I could go 80 or 90, whichever would be a more workable situation, but I have had a complete impasse from Mr. Gibson on this particular change. Along this back part of my piece of property right here I'd like to see two houses on the north side and I'd like to see one house on the -- one or two houses on the south side. This is because this is a large piece of property of which I have worked a number of years to be able to create and property values from the standpoint of this entire subdivision affecting my piece of property I think will be pretty substantial. I'm not necessarily crazy about my property values, the fact that I'm going to lose money if I have to sell my house, but if you look at the size of this lot right here and you look at that in conjunction with everything else around it, there is a substantial difference and that's a big issue to me also. I'd also like to see, as Becky alluded to, which she has made some compromises on with the developer, these lots right here, which is Lot 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 being a park. Now I see there is a park here and I see there is a park here and a park here, but there is a very small park here. There is really nothing in this highly condensed area right here, which is some of the smallest lots in the whole subdivision, plus the fact this is the Fulfer property over here. When this is developed I don't know how that's going to all come together, but a logical situation and one of the highly condensed areas would be a park, of which smallest parks -- here is one of the smallest parks here. The larger parks are in some of the larger -- in the large area lots. I don't know what moving this lot would be as far as the groundwater is concerned and also the expense, but I don't see why it couldn't be right here, given the density of this area and the commercial -- possible commercial development down here. Water feature. Why does Mr. Goldsmith put fancy, expensive water features to the entrance out here, but Mr. Gibson, he puts nothing here. If this is a joint event between the two of them, why can't it all be conducive to the rest of the whole development? Here again, refused to by Mr. Gibson to be able to have a water feature similar to what the rest of the area is. Becky did mention that the plumb trees Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 18, 2002 Page 38 of 65 on the side of my lot right here will be -- would remain the same, which I appreciate. That was not an issue. The large fence -- I think I looked at the brochure with Becky and the wrought iron fence is acceptable to me around this area. Still I don't have -- I don't have any settlement on is this going to be a park area or is this going to be single story houses with 54 foot -- what did you say for the height of the roof? Anyway -- Zaremba: Twenty-five foot height. Moss: Twenty-five foot. I don't have that resolved yet either and that's another issue. Let's see. I don't know how -- there is a cement ditch that goes right across here on my property that Mr. Gibson uses to service his 80 acres of turf farm around here. I don't know if that's going to be removed, I don't know if that's going to be up to the same level as the driveway that I have into my property. That has not been resolved either. I'd like to see a berm -- willing to give up a piece of property right here that is mine, because there is a ditch that is serviced by the Settler's Canal that goes right along here, if there could be a berm maintained by the homeowners association in that area and a berm on this side also. If we can put a park in here -- I don't care about a berm, because I'd like to have that just a park myself. The deeded easement and the -- from the bottom part right here that goes up to my property, Becky talked about that, and maintained by -- excuse me -- and curb and paved by the developer. That's acceptable also. As an overall issue, I look at Ten Mile, I look at Linder, and I look at Chinden Boulevard and McMillan Road. They are two lane roads. They are two lane roads right now and I mean to tell you when is Ten Mile that goes those from McMillan to Ustick going to be open again? I mean that's a big question. It seems like every time I go down to turn and go on Ten Mile, between those two streets, it's closed, and so -- you know, you go down to Black Cat or somewhere else. When doing that I noticed the amount of traffic on those four two lane roads and a development of the size of this, when is the actual road work going to be done or -- I can see putting in a development of this size, but is there any time table for the roadway? When are these roads going to be more than two lanes? They are all two lanes right now and there doesn't seem to be any way to expand them to anything else other than that with the size of the developments that are going in here. Is this going to be approved like this with a two-lane road or how much of this is -- are two more lanes going to encroach onto McMillan Road? I don't know but that's really the gray area about this whole development. Centers: Well, I think roads and schools always come afterwards, don't they? Moss: I think you're right. Centers: I don't know that there is any other way to do it, unless you want to spend the money in advance and put in -- Moss: This is a sizeable development for having four two-lane roads all the way around it and nowhere else to go. I mean I listened to the last speaker up here and he talked about Spur Wing over here. Well, you know, that's probably going to expand -- maybe not in the same exponential way that this is, but it's going to probably expand also and Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 18, 2002 Page 39 of 65 so are other developments, the larger one on the other side of Linder, where is this all going to end? Does ACHD have any kind of a plan or any kind of direction for these roads? I don't -- if they do, I haven't heard of it and I guess the overriding issue also is the park thing. That's nice that they are going to put a park of this size in here, that's a good access point, but it sure amazes me that the park issue is something that is being dictated as something for the city. This is a sales tool for this development right here. That is really a sales issue for this whole issue. If this is going to be a city park, does the City of Meridian have to pay for a sales vehicle for this whole development? I mean that's a tough one to swallow and a really tough one for me to swallow, too. The overriding issue is I have got a number of things on my list that Becky and I have not agreed to. Just tonight, she has told me that they won't agree to a lot of these things, because of the attitude from Mr. Gibson versus Mr. Goldsmith. I think it's two different attitudes so this is really not one development this is two different developments. Now I don't know what is going to happen as far as what they have agreed to far as my piece of property, but I know I live there, I know I want to live there, I want live in Meridian. I moved here and this is a great place. When I moved here you had to go clear to Albertson's in town to get some groceries. There was nothing out here and wham, bam, this is happening and going up in a grand style. I'm -- you know, I would be -- I trust Becky and I trust her direction and she's the messenger, but not the person here -- and I'm not down on the messenger, but what I'm getting agreed to are the small things and what are you guys going to agree to. I'm not saying that anybody is telling stories or anything else, that's how I feel about the whole thing. It's been on and off and different directions so many different times I'm amazed. Also, just like this evening, I notice there is a lot of concessions from the developer in the back of the room about, yes, we can put that road in before the fire access; yes, we could do that, but my concessions have been not that great and that's really all I have to say. Any questions? Centers: Any questions from the Commission? Shreeve: Yes. Just one question. On your easement -- easement drive, what you would like to see is that it stays where it is? Moss: What I would like to see -- I would be willing to give up my easement if I could get the concessions that I'm talking about through the developer. I know that sounds a little selfish, because I have a larger house, but I'm only about the only one out there left that -- in this whole section that's got anything that has a real stake out there, other than I guess the Folfers and -- because they have got a -- you know, a big piece of property here, but as a single-family unit out there. I have nobody else helping me on this deal, and so I'm a little selfish on this. I would be willing to do that if I could get the developers to give up what I'm asking right here, which is a park area right here, a less amount of houses here and less amount of houses here and maybe a little bit less density here. I just can't imagine that -- concerning the density of this area of the development, that a park wouldn't be effective right here, because I look at this is all 80 foot frontage right here and then you go down to the bottom ones and it goes 60 to 70. If -- the smallest park is like right there and the City of Meridian is into parks and I need a park, since we all our, why would the suggestion of a density of people dictate no park Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 18, 2002 Page 40 of 65 at all? I really think it's a situation where changes can be made and I think compromises could be made on -- compromises could be made on my behalf and on the developer's behalf, but I don't -- I'm such a big part of this. I didn't want it that way, no one does, if it changes to this effect at this point in time now, there is no stopping what development -- what development happens in this area right here, so I'm abutting something else that I can't control, either -- or I have less control, because a precedent has been set around me. Centers: I think you really hit on it about three sentences previous when you just said that compromises on your part and the developer's part could come to pass. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Zaremba: A separate issue, but staff is recommending that you be annexed into the city. Do you have an opinion about that? Moss: What does that mean? No, I'm kidding. Zaremba: It means you have to hook up to the city sewer and water and pay taxes. Moss: All except the tax part at the end. Zaremba: Not that you don't pay taxes now, but -- you just send the check somewhere else. Moss: No, I'm not opposed to that, but I would like to see the changes be possibly forced on the developer's behalf, too, because it was talked about and, yes, I would have city water and sewer to my house, but I wouldn't have to hook up to it until the house was sold. Is that right, Dave? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the Public Works Department has stated that it would be okay if they did have the water and sewer service brought to their house, but not connected at this time until such time as it's sold or if the well or septic fails, then they could hook up. Centers: And correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not sure that the taxes would go up all that much. The way it's based, your taxes are based on your taxable value and when you're annexed into the city, we would see a certain percentage of that taxable value come to the city. Moss: I think you're right. I don't think they would go up. Centers: Right. We would see part of it and someone else would lose part of it. Moss: Right. Centers: So I think it would be a great benefit to you and your property. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 18, 2002 Page 41 of 65 Moss: Yes. I agree. I'm really not opposed to a situation like that, but I'm not willing to give up my easement that easily, because I think there are some compromises that haven't been made that maybe a little bit more going back to the drawing board can be made as far as this development is concerned. Like I said, I'm not trying to be selfish just because I got the biggest house out there. I just happen to be the person that has it, it just happened that way, and I got -- my army that's behind me is not an army, it's just me, and if I don't do something about this situation right now. I think that what we are talking about right here is not going to affect the financial gain of either one of these developers in any great magnitude. I think it's going to make a better subdivision out of the whole thing and it is going to, you know, give me a lot more peace of mind of the piece of property that I paid for over the last 11 years and paid taxes on and developed to the tax base that it is right and now. So, you know, from doing that I feel like, you know, there ought to be some kind of compromise, somebody that's going to come out there and say I'm going to buy all this land around you and do just as I please and that's basically what they are talking about. I'm not faulting Becky and her presentation, because she's been good to work with, it's the developer Gibson, and it's the developer Goldsmith that -- you know. There is where I want some compromise and I just don't feel that given the circumstances of this development and the planning and everything else -- if it's a planned community to that magnitude, then it should be a planned community for everybody involved here and I'm part of the plan. I'm a big part of the plan. Now if they want to come up and give me a bunch of money for my house I will leave. It would have to be lots of money, but under the circumstances, you know, that's a possibility, but nobody's done that and they have just tried to ramrod this whole thing around me and I just don't think it's fair. I'm against it until -- Centers: Point made. Thank you. Moss: Sorry I rambled. Shreeve: Dave, I assume the densities are pursuant with the zoning and everything on what's proposed? I mean, obviously, it's not -- it's a redundant question, but -- McKinnon: You want to know the density, what -- Shreeve: Yes. Well, the densities matches the zoning. McKinnon: Oh, yes. Shreeve: The zoning designation? McKinnon: Yes, it does. Shreeve: What is the density in the southwest area? Do you have -- McKinnon: I don't have that broken down by individual area and quadrants, no. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 18, 2002 Page 42 of 65 Shreeve: Okay. Centers: Were there any other questions for Mr. Moss? Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak against the project? I would like to take a seven and a half minute break. We will return at exactly 25 after and we will have the applicant respond to the comments. Thank you. (Recess.) RECONVENED AT 9:25 P.M. Centers: Let's resume. I guess the applicant would like to respond to a lot of the comments. Bowcutt: I will be quick. It's getting late. If we can get out of here by 10:00 it will be a record. Shreeve: Oh, come on, it's not even 2:00 or 3:00 in the morning. Bowcutt: I know and that's when you guys do you best work right? Concerning Mr. Caskey's comments of the Spur Wing Development, I'd like to make sure that -- we don't have any of the Spur Wing homes adjoining even 20-26. The closest distance between our north boundary and the perimeter boundary of any of their dwellings is 1,400 feet. As you can see, that's a plat of their development, so what adjoins us is golf course and open space. This is not a Spur Wing Development. This is a mixed urban density type development. Spur Wing is not an urban type development. It's not representative of what's planned in this North Meridian Area. When you talk about being able to provide services and being cost effective, it is obvious that we need higher densities in order to make that happen. 20-26, ITD has done a whole corridor study all the way to Caldwell. They have informed me that they are going to go into design to build five lanes all the way from -- what is it, Cloverdale out to Caldwell. They don't know when they will have the money or the budget to do so, but that is their plan. They are going to be severely restricting access, because they want to make sure that 20-26 carries high volumes of traffic at high speeds. That's always ITD's intent on state highways. When we start choking them up with a bunch of approaches, they say it defeats the whole purpose. Impact fees, hook-up fees, and permit fees, Mr. Caskey was concerned about this project, obviously, paying its own way. When you look at the impact fees, hook-up fees, and permit fees, this project is paying for 5,868,000 dollars in -- for those three categories. Also, this project is providing a substantial contribution to the city with this community park. The first time any park of this size has ever been incorporated into a project. Bear Creek was the first one, but its park was only about 18.2 acres. One needs to also consider that in addition to this park and excluding it, this project has a total of 30 acres of open space. Just because we are providing the community park area, reserving that and donating five, we still have to meet the requirement for the five percent open space and all of our buffers, you're not cutting any Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 18, 2002 Page 43 of 65 slack at all. Mr. Moss's comments, I appreciate the fact that Tony says that I tried to work with him, because I have. I have spent a lot of time and he spent a lot of his valuable time trying to iron out these issues. Typically, when we have a property that's surrounded by development, it's almost impossible to meet all of the things on their wish list. It does impact Mr. Moss. I think he talked about if this is a planned community he wants his parcel to be considered as part of that community and we feel the same way and that's why, obviously, we have planned for alternative access within our development. I told him in the beginning he had his choice, he could -- we can get ACHD to let him have access to the collector or provide a separate lot that would be part of his parcel and he would have public street access there with a new driveway. He indicated that this was his preference, because his existing driveway is here and his garage is oriented in that fashion. We do the best we can. I want to make it as painless as possible. I know this is going to impact his property and when we design these, we take that into consideration. Limiting the lots, making them deeper, trying to put in measures, have single-story, berming, and fencing, type of fencing that are palatable to them. Concerning the water feature, yes, we have proposed, as you saw at the last hearing, we do have some extensive waterfalls that will be installed in these medians out on our perimeter. I talked to Mr. Gibson's representative Mr. Clark about a waterfall feature here and he said his client did not want to make that commitment at this time, because he's not sure if this -- right now this is a turf farm. That's the way they want to keep it for a while and he -- they wanted some latitude. Maybe they will put a waterfall in there, maybe it will just be extensive landscaping, but we are providing, you know, a large enough median that something nice could be done. As far as Ten Mile Road, I do want to apologize to Mr. Moss. It's my fault Ten Mile Road is being closed forever. There has been sewer extension and water extension on Ten Mile Road. We had some problems where because of that inadequate road base in the existing Ten Mile Road where we went in and installed sewer and put the patch there, the road started pumping, which means it starts rolling on us, so we had to go back in, close the road again and rip it out. One thing that we have done is we have convinced ACHD, at least in this particular case, that their participation with us would be in their best interest and in the best interest of this community. They annied up money and the allowed us to rip out part of the other lane and they are paying for that. We can go in and do a whole new section of asphalt and then they put it back on the overlay list, because it was taken off two years ago. We are going to do a third phase of Bridgetower, doing a decal or a center turn lane and they will come in and do their overlay right after that. The road is not cut. We put sleeves under it going to the west, because my clients own to the west, so people aren't coming back in and cutting those roads after they are overlaid and it will all look nice and fit in. We are making some in- roads as far as getting the Highway District to make some improvements in this area. As it was indicated, it's just going to take time. You have to remember we are not going to have 1,033 units next year if this is approved. This is a seven to 10 year, maybe longer project, depending on the market. It comes in a phase at a time. Our phases are usually around 45, 55 lots and that's what's coming on line at a time. It doesn't happen overnight. I think the Highway District and the development community, we have been working and meeting for weeks and weeks so -- on the North Meridian -- excuse me -- months and months on the North Meridian Project and we are finally Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 18, 2002 Page 44 of 65 getting somewhere. We got a pretty good draft, it's out for comments, and we just held a transportation meeting about a week and a half ago. Everybody is looking to upgrade these roadways and use some creative measures, some private-public partnerships to get these upgraded before you have 1,033 units on line, making sure that some of these impact fees are being concentrated in this area. That was one of the main topics. Instead of stealing from this area to improve roadways in other areas, because they are always stealing from Peter to pay Paul, they are always behind the eight -- you know, the eight ball here and so we are trying to make sure that that doesn't happen again. My clients have been paying me to go to these meetings and participate and we have been incorporating all the ideas that have been coming forth. I think that's about it in conclusion. We have got I think a wonderful project. The densities are low compared to some of the other projects that have come before you and -- or are coming before you. We have got a good mix, collectors, amenities, it's a wonderful project, we have really enjoyed putting it together, and your staff has worked with us wonderfully. The Planning Department has been top notch. A lot of great ideas that we incorporated so thank you. Centers: I would like to add at this time, before I forget it -- and then any questions from the Commission. I appreciate the way this presenter responds to the staff comments. It makes it easy for me to see where you stand or the developer stands. If you have an organization that you attend with other people in your business, please pass on those comments. Bowcutt: Okay. Centers: I have meant to mention this to you before. I don't know how the rest of the Commission feels. Zaremba: I would second that. I found it real easy to put the comments and your response side by side and put them together Centers: Right. Bowcutt: Good. Thank you. I appreciate that and I will pass that on to the other planners. Centers: Any questions? Shreeve: Just one question. Zaremba: You will be giving your competitors good ideas. Bowcutt: That's true. Centers: Commissioner Shreeve. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 18, 2002 Page 45 of 65 Shreeve: Just the -- the corner lots on the east side of his -- of Mr. Moss's property and just to bring up the park issue just one more time. Why is -- I guess the question is could you move a park over there and, of course, do without one of the other parks, make the lots -- catch up the lots in that area? Is that even a possibility? Bowcutt: Right here? Shreeve: Right. Bowcutt: Are you looking at that area there? Shreeve: And, of course, foregoing another park, you know, obviously, trying to make a difference -- Bowcutt: You're talking about taking this over and relocating it to that location? Shreeve: Right. Bowcutt: It's possible. I won't say it's not possible. We kind of do what we call a Conceptual Drainage Plan when we are working on these to identify where those low points are going to be. Obviously, we are dealing with a rather flat piece of ground, so you can go in, and you kind of grade it and design it the way you need it. Most generally, we find ourselves adding open space. We never take away. Obviously, that's not appropriate, but we always end up adding space. It would, obviously, be up to my client or to the Commission if they deem that that is appropriate to allocate those two lots and see if we could move some open space to that area. I guess my client's answer to my question on record is if we had some flexibility, if you mandate that that open space be located there and that has no -- we can't make it function as far as the drainage is concerned. Then he would be opposed, but if we had the latitude to where we could move it over there if it works, great. We'd be glad to. Moss: Just the two lots because I recommended four? Bowcutt: Those are the two that adjoin the boundaries -- Centers: Yes and I think if there is going to be negotiations it should be outside the hearing. Bowcutt: Outside the room. Moss: Okay. Zaremba: Would you address the impact of not having any part of that easement relinquished? Bowcutt: The impact, obviously, it's a visual. Esthetics. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 18, 2002 Page 46 of 65 Zaremba: Shorten some lots by 25 feet? Bowcutt: Yes. Zaremba: It sure makes the lots practical. Bowcutt: Yes. In my original design I had that as a separate lot that ran clear down from McMillan, then we thought that could cause us some problems if he did relinquish it, so then we showed it out as an easement. If it has to be a lot, these lots can stand- alone. We just tweak them a little bit to make sure but, yes, I would not lose any lots if that to stay. I faced this situation once before in the Legends Subdivision. The out parcel was right in the middle, five acres. Mr. Mariani owned it, which owns Computrol here in Meridian. He had about a half a million-dollar house there, long driveway, paved all the way. We worked with him, the solution was identical to what I proposed here, and it worked out great. He relinquished his right to it. In that instance, he owned that 25-foot strip, though, so my client purchased it from him. This is just an easement and we incorporated it into the lots, because the City of Boise didn't want to see that corridor there. Zaremba: Well, it would be difficult here to cross some stub streets and -- Bowcutt: Yes. You just -- if his driveway stays, this is gravel and he would drive -- and if this were to be developed, he would drive along -- our landscaping would start at the western edge of the driveway. Then he would have to drive across the public right of way and into his driveway. Then, obviously, there would have to be some type of fence -- perimeter fence on the other side. It's not preferable. I think it would be in the best interest of Mr. Gibson and Mr. Moss to come to some middle ground on getting rid of that driveway, if at all possible. Shreeve: Dave? A question, because this is still an unresolved issue with the easement does that -- I guess if we were to make a motion to approve this, I believe you would be approving it as an easement right now, since there is no agreement made between the developer and the property owner. If they come to some kind of a resolution, that constitutes a significant change or -- McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Shreeve, Becky, I tried to address that a little bit earlier. We would not consider that significant change. In talking with Shari about that -- and Shari's the Planning Director that makes that call -- she agreed that that would not be a significant change if we did that. However, as far as making a motion tonight and then pushing it forward, it would be helpful if we had some language in the staff report that reflected that, that said if the relinquishment is not removed it could become a common lot -- it would be actually two common lots. It would be Lot 2 of Block 3, I believe, and it would also be lot -- I'll have to change the numbering, probably Lot 2 of Block 4, but it creates -- three. Excuse me. Well, actually, the third one is going to have to happen anyway, so there is actually only two, but to create two Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 18, 2002 Page 47 of 65 additional lots, that would not be considered a significant change. Just the opportunity to see it and be able to write something on it would be helpful for us as staff, rather make a motion tonight. Centers: Any other questions? Shreeve: Not at this time. Centers: Thank you. Staff have any comments or -- McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, just a couple comments to echo a little bit about what Becky said. We have had a -- and what Commissioner Centers has said. We've appreciated the opportunity to work with the applicant on this. They have been very helpful in working with us to try to create a good project here and applaud the efforts that they have made to do that. We still have some outstanding issues. We do think this is a good development. There are some outstanding issues that do need to be addressed that we'd like some clarification from you on. I know we have hammered a lot of those issues and I know you will get to those. If there is any issues that we'd still like to see resolved that you guys don't cover in our meeting tonight, we will bring those up before -- in closing before you move on to the next topic. Just so that we can have some clarification, just to remind you that the staff report that we have is still in draft stage. There were a few items that were still in the air. One concerning Bruce's modeling and the applicant would still like to see that, they have some impact on this project. With that I would just like to let you guys have at it and if there is any questions for me or Bruce, feel free to ask. Centers: Well, I guess I have got to agree with what you -- we kind of tiptoed around. I think without much doubt the project and the applicant should be continued to the next available hearing, because I think there is a number of issues that need to be resolved and would like to -- for the applicant and staff to jump in at anytime. I think, number one, we have the collector Ten Mile issue and, by the way, whether we agree or disagree with the applicant, I think that issue has to be re-addressed. If the applicant feels strongly, that's fine. Item 1 on Page 7, I guess I have got to agree with the applicant regarding that legal description, so forget that. That's a non-issue. Whether the Moss parcel is in or out, I guess we know how staff feels, but that's part of the negotiation between Moss and the applicant. Number 9 on Page 8, staff report alluded to negotiating with Mr. Bews, the parcel south, for that collector and the applicant addressed that, in my opinion. The Linder Road connector that staff wanted an additional connection and the suggestion was made to make a pathway 20 feet wide for emergency access, maybe that's been touched on. The -- satisfying the parks department I think is probably -- the Parks Department and Mr. Moss I think are probably issues one and two, not necessarily in that order. Would that be correct? There, again, the collector. I think the applicant addressed the storm water drainage. There was never anything talked about as far as the pressurized irrigation. I can't understand where the applicant is coming from where they haven't decided what they are going to do. I think they need to decide. If the homeowners are going to be Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 18, 2002 Page 48 of 65 responsible, we need to know that prior to going to City Council. If you disagree, let me know. I tend to agree with the applicant on the parking for the commercial and that was one of my notes. I had two more. No. We are fine. Anything else that you think needs to be -- or the Commission, please jump in. The Public Hearing is still open, by the way. Shreeve: Yes. There are a couple points, Mr. Chairman. Just to add to that -- and I'll state that I agree with all that you have said. Also just, I guess, for consideration of the staff, does their comments -- but 250 occupants before the park, I think that is very reasonable to have that. Then one other is the access points for the 30 home criteria. I think that that -- that, in my opinion, is pretty excessive. Something needs to be worked out I think on our side of the -- Centers: The Fire Department letter? Shreeve: Correct. Zaremba: Correct. Shreeve: But certainly to have at least two access points generally speaking, but not necessarily two accesses per 30 lots. In fact, you have more access points than you have on there now. I think something needs to be worked out reasonably with the applicant on that issue. Those are the only other comments that I have. Oh, one more, actually. It is the sewer and the gravel roadway. I would -- I don't know what the city policy is, but probably tend to agree with the applicant from the standpoint that if we know that there is going to be a road, certainly we would want to put the sewer where a future road would be. I don't know if we necessarily need to construct a gravel roadway, but that would certainly be the Public Work's Department call on that one, but I have seen manholes out in the field with no roads constructed, but yet still very accessible to get into those manholes to yet know that there will be those manholes. I will leave it to the city to make that call, though. That's my comment. Centers: One more addition. Excuse me. We have the letter from the Police Department, his last -- last line recommending denial period. My opinion on that letter, that should be addressed by the City Council and I'm not -- personally I don't -- I think the City Council should address that. Freckleton: I agree. Centers: Bruce, did you have something? McKinnon: Before Bruce jumps back in on that gravel road issue just one other issue that I think needs to be addressed is the pathway issue. Centers: To the city park -- McKinnon: Yes or to the city part from the horse circle. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 18, 2002 Page 49 of 65 Centers: Yes. In their letter. McKinnon: Okay. Zaremba: I agree with all the issues that have been raised to this point and I think there is still one more that we haven't discussed. The phasing -- Centers: Phasing? Zaremba: Phasing. McKinnon: So you have a question on the phasing, Commissioner Zaremba? Zaremba: Well, staff had a question about it and the question is a legitimate one. We have said on other projects that you need to start your phasing at the continuous line that qualifies you for annexation. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Zaremba, we just went through a similar project -- not on the same size or scope of this project, however, it was the Tuscany Lakes project, a rather large project. The City Council determined at that time when they approved that project that it would okay to start at three different access points at one time for three different phases that were not contiguous to each other, but that were considered Phase 1. That's basically, what we have in front of us tonight. Staff, considering the precedence set by Council approving that, I don't have a problem with that anymore. It's not a major concern of mine. The phasing for this project that has been requested doesn't throw up any white flags to me. I do have some concern with the 14-foot wide gravel road and that does have some impact as to bring in the sewer into this property. I know Bruce probably will want to address that just a little bit, that we need to know the location of where that's coming in. If there is going to be an easement, it has to be secured for that and that's something that needs to be addressed, or if it's coming through on the park and utilizing the park area for that. I think that's an issue that we need to have resolved prior to going on with this project. I think you did cover everything that we had the Moss's property, the collector, hit that. I'm going through my punch list. I would like the applicant to include two turnarounds. I think it was at the Public Hearing, the two turnarounds. The applicant's nodding approval that they will include those. The storm drainage lots, point those out again. The street connection to Linder -- when you made the comment that we have addressed that and we talked about putting in the 20-foot wide pathway. I don't know from the Commission if there is an agreement on that, if that's the direction you would like to go with that, if it's a consensus, and if that is, I'd like some direction from that staff and have the applicant include that in their project. Just one comment on the 20-foot wide pathway. If we are going to have a 20-foot wide pathway, we typically would have a pathway that's going to be five to 10 feet wide in size for a pathway and then on the sides of it we usually put landscaping. If we are going to be driving vehicles across it, a vehicle cannot drive well on landscaping, especially very heavy fire trucks. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 18, 2002 Page 50 of 65 We need to put some sort of gravel in that area. If we are talking about 20 foot on a minimum, we are talking about basically landscaped -- no landscaping, we are just talking about a gravel area with a path. I don't know how visually appealing that is. You may want to talk about making it wider than just the 20 feet and having that 20 feet be grass creet or some pathway involved with the grass creet that could hold the weight of the truck. Shreeve: Make it so. McKinnon: Make it so? Okay. It's done that way. We will get it done that way. We include grass creet at that location. Does the Commission all agreement with that? I see nods. Okay. I will keep going. The octagon was covered. The park set at 250, that's something that we can go with. The parking, the five to 1,000 is a market standard, it very much is, and as far as staff, we can go to that direction, but the staff report that we have written now does not reflect that. I'd love to get your comments concerning that collector. I'd like some direction from you on that as to where we want to go with that, whether you want the Council to make that decision or whether you want to make that decision and have revised drawings. If you want to have that pathway continue to Ten Mile -- to the park on Ten Mile, I'd like to see some revised drawings showing that seven to 10 foot wide pathway. We have got it going halfway across the block -- halfway across the mile section and then it stops at that half mile and doesn't continue that other quarter mile to the park. There was Tom's proposal. I don't know how you wanted to address that. Tonight was the first time I heard that, too, with the -- we don't have a collector on that road, we have all those lots that we would blow out and then put the park down on McMillan. That's the first time I had heard that was tonight when he was reading that as well. I don't know what your comments are on that. I -- Zaremba: My personal comments -- McKinnon: I'm a little speechless myself, too. Zaremba: -- the location as proposed is much preferable to me than McMillan. That would be a major revision in this plan to put it on McMillan and it also gets closer to the -- what is it, the 57 acre park that we are already in the process of developing. Just one comment. Somehow, the connector to the south of the park and the sewer easement seem to me like they ought to be able to wrap into one subject or one solution somehow. Centers: The connector to Ten Mile? Zaremba: The connector to Ten Mile south of the park and where the sewer is going to go. Centers: You're not going to have a connector to the Ten Mile unless you lose a part of the park where Mr. Bews dedicates it and I think the applicant addressed that, so -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 18, 2002 Page 51 of 65 Shreeve: So potentially you could end up with a sewer line on the south edge boundary of the park and potentially at some point in time gravel, then, because if there was no -- if the city requires an access, then further south a full fledged collector road -- Centers: Possibly. Shreeve: Yes. Centers: When that's developed. Shreeve: Not the most appealing, but you know, if we don't have the other developer involved, I think that's not too good for either development. Centers: And I guess I would speak up for -- we are still in the Public Hearing, but -- because I'm going to be on the other side of the fence next month. You mentioned having the Council decide it. I don't think that's a good idea. I think we should recommend what we want to see, whether it be in agreement with the applicant or not. The pathway, I -- personally, I'm in agreement with the applicant. They are providing a five-foot sidewalk for about 10 lots there for eight and, you know, I think there can be some compromise there. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman? Centers: I agree with Mr. Moss, you know, the Gibson property. He doesn't have a nice fancy entrance like the other two. There are different compromises here. What was surprising to me was the amount of frontage on Ten Mile Road and the applicant for the trees. Well, you cut a road in and you build a parking lot like you have Tulley Park and when we toured that the other night, I was very negative about that until I saw the frontage, 183 feet and 195 feet. There is plenty of room to go in and -- like Tulley Park and have your parking, because you're going to lose part of the 25 acres, but I guess that's part of the -- Shreeve: In fact, just real briefly. I would like to -- I would be interested in seeing kind of a footprint. I know it's not required at this stage, but to see what kind of parking -- how many parking stalls maybe could be put in there, just -- Mathes: Can't they put parking on off of Ten Mile in that green area? Centers: Now Tulley Park acreage includes the parking lot? McKinnon: That's correct. Centers: All right. You don't all think soccer fields when you talk parking lots. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 18, 2002 Page 52 of 65 Mathes: So could you put parking lots on each side, the Ten Mile side, and the subdivision side? McKinnon: They sure could on both sides. Shreeve: And, again, it's not necessarily required, but it would be interesting to see just what it would look like. Zaremba: Well, the assumption is there is going to have to be some parking inside of the park area no matter what. I would assume if you have a collector to the south, you can't park cars on the collector. Shreeve: I have one more comment, too, before I forget and that is the park on the -- basically the east side of the Moss property. If you could look at that, the applicant, and consider moving it or whatever the case may be and try to work something out there on that regard. Otherwise, is that all the issues? Well -- or do we need to go with the collector? I think that's out of our hands. It's just a matter of them trying to get the sewer and the road and meet whatever gravel road requirements that the city may have. Centers: Well, I don't know how a collector is possible unless you lose part of the park. Shreeve: Or are involved in the property -- Centers: Yes and how can we -- Mathes: And we don't know what -- Centers: I don't think so. You know, I would say this, speaking out loud we continue this to our August 15th , which is our normal date to hear continued hearings. I would think -- and tell me if I'm wrong -- that we should be able to come to a decision yes or no that night. Shreeve: Yes. I think so. Zaremba: It would be helpful to have a revised staff report, which I'm sure is what they are planning to do. Shreeve: With hopefully, ideally, enough time so that Becky can have a rebuttal. Zaremba: Yes. Can have a response to it again. Shreeve: And because it's such a big one, hopefully we get your comments, the rebuttal, and several days in advance so that we can review them, rather than the day of. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 18, 2002 Page 53 of 65 Mathes: And maybe she can compromise with Mr. Moss. Zaremba: I would only say if it weren't for the sewer issue we actually could put off the collector issue. If they are phasing from east to west and this is a seven to 10 year plan, it's going to be several years before they get over to where you have to decide where the collector is going to go, the collector road to Ten Mile. The only difficulty is they need the sewer in now, because before they connect the first house the sewer has to be there. Shreeve: That's absolutely true, they just need 250 lots, and then they have got to come over to the park. Zaremba: That's true. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: It's the sewer that drives the decision about probably where the collector goes. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, just some clarification for the applicant and myself. The issues we have discussed tonight, you would like to see a revised site plan, the corrections that we have talked about tonight, the turnarounds, the collector, you would like to see some drawing on the collector as to where it's going to be located. Is that correct? You'd like the applicant to provide that to staff? Centers: Well, I guess if you're proposing one that would be fine. You can propose where you want it. McKinnon: The direction I'd like from you is where -- just for the applicant, where would -- are you going to require a collector road or not? If so, is it going to be on the park property, so that they can draw this up for you to review and so that we can write a staff report based on whether or not there is a collector in that location. Centers: Does everyone agree if we required a collector it would have to be on the park property? Shreeve: Yes but, of course, the argument is that if you put in the collector, then that's right, that's setting up a wall saying, well, now we can't add to the park potentially in the future. I don't know if the collector is necessarily necessary at this point in time. The only catch is you have got a sewer line, so, you know -- Zaremba: It would be useful to see if discussions could be had with the other developer about the location of the sewer line. The presumption being that eventually a collector road will be built over it. I'm not so pleased about the sewer line running at the lower edge of this current property, that messes a whole lot of stuff up. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 18, 2002 Page 54 of 65 Shreeve: Has there been any communication with just getting a temporary easement? No but that's the only thing. I guess my feeling is a collector, yes, at some point, but probably not -- Zaremba: Well, then the alternative is it does appear to be possible to use Ten Mile as the collector and have the parking come off of Ten Mile. There is more access there than any of us think, I think. That's not a happy alternative. Well, it's definitely an issue that needs to be resolved. Centers: Does that answer your question, Dave? McKinnon: Yes. Just a couple more questions for the Commission. The walking pathway on Linder Road, do you have any preference as to the location of that for the applicant when they redraw this? You're all in agreement of allowing a 20-foot wide access to Linder in the quarter mile section between the collector and the top part of the project? Is there any preference as to where that location should be, whether it's -- Centers: I think you would want it close to the Fire Department site. Zaremba: I would visualize it being somewhere in the area of the letter B, which refers to something entirely different, but that's -- Shreeve: You could build a back door to the Fire Department and drive straight up. Centers: Or have long hoses. Zaremba: I would leave that up to the applicant, but I think somewhere in the neighborhood of where that letter B is referring to something else. McKinnon: A secondary question to that -- and this is just my own questioning, would you prefer to see just the one access to Linder at that location or would you prefer to see a secondary bike or pathway that might not have to be 20 feet in width? My personal preference would be, just from a planning aspect, is the people up on Rattlesnake Court, if they want to ride their bike to get out there are going to have to travel down to the other side and then the people on the other side have to wrap up around to get there. Would you prefer just to see the one or would you prefer to see two? From a planning aspect, I would prefer to see more than less, but that's a question for you. Is the one enough to satisfy the breaking up of Linder at that point? Shreeve: You know, there is just a personal thought. Again, I'm a fan of cul-de-sacs, we all know that, and I like cul-de-sacs and one thing about having a path connected to a busy road potentially might get strays off of busy road and -- that's my personal thought is the more secluded the better for those who prefer the cul-de-sacs. McKinnon: So you're all happy with just the one? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 18, 2002 Page 55 of 65 Shreeve: It's one thing to interconnect within the development, but that coming out to a busy road, I think I wouldn't like that. Centers: You sound like a subdivision dweller. I tend to agree. Zaremba: I would agree with Commissioner Shreeve on that one. McKinnon: Okay. Chairman Centers, Commissioners, I just had a couple questions for the applicant, Becky or Justin, one of you guys or -- is Becky still here? Becky, can you come up to the mike real quick? Centers: Would you like to come up, Ms. Bowcutt? McKinnon: Okay. Ms. Bowcutt, do you have all of the -- do you have everything that you need from us to go ahead and redraw all the changes? Bowcutt: Yes. I'll make the necessary changes and we will have some additional meetings and see if we can figure out some solutions to these other gray areas and come back to you and we'd like to, you know, have this body make a decision when we come back and so we will do our best to answer as many as possible to clear it up. McKinnon: Just one more question. If we continue this to the next meeting, that would be the second meeting in August. Is that going to give you enough time to make those changes, get them to us, so that we have them at least ten days prior, so that we can get them to you -- Bowcutt: Yes. Plenty of time. McKinnon: Plenty of time? Bowcutt: They can do those changes in an hour. Zaremba: Ten days prior would be the 5th of August. Bowcutt: August 5th ? Zaremba: Monday, the 5th of August. Is that what you're talking about? Centers: Correct. Shreeve: Get your engineers whipped into shape. McKinnon: If it only takes an hour that would be great, Becky. Centers: And to make us feel good, Ms. Bowcutt, did you expect this to be continued tonight? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 18, 2002 Page 56 of 65 Bowcutt: Yes, sir. Centers: All right. Bowcutt: I think Bridgetower Crossing was three or four times. Yes. You're right on track. Freckleton: Could I ask one question of Ms. Bowcutt? Bowcutt: Yes, Mr. Freckleton. Freckleton: Getting back to the sewer issue across the top of Bews. Bowcutt: Yes. Freckleton: Have you had conversations with Frank or Ed about the possibility of them granting an easement for the sewer? Bowcutt: I did not discuss the issue of granting an easement for the sewer. I discussed the issue of allocating an area for park and collector or single loaded street. So -- but I did not discuss the issue of sewer. I will and I will have an answer from them for you. Freckleton: Thank you. Centers: Thank you. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Centers: Yes. Zaremba: I'm prepared to make a motion, if that's appropriate? Centers: You bet. Zaremba: Okay. I move that we continue the Public Hearing on three items, AZ 02-010 and PP 02-009 and CUP 02-012 until our meeting in the 15th of August. That's the motion. Centers: Do I hear a second? Mathes: I'll second that. Centers: All in favor? Motion carried. The hearings will be continued to the second meeting of August. Thank you. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 18, 2002 Page 57 of 65 MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 8: Planning and Zoning In House Laundry List – Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance Amendments: Zaremba: Just one comment on PP 02-009, when we get it on our agenda the next time, it changed from 876 lots to 856 lots. It should be noted. Centers: Yes. It's 862 to 856. Zaremba: Is it? Okay. More change than I had. Centers: That's the residential. We had one other -- but we can close the Public Hearing. Zaremba: Well, we continued that. Centers: We continued, but we can close tonight's Public Hearing and hear Item 8. Zaremba: Do we want to make a motion was the question, whether we want to discuss this without our chairman here? Shreeve: That's a good way of putting it off. Zaremba: Well, we have the offer of many of these things with us, unfortunately, most of us have not had the opportunity to read -- Shreeve: I have had this for several months. I read it many months ago. Quite honestly, I haven't had the chance to look at it and then there is the new stuff. McKinnon: If I could offer just a couple comments for you concerning the stuff that you have got in front of you and the stuff you got a couple months ago. There haven't been a whole lot of other changes. I have added a few things to the Cell Tower Ordinance based on a couple of work sessions that Council had on the cell tower. They are anxious to get something with that rolling. However, we were hoping, actually, to push for a separate meeting. I know this is going to impose on you as a Commission, but rather than have to tangle with all the development plans with projects like Lochsa and the Scottsdale, if we could have an actual meeting that's a Public Hearing on a separate night away from the development where we could actually discuss these and could make motions on these. These would be the only items on the agenda. Centers: Then might I suggest August 29th ? McKinnon: Be happy to do that if you -- if you guys are available on August 29th , then we could do that as a special meeting. We could notice it -- I guess give Shari enough time to notice the public meeting, gives me enough time to organize all the issues that I Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 18, 2002 Page 58 of 65 have got, because I have got some that you don't have in front of you that are still in even more draft stage. Give me some direction tonight as to what you would like to see, some other items that you don't have in front of you. I'd like to bring to you, home occupation ordinances, another one would be a lot split ordinance, so that we take one, split it into two, we don't have to see it as a Preliminary-Final Plat, it would be something that we handle on a staff level approval. The way our ordinance is written right now any division of a lot would require a subdivision. So that kind of puts a little burden on you guys that we could actually handle it on a staff level and we could take those off of your agenda and it would be easier for us, because then we don't have to spend the time to do the reports. The other item that we'd like to address and it has just a little bit to do with the Lochsa issue that I haven't worked on much yet, but I'd like to have available at that meeting, would be some parking standards -- new parking standards. Ours are very outdated. The standard parking for one parking space for 400 square feet of office doesn't cut it and I would be happy to meet with people. I have met with architects, I have looked at APA manuals, I have talked to other people, traffic engineering manuals that talk about parking requirements and, Commissioner Zaremba, I'm sure you have spent a lot of time with that in your profession. I would appreciate any comments that you have for the Commission and I know, Commissioner Centers, you have some input on that I'm sure as well and some understanding with that. We'd like to have something concerning the parking in front of you, because I realize ours is outdated. There is a number of other issues that, you know, we will bring in front of you. The Dust Ordinance that I submitted in this packet, I don't know if you have received that yet. There is still some discussion going on with COMPASS right now, that's the regional planning authority, and they are trying to define one that would be valley wide. Ours is a little more aggressive than what they want to adopt. The one I prepared has a little more teeth in it and I don't think that that's necessarily a bad thing to be more aggressive than passive, especially when it comes to enforcing the issues we have to deal, health, and safety. That's something that I know the Council is working with. The Council has seen the Dust Ordinance and they have wanted to wait on that, but I included it with this packet, so you guys would have an opportunity to familiarize yourself with it. Eventually it will be in front of you, I have included some information, and it's informational as well concerning the PM-10, PM-2.6, and all the things that go into dust ordinances, just some clarification and just some information for you. I don't know if I got everything here. I have the cell tower. Is there anything that you guys would like to see that we haven't prepared yet, which you would like to see in front of you at a special meeting? Any pet issues that you would like to see? Centers: Well, the one thing that comes to mind, Dave, was the industrial zone clarification. Zaremba: My pet issue is the conflicts between Chapter 7 and Chapter 8 of the current ordinance, the definitions of the chart of basically the same material. McKinnon: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 18, 2002 Page 59 of 65 Zaremba: And I think I have that -- I didn't get a chance to review it, but I saw that we had something in our packet today on that, so that's a hot issue for me. Centers: And the other pet peeve of mine was our present zoning when it talks about schools, it just simply says permitted in any residential zone. I mean that -- and it doesn't talk about alternative -- you know the issue. Yes. Zaremba: The definition of schools? Centers: Yes. McKinnon: That actually is addressed in the packet you got. Yes. I have got that in there and we have actually made it a Conditional Use in those zones and called it and redefined it as an educational program or an alternative school separate from a public school. That's in the packet. I remember we talked about that in the past, so of the issues we have talked about, I tried to incorporate most of those, but I know you guys haven't had a chance to see everything. I know Commissioner Shreeve's got it, but I really didn't spend much time with this since I have written anything. I write them and then I put them off and I have a lot of other projects that we are working on, but the direction from -- that I definitely can get some information concerning industrial and what's light industrial and defining that separately. I'm sure it's an issue that we would like to see, because we discussed that on an almost weekly basis, especially with the issue we just addressed with the Utility Subdivision and all the confusion that was involved with that, what's limited light and what's light in terms of industrial. Those are issues that we need to have clarified as well. Zaremba: So you know my point on that one already. There should be a definition in Chapter 7 for light industrial, regular industrial, heavy, and then those three -- McKinnon: Separate zoning designations. Zaremba: Yes. McKinnon: The separate zoning designation, that's going to be something that's going to be a -- I was going to say not the same curve. It's going to be a time table issue, because right now everything is zoned I-L and as it come in for rezones or as it comes in for annexations, then we could split it out to be light industrial, heavy industrial. Right now, the fact that it's all zoned I-L, the fact that we would create three separate zoning districts for heavy, medium, and light, wouldn't change the fact that we currently have all I-L. As far as creating that zone, it will be some time before we see the changes to that. We definitely can make those changes now, so that in the future we don't have to deal with those issues. Zaremba: One of my other issues was signage for notice, if I remember -- McKinnon: That is in the packet and that I think is -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 18, 2002 Page 60 of 65 Zaremba: -- when somebody posts a notice on their property. McKinnon: That's in there and I think that's ready to go. In fact, everything that we talked about I incorporated it, I read through the minutes, and made the changes that we had. I have had some more discussion -- I think I probably -- I will have to include an article that was recently included in the Western Planner Magazine for us that we always receive at our office, concerning -- I think it's in Arizona there was actually a city that requires a public involvement plan prior to application, which would not necessarily require them to have neighborhood meetings, but some way of involving the public prior to the meeting. They submit that to the Planning and Zoning staff for approval prior to -- just prior to having their project submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission. That might be an option that we have, instead of requiring, you know, neighborhood meetings or the direction that we have gone last time, which was to allow you to have the opportunity to require a Public Hearing, is that you have to have one. I'll include that if you'd like that, we can photocopy that in your packet if you'd like that. Centers: I don't know if you can address this or if it is a Council issue, but the -- and Keith and I talked about it and Keith Bird and the Mayor, as far as more authority or clout or whatever for design review on properties that exceed two units. Not design review of residential, but there is certain commercial that we would like to make changes to, you know, for example, the day care on Franklin, Keith mentioned Schuck's Auto Supply where it -- now I don't know if we have to get the authority or if we have it now. McKinnon: With the design review -- we don't have any specific design review guidelines, but right now on a Conditional Use Permit, you guys can limit the design. Centers: On a CUP. McKinnon: On a CUP and at anytime we have more than one building on a lot, you know, we hit the CUP requirement -- Centers: Like we did on the 4-plexes. McKinnon: Like we did on the 4-plexes and so there is some information. You guys are well within your rights to say, as a condition of this there shall be no architectural turrets like -- Centers: So we have it now, basically, and haven't been utilizing it maybe as much as we should. McKinnon: You sure can. Centers: I'm not proposing a design review board or commission. That was proposed in the past and I just think that's one extra 30-day step or more. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 18, 2002 Page 61 of 65 McKinnon: I have seen in other jurisdictions or worked in other jurisdictions where we did the design review and Conditional Use Permit with the exact same guidelines. Some would say -- would look at the schedule of use control and say in that district that's a design review, not a Conditional Use Permit application, was identical, had all the same information, the staff report was identical, because the standards for design review were the same as standards for Conditional Use Permits. You guys have the authority right now to make conditions that are outside of those listed in the Zoning Ordinance through placing of conditions. You guys -- that's the whole idea behind conditions, you can place additional conditions on them outside of that. Centers: I'm glad we brought it up. Well, what do we want to do? Do we want to talk about all of the issues on the 29th and then make motions on them for you and you will have a full agenda for us -- McKinnon: I can have -- you have got some of it in front of you right now. The Cell Tower Ordinance, I think that that one is well under -- you guys could make a motion on that at anytime, whether you wanted it on that meeting or an earlier meeting. I think we have got that one to a point that the last time we talked about it -- Centers: Well, we talked about it -- McKinnon: It's pretty ready to go. I have got some City Council stuff included in that that you guys haven't seen yet, but that's pretty close to being ready to go. The ordinance concerning the new noticing, the larger standards for that, I think that's ready to go and corrected some of that language. Definitions. We have a number of them you could make a motion on. One of the interesting things I found out is that with -- every time we make a motion that changes one definition in that, the Legal Department has to include all of the definitions in the findings when they do that. Instead of just correcting that little one, they have to list everything in that section of the code, they have these huge packets for only three definitions, because it's on Page 25 of the definitions. If we have the opportunity to hit all of those definitions at one time, I would prefer to see that happen. If we want those ready for the 29th , we can work like crazy to get those definitions ready for you and you guys are receptive at that meeting, make a motion on that. Zaremba: Essentially you're saying revise the entire Chapter 7 at once? McKinnon: Yes. Zaremba: I can see the sense to that. McKinnon: Do it at once. There is a lot of definitions that are in there right now and there is a list that we have got in here that will give you a whole lot more and there is not a whole lot of things that are listed in Chapter 8, as we said, that aren't in the new definitions that we have got. I'd like to see both of those revised at the same time, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 18, 2002 Page 62 of 65 because they would have more impact on each other. We could coordinate -- if we could have that ready -- we essentially have got that ready, Sonya and I have worked on that and we are actually coordinating now. You have that in your packets. If you have any additional things that you'd like to see changed, send it to my office, send it over to us, we will take a look at it -- I know it's not the most exciting reading, but it will give you an opportunity to look at it and be more than happy to take your comments and your suggestions. That's one of the things you're charged with as being Commissioners is getting our ordinance in play and making recommendations. I can have all those ready for you and these other ones, if you can take a look at, I'd like to have the home occupation ordinance in front of you at that time and we can work like crazy to get some sort of parking ordinance for you at that time. I don't know if it will be a major full agenda. It depends on how much time you want to spend on everything and how much tweaking you have to do with it, but I think that if we can get some of these ordinances in place it will actually save us time in the future and there won't be the confusion. Centers: Now I didn't want to speak for the group, but what does everyone think about the 29th ? Zaremba: As far as I know the 29th is fine with me. Centers: And then could we have everything by the -- by when? Shreeve: By the 15th , anyway. McKinnon: The 15th of August? Centers: And then with your agenda listed and with all of the items and then we will -- McKinnon: August 15th have everything to the Clerk's Office ready in packets for you to pick up? Centers: In our box. McKinnon: We have a meeting that night, so -- Centers: Yes so -- McKinnon: We will have it ready for you for that meeting. Okay so the issues you have in front of you, plus industrial, plus I'll get you guys a copy of that public plan for the August meeting and see what you guy's opinion is on that. As far as definitions, I'll try to make everything coordinate with Chapter 7 and 8 of Title 11, which is the Zoning Ordinance. Anything else? Centers: Not from me. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 18, 2002 Page 63 of 65 Shreeve: The city is going to buy us dinner, aren't they? McKinnon: Sure. Think we probably could. Shreeve: And we'd like whole sandwiches, not just half. McKinnon: As far as the time frame, do you guys want to meet at your -- if we are doing a special meeting, what time did you guys want to meet for that special meeting? Because we have the authority to do that -- if you guys want to do it earlier, you want it to be later, 6:00, 7:00, 5:30 -- I don't know how soon you can get here or what would be appropriate to you, if you can set that. Shreeve: I don't know what the other Commissioners' schedule is, but I can even be flexible enough to meet at 3:00 or 4:00 in the afternoon and try and get away from the evening, but I don't know if that's even a possibility. About how long do you -- Zaremba: That's possible for me. Mathes: I could get a baby-sitter lined out. Centers: Yes. I'm fine with that. Say 4:00. Shreeve: Yes. Something a little earlier. Zaremba: Do we need Keith's input on that? Centers: For one. McKinnon: Because we can hold a public meeting at different hours. If we want to have a lot of public input, that's usually why we hold them in the evening hours, then everybody else is available, but 4:00, if it's noticed plenty of time in advance. Mathes: Does that have to be here? McKinnon: We have to have it at a place where people can get to and it's an open forum. We can't do it at Commissioner Center's house. Mathes: Well, I thought maybe at your guys' office. McKinnon: This would be -- the 29th is okay here? Okay. We will have -- I guess we can go ahead and schedule that and Sharon's on top of that, so -- Shreeve: 4:00 here is what we decided? McKinnon: I'd like to do it at 4:00 if that's okay with you. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 18, 2002 Page 64 of 65 Centers: So I guess we will schedule a special meeting -- a special Public Hearing for the 29th of August and get everything for you for your August 15th packets. Have we got anything else? Are we ready to go home? I can't make a motion, so -- Zaremba: We need a motion to move this first. Mr. Chairman? Centers: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move that we continue Item 8 on our agenda, Planning and Zoning In- house Laundry List, to a special meeting on August 29th to the begin at 4:00 P.M. in this chamber. That's the motion. McKinnon: I don't think that we have a decision of open Public Hearing right now, so we don't need to continue anything. Centers: If we had closed you wouldn't have had to stay here and take notes. Zaremba: The motion should be to table this -- McKinnon: You can table it. Yes. Zaremba: -- rather than continue it. McKinnon: And then we will have a -- because we can continue to hold these types of meetings informally this way outside of a Public Hearing process at anytime, but as far as a public meeting, we will have to notice that and we are not in one right now, so we don't have to continue it at this point. Zaremba: Revise my motion to table this item. Centers: You can make another motion, though. Shreeve: I'll make a motion that we adjourn. Zaremba: We haven't voted on this one yet. Shreeve: Oh. Second on tabling. Centers: Tabling? That motion? Zaremba: Yes. Centers: Motion made and seconded to table that misconstrued motion. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 18, 2002 Page 65 of 65 Shreeve: Make a motion to adjourn. Zaremba: Second. Centers: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:32 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: / / KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN DATE ATTESTED: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK