The URL can be used to link to this page

2002 09-19Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting September 19, 2002 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman Keith Borup. Members Present: Chairman Keith Borup, Commissioner David Zaremba, Commissioner Leslie Mathes. Member Absent: Commissioner Jerry Centers. Others Present: Bruce Freckleton, Brad Hawkins-Clark, Nicholas Wollen, Sharon Smith, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call ___X___ David Zaremba ___O___ Jerry Centers ___X___ Leslie Mathes ___--___ Vacant ___X___ Chairman Keith Borup Borup: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We'd like to begin our regular scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for September 19th. We'd like to begin with the roll call of the Commissioners. We do have a couple of Commissioners that are missing this evening. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Approve minutes of September 5, 2002 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting: Borup: The first item, approval of minutes of our September 5th meeting. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I find the minutes to be accurate and I don't know whether the summary that is the cover page needs to be corrected or not, but item seven on the summary cover page is missing the action taken, which is tabled to the September 19th meeting. Other than that, the minutes are accurate. Does the page need to be -- Borup: Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 2 of 96 Zaremba: So in that case I move that we accept the minutes of the regular Planning and Zoning meeting of Thursday, September 5, 2002, as amended. Mathes: I will second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from August 1, 2002: CUP 02-021 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a preschool and childcare facility in an R- 15 zone for Kinder Kollege by Kathy Jordan – 1930 North Linder Road: Borup: The first scheduled hearing, Item No. 4, is a continued Public Hearing from August 1st, 2002, CUP 02-021, request for Conditional Use Permit for a pre-school child care facility. We have received a letter from the applicant saying that she has withdrawn her application for a conditional use on this property, so there will not be a hearing on that application. It has been withdrawn. Borup: Our next item is item -- Zaremba: Do we need any motion not to have a hearing or is that just automatic procedure? Borup: Counselor? Zaremba: The application was withdrawn. Wollen: I don't believe that any motion is needed to not have a hearing on it to accept a withdrawal. I don't believe that there is any motion or approval needed by the Commission to not hear an item or two, except the withdrawal of an application. Borup: Just making note of it is adequate? Wollen: I think so. Zaremba: Does that automatically close the Public Hearing with it? Borup: Let's go ahead and -- Wollen: Well, if you choose to officially close the Public Hearing on it, I think that would be okay, but other than that I don't think you need to do it, because it has been continued, so -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 3 of 96 Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: Just in case it's appropriate, I move that the Public Hearing on Item 4, the CUP 02-021, be closed. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: And Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: Since that item has been withdrawn by the applicant, I move that we take no action on it. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 5: Public Hearing: AZ 02-020 Request for annexation and zoning of 39.96 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for proposed Castlebrook Subdivision by Crestline Development, LLC – 950 North Black Cat Road: Item 6: Public Hearing: PP 02-016 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 120 building lots and 11 other lots on 39.96 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Castlebrook Subdivision by Crestline Development LLC – 950 North Black Cat Road: Borup: The next item is AZ 02-020, request for annexation and zoning of 39.96 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for the proposed Castlebrook Subdivision by Crestline Development and accompanying that is PP 02-016, request for preliminary plat approval of 120 building lots and eleven other lots on the same 39.96 acres in a proposed R-4 zone at 950 North Black Cat Road. We'd like to open the Public Hearing on both these items and start with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. The first item I will address here is the annexation and zoning. It's the cross-hatched property on the screen. Cherry Lane is approximately a quarter mile north of the property here. Black Cat is on the west side. The applicant has requested a zone of R-4, which is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. R-4 property does surround it on the north side and then the community park there on the east does touch their eastern boundary. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 4 of 96 Here are a couple of site photos. It is existing agriculture/vacant ground. Black Cat is designated as a minor arterial by Ada County Highway District. It is currently two lanes and it does abut the east side there. You should have received this evening in your packets -- or I guess not in your packets, but at your desk a revised preliminary plat and that is what is on the screen right now. Primarily the difference is -- I guess the only difference is there is now just one access point that they are proposing on Black Cat Road, as compared to two access points. There was an offset problem with the Highway District from the primary entrance into -- let's see, which one was that? Into Coral Creek. Right. Coral Creek to the north. So the new single point of access onto Black Cat that they have now does meeting the offset distance there. A couple of highlights of the plat for you. There are 120 building lots and 11 other lots that they are proposing. Just a little more than five percent of the subdivision is in open space, as required by our subdivision ordinance, so it does have to be accessible and usable. They have shown an open space private mini park here in the center of the project. It does have a local street abutting it here on the southwest side. The single family lots in the subdivision range from about 8,000 square feet to about 15,000 square feet. They have a gross density of about three dwelling units per acre. There is an existing stub street from Coral Creek here at the northeast corner, which they are utilizing. They are also proposing to construct an extension of El Gato/Pine, which maybe the applicant can speak to that. I don't know that a firm name has been lined up. But it is in the general alignment of Pine and El Gato. So they do have two access points off of that, one here at the southeast corner and one here at the southwest. Staff's report is dated September 10th, 2002, and we have received written comments back from the applicant and they are in agreement with all of our proposed conditions. In terms of the block length, we did have an additional consideration on that, that they do exceed the 1,000 foot block length on a couple of blocks in the subdivision, but due to the existing conditions they have recommended that those block lengths be allowed to exceed the code. I guess the one item for discussion that I would point out is on page six of our staff report, the second item under additional considerations. Planning and Zoning Commission may desire to limit the height of the fencing adjacent to that central common space. Our standard for micropaths, as you know, is the four foot maximum to create a more safe corridor. The code doesn't specify that around the open space lots, but we have been encouraging that to be a consideration of the Commission. I think the last -- the Meridian fire department has, by the way, reviewed their amended plats. I did talk with Joe Silva, deputy chief fire marshal, and he did tell me verbally that he has no problem with the single point of access on Black Cat. They will -- they will have the three other points of access. So I think he was okay with that. Oh, right. The one going to the north is in the first phase at that point, so they would have two ways into the subdivision with emergency vehicles. If the Commission does make a motion to approve, staff is asking for one additional inclusion in that motion that you would add that the subdivision that's subject to positive results of the sewer analysis for the sewer system capacity. There are still some studies being done by Public Works Department. Bruce Freckleton can, of course, answer any questions you might have, but should you move it on tonight, that is one pending item that is sort of hanging out there that would need to be looked at more carefully before City Council. So unless you have got any other questions, I think that's all I have. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 5 of 96 Borup: Any questions from the Commission? Zaremba: I had one and, again, this is a nitpicky type one. On page four, item J, staff finds the subdivision's vehicular approach off that property should be Black Cat, not Meridian. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you. Zaremba: Then I think you answered my question. The reference to the street width was two or three different places. ACHD had a comment and the fire department had a comment. Those are all resolved, is that what you're saying? Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. Mathes: Can you explain the sewer thing? Freckleton: I would be happy to. The subdivision to the north, the Coral Creek Subdivision, is served by a lift station that is a little bit north of this location. The sewer gravity feeds to that point and then is pumped north to a manhole in Black Cat Road that's north of Cherry Lane. It discharges to that manhole. That manhole then -- or from that manhole on north is a gravity flow to another lift station at the Ashford Greens Subdivision. The study that we are doing is we are putting flow monitors in those lines. We need to nail down what actual flows we have versus what our computer model flows are and look at the capacity of the lift stations and make sure that everything is there with adequate extra capacity to accept this subdivision. Mathes: Thank you. Freckleton: You bet. Zaremba: I have one other question. The plat that I had a chance to study and the new one that we got tonight appears not to be that much different. In showing the cross- section of the street building specifications, it has an attached sidewalk. I have probably asked this question before. Aren't we asking by ordinance for detached sidewalks now? Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Zaremba, we are on the exterior adjacent to the arterial roadways, but not interior. Zaremba: Not interior. Okay. Thank you. Borup: Okay. Is the applicant's representative here? Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 6 of 96 Hart: Good evening. My name is Kevin A. Hart, address 416 East 1st Street in Meridian. We will try to keep our presentation brief. There are many things to be discussed this evening. Staff asked -- I won't address the annexation. Staff has done an excellent job in sharing with everyone that this is contiguous and a planned annexation and it is compatible with the new Comprehensive Plan. What I will address is some of the changes that have been made and why those changes were made and what benefits or what reasons we made those changes. First, with regards to the subdivision at Cherry Lane and Black Cat, this location, Coral Creek is directly to the north and then Blackstone to the north of that. We have talked with -- and we understand that there is ongoing sewer studies and we understand that. We have been talking with Brad and his department and Bruce from the beginning, the first day we brought this in and that was the first comment. We understand that. And we done enough conversation with Brad and Bruce that we feel comfortable taking that risk to get approval without knowing for sure, because there will be is sanitary sewer available and we will know that shortly. Bruce is more comfortable telling you that than I am. With regards to the subdivision itself and the redesign, there have actually been a couple of redesigns on this subdivision largely based on staff, ACHD, or other comments. When we first brought this project in -- I'll refer to this map at this location. When we first brought this project in the park that you see at this location we had initially put it up in this corner. The reason we put it there is because that was a very unusual and difficult piece. We went in and spoke with Brad, Brad Hawkins, and he said we'd really like you to move that and we did, we listened to him, and, fortunately for us and the city, it's an excellent location for the park. It's in the center of the subdivision. So we did redesign that based on city staff comments. The road redesign has been based on redoing this here and here. That was our initial design. When we met with ACHD, ACHD asked us to redesign it due to offset conditions. We did comply with that, knowing that also the fire department was interested in making sure that we have secondary access at all times. I spoke to Fire Chief Bowers and also Deputy Chief Silva and both of them, as Brad stated, are fine with the design of the subdivision. Phase one will be basically -- we are proposing this in phases. Phase one will be basically this portion to the north. So in phase one we will access this point to Black Cat, we will also make access to Coral Creek, so at all times there will be secondary access and emergency access, if you will, for the subdivision should one of one those accesses be blocked off. In phase two, this line to the south, we will be building El Gato -- and I will address El Gato and Pine and why we are calling it two names in a moment, but we will be building El Gato Road with this connection -- I'll refer back to this map -- building El Gato Road with this connection. So in phase two there will actually be three points of connection. In the future there will actually be five points of connection, one at this location, one at this location, one at the location where El Gato extends, and two onto Black Cat Road. The fire department and police department and staff have all supported that. We have also received support and staff level approval at Ada County Highway District, we are scheduled on their agenda and we have been told by them that there is no reason it won't be approved. The changes that they requested in there are fine also. With regards to El Gato, this location -- and I will refer to this small vicinity map. El Gato is proposed that we construct it here. The question we have with regards to the name, at this same location line further to the east is called Pine, at the same location line directly across the street it is called El Gato. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 7 of 96 What we will name it is still up in the air, based largely on what the department would like us to name. It's just been that way forever and I guess they have got to decide where they want to make the break between El Gato and Pine, if they are going to change the name, but we are working closely with the fire department with regard to that name change. Overall you can see on the map the area has developed and it is in an orderly growth of development. There are centers and if you are familiar with the Comp Plan, you know about the subdivisions and it has been approved. This follows Meridian's Comp Plan. We are requiring in the subdivision very strict CC&Rs to provide a quality home, to provide front and rear landscaping, time frames on that landscaping, front yard fencing, time frames on that fencing, architectural controls and things of that nature. We have staff's recommendation for approval. We feel like we have worked very well with staff and we appreciate their help and we ask for your approval this evening. Zaremba: Did I just hear you say front yard fencing? Hart: We require fencing when the house goes in. A large problem we have had when we do subdivisions, the house goes in and people say I'm going to do my fence, they never do their fence, and what people do in the back yards, although it may be grass, they may not mow it nearly enough, they may not do it for awhile, but a lot of that depends, so we tried to restrict that. So as soon as the house goes in we require up front what we call a front fence, from property line to property line and then if it's on the corner we also require that the corner be fenced in accordance with the city codes, which generally is ten feet back from the sidewalk, so that -- the back yards -- Borup: You're saying having them parallel to the street? Hart: Correct. Correct. That really hides the view of the back yard and we require front yard sod, trees, bushes, underground sprinkler, photo cell lights, so there is a nice view in the evening, everybody has a yard light, all that's required at the time of construction. So that front yards -- the streetscape is going to look nice as soon as it goes in. We have battled it the other way and we don't like to battle with anybody. Zaremba: When you said that, my mind immediately went to a fence right along the sidewalk, which you have clarified, so it's not an issue. Hart: We require the setback. In fact, on the sidewalk you also required additional trees, so both side yards would look more like a parkway type setting. With one question, if I might address, the question of fencing around the common area. We understand the pathway fencing and we will meet those requirements. The common area fencing we are happy to abide by whatever Planning and Zoning Commission decides tonight, if you would like to restrict fencing so there is none at all or if you would like it to be a minimum four foot high, that's completely up to you. If you want me to make a decision, I will do that, too. Zaremba: I was going to bring that up and try to reach a common agreement. My instinct would be to say either a four foot non-see-through for the first four feet to be Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 8 of 96 obscuring and maybe two more feet that's lattice and see through, I would be comfortable with either one, but I would think there be should some fence -- some property owners will want to have a fence, so you will have to identify what it should be. Hart: And we are happy with the four feet -- a minimum of four feet non-see-through. If they want to go higher than that, then they can, as long as it's lattice or something with that -- Zaremba: And that maximum would be six feet, so there would be another two feet, and let me ask staff if that's acceptable. Hawkins-Clark: In terms of the code it is. The code doesn't speak to fencing adjacent to common lot areas, other than the micropaths. Our experience has been that the two foot lattice in many respects, for those that have big dogs, you know, a four foot fence, we'll get people coming in -- I don't really recall how many houses there are around there, but eight or so -- the chances of somebody saying that their dog is going to jump over a four foot fence is pretty high and so then they come in and they want the two foot lattice and then somebody next to them stays with a four foot, if you -- if the developer installs it, it's uniform, and in terms of esthetics, it's more appealing than leaving it open to each individual property owner to come in and get a fence permit and each one chooses something different, but in terms visibility, sometimes the lattice can be so opaque that you can't -- you might as well have a solid. So that's the other factor to look at. But in terms of the code itself, we do not have a list -- Zaremba: I agree with the uniformity and we can specify that it's a more open lattice, I suppose, if that's comfortable for you. Hart: Yes, it is. We can put that in the CC&Rs so that it can be enforced if down the road they should decide to change fences or things of that nature. Borup: I think the other factor here is the visual effect. If it was more of a rectangular open space we would have a fence on three sides, it may be more of an issue, but this is a real open park area, open to the street all the way down. We don't have the same type of problem like on the pathway fencing. Hart: Correct. Borup: Do you have any other questions? Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: Does that conclude -- Hart: I hope so. I will be available for any questions should any arise. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 9 of 96 Borup: Do we have anyone else here to testify on this application? Seeing none -- either one. We don't have that many people, but we had a couple sign up against, so if you would like to come forward. Tortorella: My name is Rusty Tortorella. I'm an employee of the City of Meridian and also a long time rural resident of El Gato Lane. It's a lovely subdivision. I would just like to see less houses in it. I don't mind it being changed to R-4, I think it should be matched with some of the long time residents there as a low density, instead of medium density housing area. I have lived on El Gato for 25 years now. Our children play on that street. They ride bikes up and down the street. It's still very country. We all have horses out there, we ride our horses up and down the street. I drive a horse and buggy up and down the street, El Gato, as soon as that second phase is opened up, is going to turn into a shortcut for people that work in Nampa. They are going to come into the east end -- no, the west end of El Gato and come right straight passed all of our rural houses out there and our children and our animals and so forth and so on. I'm also concerned that Black Cat is a minor arterial you said. As I go to work every morning, I'm at the corner of Black Cat and Cherry Lane about 7:30 and I sit and wait for probably four to five cars in each direction and watch them run the stop sign there. Our police department here in Meridian could make their quota just by sitting at that intersection every morning. The traffic from 120 more houses is just going to add to that so much more and create more hazards for the community. What else was I talking about? I was concerned about the water table out there, too. We flood irrigate off the irrigation ditch there. There has never been a large quantity of water for us. We have always struggled to make sure our hay fields were watered properly. I'm afraid if -- I'm assuming that there is going to be some type of a community well for irrigating the properties in the subdivision. That's going to take away from our water table again. I guess that's about it. I'm just very very concerned about the area, the number of people it's going to bring in. Oh. And I might add, the City of Nampa, whose city council or planning and zoning commission I stood in front of several times, were very very helpful in making sure that McDermott that was trying to put in a very large subdivision like this, changed it to a five acre subdivision, instead of 120 houses. And that's right at the other end of El Gato. So that's it. Thank you. Borup: Any questions from the Commission? Ma'am, I -- maybe -- are you on El Gato to the west of Black Cat? Tortorella: Right here. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Tortorella: There is a farm that faces Black Cat right there, that first piece of property. Another property, the owner is here, owns the second one, and I own the third one. Borup: Thank you. Okay. Did I see some else's hand that wanted to come forward? Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 10 of 96 Ferrera: Hi. My name is Kathy Ferrera and I live at 4960 El Gato Lane and I have been there -- I think we have been there about 18 years and could I show you a couple things in the map that I'm concerned about. Borup: You need to grab that microphone there. Ferrera: All right. Thank you. Okay. Rusty, that just spoke, she showed you where she lives. She lives right here -- or right here. We live right here. There was discussion about Pine Lane being El Gato Lane, no such thing. My neighbors who live on Pine Lane would be very surprised if they found out that they didn't really have an address. Pine Lane runs here. There is a dirt -- well, it's a gravel road. I don't believe the county maintains it. El Gato is the one that takes off up there and they actually are divided by a little strip of dirt. It is not the same street. And at the end of El Gato, as Rusty was just saying, they are putting in a subdivision in Canyon county. So in addition to the traffic she was talking about that is going to go -- use El Gato, because Pine Lane doesn't really go anywhere, it goes down maybe a half a mile or so and curves around to some other acreage properties. But we are very concerned that El Gato will be turned just into a real high traffic area with a new subdivision at each end of it. It's only a mile long. That's all it's ever been. Now let me move and go back over here. I was a little confused looking at the map that I received today from the city. The colored map that shows the zoning now, I'm confused about high density, medium density, and low density and how you figure that. Our block on El Gato Lane -- I believe the smallest acreage property there is ours and that's three and a half acres. The rest go up to seven. So, yes, I would consider that very low density. If these subdivisions are considered medium density -- to me that's a lot of people that are going in. I'm also wondering if the common areas for this development is going to be built as part of phase one or it's not going to start until phase two. Just a second. And then I'm concerned, too, about the water and irrigation service to that subdivision, how that's going to be handled, because we are on wells, we don't have city water. Our water table goes down, we are in a bad spot. Our irrigation water is provided out of the canals, but we all have wells on that street. And I think that's all. Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Okay. Would the applicant like to -- oh. Did you -- come on up, ma'am. Sonderegger: Yes. My interest is in the property -- Borup: You need to state your name and address. Sonderegger: Laura Sonderegger and my interest is in the property at 1155 Black Cat and which is just adjacent to the -- immediately across the street, basically, from the entrance. My concern is with the road on Black Cat. The road is in bad condition as it is and I'm wondering why a developer, who is bringing in so much traffic and so many people, is not responsible for widening the road or addressing the road issues and if we are going to be widening the road eventually, why are they not responsible for carrying some of that cost, versus the residents of Meridian, as well as if you're going to be Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 11 of 96 extending the road, is Meridian considering bringing the actual sewer system down the road to the first -- because it doesn't make sense to put in a new road and then tear it up. So that's something I would like to have answered. Borup: Okay. We will get answers to that. Sonderegger: Thank you. Borup: Okay. Does the applicant have their final remarks? Wildwood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, my name is Susan Wildwood, I'm an attorney, and I'm here on behalf of the applicant. With regard to the issues that have been raised -- actually, we understand that this is El Gato and this is Pine. I have seen the little dirt strip that separates the two. Our only discussion is we aren't sure what the fire department is going to require us to be calling that road and it is a little bit confusing in that area. With regard to the comments about the subdivision at the other end, I actually handled that. It was a subdivision that was put in by Cortland Walker. The reason that the property went to slightly larger lots is because every one was well and septic and, number two, it's cut by two live drains and the nutrient pathogen study that was done on that particular property required larger lots. The actual ruling from the Board of County Commissioners was that it had to have an average lot size in there of five acres, but there are some lots that are considerably larger than that, but basically the reasoning is because of the nutrient pathogen study, the fact that it's well and septic, and the requirement that this is between those wells and the septic system and those live drains. With regard to traffic, it's not likely that people will be going out through El Gato. It's actually faster to come out and go to Franklin and catch the freeway that way, rather than coming in El Gato, coming back down, catching Franklin, and then trying to go out in that direction. It's most likely that the traffic will split, come up to Cherry Lane, go down to Franklin and catch the freeway that way. It isn't the case that there won't be any traffic, but I don't think that this particular subdivision is going to lend itself to coming completely out to the subdivision to the immediate west. The entryway is actually much higher toward Cherry Lane, as well as up here and you will get some traffic coming out and when this property develops you will also see access on that east side. It is being done in phases and as Kevin has pointed out, it's the upper phase that will be phase one and we will have -- actually, the traffic will come in through Coral Creek and then, again, most likely split to Cherry and Fairview. With regard to the flood irrigation, we will be utilizing the current water right as a pressurized irrigation system, so we will be utilizing what's actually being done on the property right now. We are going to work with the neighbors, because we won't be losing the kind of irrigation loss that you have when you flood irrigate and/or utilize ditches, it will go into that system. It should actually benefit the downstream water user by being much more efficient in that water use. Borup: And you're not drilling a well; is that correct? Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 12 of 96 Wildwood: No, sir, we are not. We are connecting the city's sewer and water, so we are not going to jeopardize the quality of water or the quantity of the water table for those individuals. The density in this particular location, the density on the Comp Plan is three units per acre, so we are fitting in with the Comprehensive Plan that is designated by the city for the area. And then with regard to the roads, I believe Mrs. Sonderegger -- and I hope I didn't say that wrong -- for this project we do pay impact fees and we have requirements where we dedicate -- or we will be dedicating roadway. It will be at our task that this section of El Gato is improved and so we will be providing those kinds of funds to the community, not only to the City of Meridian through the roadways and the Highway District with the impact fees along Black Cat, which is utilized in their capital funds for those future improvements. With that, Mr. Chairman, I would stand for any questions. Excuse me. I do have one other point. We have -- this board shows a couple of the projects that these folks have done and this is just the type of restrictions, we have extremely good restrictive covenants, they are very quickly enforced, as Kevin said. If you were to go to Autumn Faire, which is in the City of Meridian and you were to go and look down the street, new houses are in and before they are allowed to have any occupancy within 30 days of that substantial completion, their yards are in, the lights are on, and the fences are up. So I can guarantee you that these folks have a track history here in the town and they have done a good job. These are the kinds of homes that you will be seeing there. And while I understand the comment about the larger lots immediately to the west, there is actually three properties that are immediately across the street and we do have a substantial barrier with the road, there will be landscaping along the road in accordance with the requirements of the ordinances for the City of Meridian and I think that it's going to provide quite a nice entryway at this point -- and I could show you photographs if you're interested, but without taking anymore time, Mr. Chairman, thank you. I stand for any questions. Mathes: Yes. Someone asked what phase the open space is going in. Wildwood: Let me turn the map around and I will show you. The phase line is approximately in this direction and it would be going in on phase two. Mathes: Okay. Thank you. Wildwood: You're welcome. Borup: Okay. Any other questions from the Commissioners? Zaremba: Yes, I do have some. Borup: David. Zaremba: Not to re-engineer the project, but looking at properties across the street from your project, it would seem to me -- I don't know where those houses are oriented, but one of the ladies mentioned that your exit street comes out to her property. Would it be possible to move your exit street one house farther south or, in other words, put one -- Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 13 of 96 put the first lot that's south of the exit street north of it, move the exit street one house farther south, and, therefore, be existing on the property line, instead of -- Wildwood: We would be happy to. Zaremba: I don't even know if that's necessary to do, but does that -- I forget who it was that had that problem, but does that help? And I don't know if I'm correct in my assumption either, but -- (Voice from audience.) Borup: It's actually on the other wide map. Wildwood: Here is the entry into Coral Creek. Okay? A member of the audience has indicated this is the entry into Coral Creek and your property would be this property? It would be one of these two properties. Borup: Either one, the road does not affect it. Wildwood: The road would have -- we will be happy to move it if it -- Zaremba: Well, it looks like the property owner that probably would be affected isn't here, but I guess that's -- does that mean you'd have to go all the way back through ACHD or -- Wildwood: No. Zaremba: -- is that something you could just do? Wildwood: We can do that and have it come out at this location and then regardless of which neighbor it is, we are splitting the property line. We would be happy to do that. Zaremba: I think that would be a good suggestion. Wildwood: It's got to go somewhere. One, it's a little easier, but, two, if we have maybe some difficulties if we had two entrances, but we do have some slight room in there. Bird: I'm Robert Bird, 1123 North Black Cat. I have the six acres just south of -- this here is the five acres that she has. Right here. This is the six acres that I have. Right down through there there is a lane going back to this one acre house back here. It's a 40 foot easement. It's on my property, but I have given them an easement to get through the property to that point. In the future some day we may want to divide that off into half acre, acre lots, who knows, whatever. Right now there is an easement there or a road there. If they could be across from that it would be a good place to be, I would think, for another road. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 14 of 96 Zaremba: Yes. That looks too far north to me. I'm sure that's a more difficult move than what I just -- Bird: I'm not sure what -- Hart: Commissioner Zaremba, if I may answer that question. We initially did have it located to come directly off here and stub at that location. That is when ACHD asked us to redesign it. So initially we did have it at that location and they asked us to redesign it. So we can't put it at that location. We can move it to basically split that property line, so no property line would be affected -- or minimally affected. Zaremba: I guess I'm asking that on behalf of a property owner who is not here, but -- Hart: I will submit it on behalf of a property owner who is not here. Zaremba: If that's an easy thing for you to do, I think it would be appreciated, but I -- Borup: I think the other factor is the location of the house there. That may be where the house is on that side of the property and it may make it worse. We are talking about something we don't know. Zaremba: I don't know the answer. Borup: You're assuming the house is in the middle -- Zaremba: Yes, I was. Borup: -- in the middle of the property. Hart: I have a suggestion and maybe you will like this. We can go out and figure out which side the house is on, on the property, and locate the entrance on the opposite side of that. Zaremba: Thank you. Hart: You're welcome. Borup: Anything else from the Commission? Any comments from the staff? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, two other items that I might point out. Again, this is really the first blush that we have had to really look at the revised plat. I'll go back to the common lot. I guess it's a little tough to see here. There is a sewer service -- no, it is a main. Yes. There is a sewer main that comes across right at that point. Typically the city does look for those to be within 20 foot wide common lots. The other item is the -- as Black Cat does require a minimum 25 foot wide street buffer from the future edge of right of way to the back of the lots -- and they are only Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 15 of 96 showing 20, so that would be another modification to the plat. So we would ask that prior to the -- if the Commission moves on this tonight and moves it on, we ask that we receive a revised preliminary plat that brings that 25 foot wide common lot into compliance, as well as that street buffer. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, is it appropriate to close the Public Hearing? Borup: I would think so. Zaremba: So moved. Mathes: Second. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Brad, are you saying that you'd like to see that sewer easement in a 20 foot wide common lot? Freckleton: That's correct. Borup: But it would take a bit of a redesign to fit that in there. It looks like that was the location of the original entrance. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, we -- just at initial glance, it does appear that they would not lose a lot. There is enough flexibility of shifting on the frontages, they could still meet minimum frontages. The main thing is as a public main that it be provided in a common lot or within the right of way. And there may be enough flexibility that if the Commission is comfortable, I think it's certainly doable. Borup: Well, that's what I was thinking. There is some wider lots down in -- and some larger -- and the one right next to it has got 93 feet, so I think that can be redesigned. Neither of those two items were on the staff report, I believe. Would that correct? Those would need to be added to the original staff comments? Hawkins-Clark: That's correct. Borup: Any discussion from the Commission? Zaremba: Only that I didn't follow the exact location you're talking about. Borup: I'm sorry. Okay. On lot seven, the northern part of lot seven, is the location of the sewer stub coming in -- or the sewer line coming into the subdivision. Are you following that right down there in the corner? Okay. That needs to be on a separate -- dedicated separate lot, 20 foot, and it looks like they could accomplish that by shifting -- shifting Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 16 of 96 some of the lot frontages and maybe some of the lot lines and still keep the same lot count. And then the other item has lot seven -- Zaremba: Which block? Borup: Block two. Zaremba: Block 2, Lot 7? Borup: Yes. Then the other items was Lot 1 -- Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2, which is the landscape buffer on Black Cat. Zaremba: To be 25 feet? Borup: Yes. Zaremba: I have that one. Borup: And other than that, the staff comments covered everything else. And the applicant was -- their letter was in agreement with all the staff comments. Zaremba: Okay. I think the discussion regarding the name of the street -- Borup: That's going to be up to -- Zaremba: -- being Pine Street, has to do not with the unpaved part of Pine that's to the west, it has to do with the future extension of the east -- Borup: Pine Street. Zaremba: -- that currently ends at Ten Mile. Borup: Right. Zaremba: It will come across and connect to this street and it really isn't up to us to decide what that name is, but I think that may assuage some of the worry about traffic going west. When Pine Street is connected, however it's named, I agree that most of the traffic is going to go east and probably not use the existing portion of El Gato. I don't see much reason for people to go that direction, other than sightseeing. Mathes: It will probably take awhile to get Pine all the way through. Zaremba: Well, I'm of the opinion that this complies with our Comprehensive Plan and is a project that would be a good addition to the city. Mr. Chairman? Borup: Are you ready for a motion? Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 17 of 96 Zaremba: I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 5 on our agenda, AZ 02-020, request annexation and zoning of 39.96 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for proposed Castlebrook Subdivision, 950 North Black Cat Road, to the include all staff comments of the staff memo of September 10th. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Item No. 6. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 6 on our agenda, PP 02-016, request for preliminary plat approval of 120 building lots and 11 other lots on 39.96 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Castlebrook Subdivision, 950 North Black Cat Road, to the include all staff comments of the staff memo dated September 10th, with the following exceptions or conditions: Comments regarding the width of the road have been satisfied. Let's go to page eight, under site specific comment preliminary plat. We will add a paragraph 19 that says that approval is subject to the results of the sewer study. A paragraph 20 that requires the revision of the plat to show a 25 foot landscape buffer along Black Cat. An item 21, to require a sewer easement of 20 feet next to Block 2, Lot 7, and an item 22 -- Borup: I think that sewer needs to be on a separate lot also. Zaremba: Item 21 would be a common area lot, 20 feet by -- next to Block 2, Lot 7, for the purpose of sewer. And item 22, that the fence around the open area along residential properties shall be six feet tall, the first four feet to be opaque and the top two feet to be see-through, preferably lattice -- lattice. Am I missing anything? That's the motion. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 7: Public Hearing: CUP 02-023 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to place a Class A manufactured home on a permanent foundation in an L-O zone for Treasure Valley Worship Center by Treasure Valley Worship Center – 50 West Spicewood Drive: Borup: The next item is Public Hearing CUP 02-023, Request for a Conditional Use Permit to place a Class A manufactured home on a permanent foundation in an L-O Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 18 of 96 zone for Treasure Valley Worship Center by Treasure Valley Worship Center at 50 West Spicewood Drive. We'd like to open the Public Hearing and start with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. The subject parcel is outlined here on the screen. It's on the west side of Meridian Road. The limited office, the purple lot here. The single family residential does abut both the north and the west of the parcel. The Music Shop is directly across the street. It is zoned commercial. Here are a couple of site photos of the lot. The arrow points out where they are proposing to add the manufactured home. It is proposed to be used as a classroom, as well as overflow for church services. The size of it is 28 feet by 40 feet. It's a double- wide manufactured home. It has already been converted for a similar use and they are proposing to place it there. Again, this fence that you're seeing here is along the north boundary of the property, so it is close to the north boundary. Here is a more detailed site plan. They have shown a future parking area. This is not a part of the approval of staff at this point. It's conceptual. The only aspect of the application that is being recommended tonight is just for the placement of the manufactured home, which, again, is at this location. Again, here is Meridian Road. We are looking west here. Staff has submitted a report that's dated August 21st, 2002, by Bruce Freckleton and David McKinnon. We do ask that you include all recommended conditions. I think the only item to point out, we are asking that when they come in for a certificate of zoning compliance, that they reflect the new landscape ordinance in the street buffer along Meridian Road, that that be in conformance, so we would be looking for additional trees in that buffer. I think the other general comments and site specific requirements are pretty self-explanatory, so we are recommending approval of the application with conditions. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Any questions from the Commission? Mathes: Where is your office on that thing? Is it across the street? Borup: Across the street. Mathes: Okay. Borup: Is the applicant -- Zaremba: I have two questions. Borup: I'm sorry. David. Zaremba: Once again, being nitpicky as to page five, Comprehensive Plan analysis. You state the following sections and there are no following sections. But we have seen those in other reports and I think we are familiar with how this would come out. So I think that's fine. My other question is -- lose track of how long ago, either two weeks or a month ago, we had another church and the issue was they wanted to change their zoning, but as part of the requirements we stated to them that if they wanted to put a Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 19 of 96 second building on their property, they either had to do it as a PUD or to actually do a lot split. This is a CUP and I'm just wondering why this is different or what happened -- are the two situations parallel or is it -- Borup: This is a temporary building. Go ahead. Hawkins-Clark: I believe it is to be placed on a permanent foundation. Borup: Oh, it is? What was the -- the staff had a comment that it was valid for 18 months. Zaremba: Well, the permit expires -- if they haven't built it in 18 months they have to reapply, but once it's there I think it's permanent. Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Zaremba, your question of the application for a PUD or Planned Unit Development is the same application for the Conditional Use Permit. Zaremba: I think the issue was two buildings on the property. Hawkins-Clark: Two buildings, one property. Right. Yes. And the code uses the word principal building, so, you know, anything that's accessory to the main use, for example, outbuildings or storage or something, you know, would not be -- would not require a planned development. Zaremba: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: But in this case, the -- the name of the application is, I guess, in some ways a moot point. It would be the same process. The only difference, the church that I believe you're referring to was off of Overland Road south -- just south of the freeway between Overland and I-84? Is that correct? Borup: It was on 8th. Hawkins-Clark: Oh. Okay. Zaremba: 8th north of Pine. They were changing from an R-4 zone to I think L-O. Well, if a CUP does it, then they don't need to do a lot split and that's fine with me. Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Yes. Borup: Did you have anything else? Zaremba: No. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 20 of 96 Borup: Okay. Is the applicant here to make their presentation? I think the revised one with staff comments that was on the original setback plan showed 6.6 feet and then the new revised plan shows it a full it 20. Cruz: My name is David Cruz, I'm the assistant pastor at the Treasure Valley Worship Center and I reside at 181 North Liberty in Boise, Idaho, and I'm here to present this proposal to you, as it would be a great help to us. We were -- this building was given to the church and we are -- our youth and our children, we are just totally maxed out as far as space. This would be primarily a classroom. We are certainly willing to work with the Commission in any way that we need to to make this a compatible and neighborhood friendly situation for the City of Meridian and as well as our welfare, too. Zaremba: We are certainly happy to see a church that's growing and needing more space. You have read the staff comments and you have no problem with the landscape requirements and the 20 foot setback? Cruz: Right. Zaremba: And those -- okay. Borup: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you, sir. Do we have anyone else to comment on that application? Rountree: My name is Tyler Rountree. I reside at 99 West Chrisfield Drive. My property backs up almost to the corner of the existing church property. Just where the R is on Chrisfield. That's where I live right there. I think it was seven or -- six or seven years ago that the property the church is on currently was rezoned. Originally it was zoned R- 4 as part of the subdivision. The church wanted to build the church there. It was rezoned so they could build their church there. So basically my question that I have is: Is the church under the same CC&Rs that the subdivision is and if it is, does the building that they propose to put on the subdivision, not only follow the CC&Rs, but also follow the design of what the architectural committee has already approved for the existing homes and the church that's already there. Borup: Are you saying that was originally part of the subdivision? Rountree: Correct. Borup: As was one lot or -- Rountree: No. That was actually two lots that only had access off of Spicewood, because -- because of the Comprehensive Plan at that time, there was no access that was to be gained off of Meridian Road. So when the church was going to purchase the property, the property was purchased on the agreement that it would be purchased if it could be that the zoning could be changed, so that they could put the church there. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 21 of 96 Borup: Staff, maybe you wish to comment on that. I -- it surprises me that it was part of that subdivision. Zaremba: Well -- Borup: But the zoning has been changed. Zaremba: Well, the staff is looking at the legal details. They did comment in their comments that the new building, if it's approved, does need to be superficially decorated to the same appearance as the existing building, that they need to be painted with the same color and -- Rountree: Okay. Will it have to go through the architectural control committee, like the CC&Rs state, of the committee, that each and every dwelling that's placed on it will go through an architectural committee. Zaremba: That's not up to us. What staff is determining is whether it's legally still part of your subdivision. If it is, then that's probably true. Rountree: Okay. I have a couple of other concerns about that. When the church was built it also was required to uphold what the current landscaping requirements are, much like you're imposing on it now, to update its landscaping to what the current requirements are. I took a couple of pictures today of the current landscaping of the church and the way the landscaping has been maintained and I would like to give those to those of you who haven't seen it. I know that the Commissioner Borup has certainly seen his share, beings that his office is right across the street. So if you'd like to see those, I would like you to look at them, if you want to look at them. Borup: You can give them to the clerk. I think that was -- I mean that was part of the staff comments that the landscaping would need to be brought up to current landscaping code, which is a newly adopted landscaping ordinance. Rountree: Right. And I don't have a problem with that, I certainly understand that, but I think based on the church's track record of maintaining the landscape and bringing the landscape up to code, it leaves a little bit to be desired. I don't know that the church has been an overly good neighbor to the city. The other concern that I have is for this existing church there are 30 parking spaces currently. I know that the church -- I don't know if they own the lot to the south of Spicewood in the purple there on the corner there where the future parking lot was. At this point there is some pictures in there that were taken last Sunday that there is no place for them to park. Obviously, if they have outgrown their building, they have also outgrown their parking space and are beginning to park up and down in the street and there is also a picture of a car parked in the future parking lot that the overview picture depicted. I think that it would be a good time to spend some of that money to expand their parking lot and provide places for the people to park also, so -- Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 22 of 96 Borup: And you're talking about this area over here? Rountree: Right. I was a little confused when this came from the city. There is a temporary power pole that's been placed on that existing futuristic parking area. I don't know why. It just appeared. Borup: So you thought maybe there was some construction -- Rountree: I thought that that's where the building was going to is over on the other parcel of property, but apparently from what you have shown tonight that it's not. Based on that, I -- those are the only comments that I have got on that. Thank you. Borup: Any questions from Mr. Rountree? Rountree: Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Perkins: I'm Marvin Perkins. I live at 120 West Woodland Place, which is just over the fence from the -- on the west side from the property. My concern is that a modular type structure being put at the entrance to a subdivision that really did not meet the requirements of the subdivision, the planning -- the covenants of the subdivision, to begin with, first of all. And I do agree with Mr. Rountree, everything he said. Also, I think that it would be nice if they -- if they took care of the facilities and expanded the parking before they moved ahead with another building and if they do move ahead with another building, I'd like to see them build a building that is compliant with the structures around it and not a modular. Thank you. Ford: My name is Don Ford. I live on 121 West Chrisfield, next to Mr. Rountree, and my concerns are the same as his. The upkeep there left a lot to be desired for the last few years and also parking there seems like that even during the week, not just on Sunday, is why there is spill over from the parking and out into the streets and we have bad enough traffic there already. But I do agree with him on the other items. Gould: Maryann Gould, 106 West Chrisfield. It's a -- my property does not abut it, but I come around that or pass that church probably four times a day at least and I am concerned about the manufactured house, not -- I would prefer there would be a more solid permanent type building. In the past we have had camper shells, old beat up camp trailers, even with a satellite dish on them sitting out at the end of the parking lot in the grass area and it has made it look pretty junky at times. I'm glad for a church in the neighborhood, I don't have a problem with that, but I do have a problem with something coming in that wouldn't fit the rest of the housing development there. We are also getting a beautiful park and more and more traffic is going to come down that area, we have got several proposed, and in the process of new subdivisions down the road and I think putting in a modular -- allowing a modular home to be placed there now, somebody is going to come along later and want one down the street a little ways and it Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 23 of 96 will build into that and I think since we are building up the area into a family friendly, nice-looking subdivision area with the park, that I would prefer to see a more substantial building there than just a modular home, especially a used one. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone is else? Okay. Would the applicant have any final comments? Zaremba: While he's arriving, I passed the pictures that were provided to us along to staff and I would question whether their signage is in compliance with the sign ordinance at this point. Is there any way to tell from the pictures? Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Zaremba, the photos that have been submitted to the public record do not have a date, so I don't remember what Mr. Rountree -- when he said they were taken. Rountree: I believe last Sunday. Hawkins-Clark: Yes. So I -- the temporary signs do require some form of temporary sign permit. I did not check with our front desk people to see if one had been obtained. The sign does not meet the ability -- or the standards for a temporary sign. It appears that that's a regular sort of activity, but I would just recommend that the Commission place a condition, if it so desires, that all signage prior to occupancy of the building on the site be in conformance with code. Cruz: Yes. As far as to the landscaping, we do apologize, because there is no excuse, it just happened. Our sprinkler system is down most of the year and we did not really have the funds, but the system has been refurbished and we certainly understand the concerns. The modular home is two-by-six construction, it has house siding, it has a shingle roof, it has aluminum windows, it's fully compliant with the Planning and Zoning -- the ordinances of the City of Meridian. It's a fully compliant home. Thank you. Borup: So it is a pitched roof? Cruz: Yes. A pitched roof. Borup: And with masonite and siding on the side? Cruz: Yes. Borup: And you're prepared to paint it the same as the -- Cruz: Absolutely. Yes. Borup: Any comment on parking and being part of the subdivision? Have you got any information on that? Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 24 of 96 Cruz: We know there is a problem. We have moved -- because of that we have gone to two services to help to alleviate that situation. When we were at one service we were really overflowing. We went to two services in hopes of cutting down that street traffic, the street parking, and that's what we have -- until such time when we are able to expand into the parking lot. Borup: So do you have -- do you know when your plans are for another parking lot? Cruz: Yes. When, did you say? Borup: Yes. Cruz: Funding. As soon as we get the funds. We are still just a small, growing church, and we don't have a lot of funds yet. Borup: That's what the city always says. Just need money. Are you familiar with eleven years ago when the lots were split off from the subdivision? Cruz: No, I'm not. Borup: Okay. Any other questions? Does staff have any comment on that? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I reviewed the file. The legal description that was submitted with the application as part of the deed of trust, it makes reference to a parcel one. It does not make reference to a lot and block. Borup: Isn't that also the case on those other parcels down the street that are fronting on Meridian Road? Are they similar type of -- Freckleton: The parcels that are south of Five Mile Creek, I know those -- they came back in on a separate subdivision, but they were not included as part of the original -- Borup: That's what I thought. Freckleton: I don't know for sure without looking at the subdivision -- the recorded subdivision plat for Meridian Manor, but this legal description does make reference to adjacent lot and block in Meridian Manor No. 7, but it does not -- the way I would read this, I would say it's probably not part of the original subdivision, but I just wanted to make clear that even if it was part of the original subdivision, the City of Meridian does not enforce subdivision covenants, codes, and restrictions, so I would suggest maybe that Mr. Rountree maybe go back and review the subdivision plat, go back and read his covenants and see if there is mention in them of these two parcels up front and see what kind of rules there would be for those. Hawkins-Clark: No. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 25 of 96 Borup: But if they were part of the subdivision, they wouldn't be referred to as a parcel, would they? Freckleton: No. It would be lot and block. Borup: It would have to be lot and block as part of the subdivision. Freckleton: Correct. Borup: Okay. I guess the answer there is we don't know for sure, but the information we have at this time it is not a part of the subdivision, especially with the parcel number, rather than a lot and block. Zaremba: Well, certainly if it was found that it was, this will have a second hearing in front of the City Council. Borup: Well, no, it shouldn't -- Zaremba: Well, it shouldn't be, but if, for some reason, you find out it is -- Borup: Oh. You mean as for as enforcing the covenant? Zaremba: Yes. Freckleton: No. Borup: Bruce just mentioned the city would have -- Zaremba: Well, the city wouldn't enforce them, but if you want to tell the City Council that it is part of your subdivision and therefore has -- Borup: Oh, that's what you wanted. I'm sorry. I misunderstood. Zaremba: Yes. Therefore -- Borup: There will be another -- Zaremba: Another hearing, at which time you could say we have discovered that it is part of our subdivision and we want to enforce our covenants, you will have that second opportunity to bring that proof or whatever it takes. Again, it is true that you would not be asking the city to enforce it. Mathes: And we can't enforce the landscaping, anyways? I mean putting it in, yes, but keeping it up, do we enforce that? Does the city enforce that? I mean -- Hawkins-Clark: The landscape ordinance does have an enforcement section. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 26 of 96 Mathes: If they don't can the city fine them? Hawkins-Clark: It does need to be maintained. Correct. There needs to be underground sprinkling and it does need to be maintained in the manner in which it was intended is the wording. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: Is it appropriate to close the Public Hearing? Borup: I think so. Zaremba: So moved. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 7 on our agenda, CUP 02-023, request for a Conditional Use Permit to place a Class A manufactured home on a permanent foundation in an L-O zone for Treasure Valley Worship Center, 50 West Spicewood Drive, to include all staff comments of the staff memo August 21st and, in addition to that, under site specific requirements of paragraph six, that says all signage shall be brought up to the current signage code. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 8: Public Hearing: CUP 02-024 Request for a Conditional Use Permit proposing two buildings with drive-thru windows and two buildings on recorded lot in a C-C zone for Silverstone Corporate Center by The Sundance Company – southeast corner of East Overland Road and South Eagle Road: Borup: The next item is CUP 02-024, request for a Conditional Use Permit proposing two buildings with drive-thru windows and two buildings on a recorded lot in a C-C zone Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 27 of 96 for Silverstone Corporate Center by the Sundance Company at the southeast -- at the southeast corner of Overland and Eagle Road. I'll open this Public Hearing and start with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. The applicant is required to go through this Conditional Use Permit, because of the development agreement that was entered into between Sundance Company and the City of Meridian when they annexed. It does require all drive-thrus to come through the conditional use process. In addition, they are at this point in time proposing two buildings on a single lot, so that always requires the conditional use. So that is the reason for the application. The property, as you mentioned, is zoned C-C. The development agreement is in place. Staff has reviewed it. They are not proposing anything that is not allowed under the development agreement. The property is at the very northeast -- or, I'm sorry, northwest corner of their subdivision. Again, Eagle Road abuts it to the west and East Overland abuts it to the north. Here are the existing sight photos. The subdivision does have -- the majority of the preliminary landscaping is installed and in place now. They have some existing utilities that are -- all existing utilities are in on anything that would be used to serve these two buildings. Here on the screen is the site plan that was proposed. Again, Overland to the north and Eagle Road along the west. There is a driveway entrance along the south here. They are proposing the two buildings, one here at the southern portion of the parcel and one here towards the north. The landscaping that is shown here is not a part. That was required of Sundance Company as a part of their original subdivision. So that if it's not all installed, will be. The access points to actually get to proposed drive-thrus. There are two off of the street and one here -- and, I'm sorry, there are three. Another and then another at the north and another thing. The planter that was submitted to us does not show a north boundary for the edge of their asphalt, so I did talk with the applicant today and they are proposing to add the asphalt here, even though the line is not shown to be able to get to this northerly building, even though this is shown as a separate Lot 10, it is owned by the same property owner that is proposing this project and they will install that access point there with the asphalt. We have submitted the staff report dated September 4th. The applicant, I believe, is in agreement with all of our proposed conditions, with the exception of the hours of operation and I will let the applicant speak to that. Other than that, we'd just ask that our recommended conditions be included in any motion you make. Borup: Any questions from the Commission? I mean for the staff? Zaremba: Yes. Actually, it was our hours of operation that I was going to question. In my packet I was not able to determine where precisely this was in their whole property and from the color picture that you had up a few minutes ago, I know where it is and it does not appear to me to be near any residential. This is an intersection that at some time probably would welcome 24 hour drive-thru service. How stuck are we on this limit of hours of operation? Hawkins-Clark: Not too stuck. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 28 of 96 Zaremba: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: You are correct. There is no residential -- well, I guess on the northwest corner of Eagle and Overland there is an existing residence that's in the county; is that right? I do not believe the development agreement, you know, addresses hours of operation, so certainly whatever the Commission -- Zaremba: Whatever is appropriate. Then the second question would be signaled by the last thing that you said. Even though they are the same owners, if that driveway is going -- if access to this property requires use of the driveway on another piece of property, should we require a cross-access agreement, even though it's the same owners? Hawkins-Clark: Yes. They are showing an ingress-egress easement. It's a little tough to tell on the drawing that's on the screen. Your packets, your original, probably shows it better, but these dashed lines that come here and make this 90 degree turn, come in -- they are showing that to be cross-accessed and it would turn to the west and then come down. You're correct, that as proposed here they are showing a cross-access easement to keep going northwest in order to access this drive and that's probably a good idea. Borup: Do you know what type of business they are proposing for the south building, the south drive-thru? We will find out. Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? Larsen: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, my name is Cornell Larsen, 210 Murray Street in Boise, Idaho. I'm here tonight representing Sundance Investments. We are in concurrence with staff's comments. The only question we did have was on hours of operation. The smaller drive-thru is a Moxie Java-TCBY, which is the one to the north closest to the intersection, so they would like to have as extended hours as they could get. 6:00 o'clock a.m. would be, you know, the latest they would like to open. They do have people who like coffee a little earlier in the morning than some. And other than that, we talked to Brad today about the pavement along the -- what would be the northeast side of that property and we don't have an issue with that at all and if there is a need for a cross-access easement there, we could also go along with that. Borup: Well, I'm assuming you already have pavement planned there anyway. Larsen: Yes, we do have. A couple things you should note is the applicant has filed a lot line adjustment for four lots to create four lots out of the two lots that are there, so ultimately these will end up on their own individual lots and I believe that's either in staff's hands or has been signed off by the staff. I'm not a hundred percent sure which, but is in their hands. The lot that is immediately where we were talking about having the pavement going on, there is a building planned for there, but nothing in the works immediately. The next lot to the east has been sold to Albertson's for Albertson's credit union and that application should be before you shortly. And the building to the south has another credit union looking at that facility and they will be responding before the 28th of September. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 29 of 96 Borup: So the drive-thru is for a credit union? Larsen: Correct. Or a similar use. But there is one that has been negotiating for quite sometime, so we are anticipating -- Borup: But not for a food service. Larsen: It is not for a food service at this point in time. Borup: And the reason I asked, looking at the stacking depths. Larsen: Yes. It was -- really wasn't intended for a food service, other than maybe a Subway or something to have one or two cars, but not six or eight. Mathes: Is there going to be two drive-thru windows, one for Moxie Java, one for TCBY? Larsen: No. They will just have the one and it's for the Moxie Java. Mathes: Okay. Zaremba: Would you have any problem if the hours of operation restriction was just totally removed? Larsen: No. That would be fine. In fact, we would like that. Zaremba: And I think five, ten years down the road this is going to be an extremely busy intersection. Larsen: Yes. Zaremba: And I think it would be attractive at some point, probably, to have 24 hour operations there. Larsen: Especially if they get a hotel-motel behind it like they are searching for, that would be very helpful. Zaremba: Okay. The ACHD report makes some special recommendations to the City of Meridian that the applicant be required to participate -- this is on page eight of the ACHD report. That you be required to participate in alternate transportation programs, transportation management organizations, transportation management associations, none of which I believe officially exist in the City of Meridian. So I'm not sure that there is anything there that we can enforce, but is there any plan to mitigate traffic, encourage employees of the businesses on these properties to car pool and stuff like that or are you not taking any responsibility for that? Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 30 of 96 Larsen: That was a condition that was put in under the original approval for Silverstone Corporate Center and the overall project and we did have some planned bus stops in the facility, which are generally located around the entry elements that are there now and they did agree to note in all of their documents to the people that are working there, the businesses that locate there. Most recently Michael's of Oregon has moved in and they are aware of the transportation needs and concerns. So all of the people so far have been fairly receptive to -- including the applicant, to try to keep it as available for alternate transportation means as they can. Zaremba: Great. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Larsen: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? Seeing none, Commissioners? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move the Public Hearing on Item 8 be closed. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner. Zaremba: I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 8on our agenda, CUP 02-024, request for Conditional Use Permit proposing two buildings with drive-thru windows and two buildings on recorded lot in a C-C zone for Silverstone Corporate Center by the Sundance Company, southeast corner of East Overland Road and South Eagle Road, to include all staff comments of the staff memo dated September 4th, with the exception of -- on page four, paragraph four -- I'm sorry, paragraph three regarding hours of operation shall be deleted entirely. I'm sorry. And add an item seven, that a cross-access easement will be required through adjoining lots. Mathes: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 31 of 96 Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 9: Public Hearing: AZ 02-019 Request for annexation and zoning of 5.01 acres from RUT to R-2 zones for proposed Drawbridge Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. – 4365 North Ten Mile Road: Item 10: Public Hearing: PP 02-015 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 9 building lots and 3 other lots on 5.01 acres in a proposed R-2 zone for proposed Drawbridge Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc.– 4365 North Ten Mile Road: Borup: Item No. 9 is AZ 02-019, request for annexation and zoning of 5.01 acres from RUT to R-2 zones for the proposed Drawbridge Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers at 4365 North Ten Mile Road and accompanying that is PP 02-015, request for preliminary plat approval of nine building lots on the same project. I'd like to open both these public hearings and start with the staff comment -- staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Forgot to show some of the elevations, sorry, in the last one. Okay. Here we go. Item No. 9, Drawbridge Subdivision. This is an existing five acre parcel that is in Ada county. It's on the west side of North Ten Mile Road, approximately one quarter mile south of McMillan Road. Immediately to the east is the already approved Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision. They have proposed office uses on the frontage of Bridgetower there. The property is bounded by existing Ada county rural-urban transition land on the north and the east and -- or, I'm sorry, north and west and south. The request in their application was for an R-2 zone. The staff did make a recommendation for that to be modified to an R-3, so that they could meet some other dimensional standards that we have. In terms of process, I'm not sure how the clerk's office might want to handle it, but we -- you know, the application -- I don't believe we received a modified application per se, but typically we would continue to notice these as what the applicant requested, that would be an R-2, although they have agreed, my understanding is, to the R-3. So that would mean a maximum of three dwelling units per acre, if that is what it is zoned to. The Bridgetower is an R-4. So it would be a little less density. Zaremba: The revised preliminary plat that was given to us recently in the last day or two shows that they are now requesting an R-3, according to the plat. Hawkins-Clark: Yes. We would technically need the annexation application to reflect the requested new zone, since they are two different applications, but thank you for pointing that out. Yes. There are nine building lots proposed. I guess I will start with a couple of existing site photos. Looking west along the property boundary there on the left-hand side and then looking east from along Ten Mile, that's looking out towards Bridgetower Crossing, as I pointed out. What I have here on the screen is not reflecting the revised Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 32 of 96 preliminary plat that was received by the clerk's office on September 13th. Did the Commissioners receive -- you said you did receive the revised plat? Okay. Generally, they have complied with staff's recommended changes. A couple of highlights of the plat. One of the changes -- again, here is the entrance, a single point of entrance off of North Ten Mile Road. Fairly large lots. There is an existing private road called Elk Bugle Lane that abuts the south of the proposed subdivision. It is private, it is not under Ada County Highway District's jurisdiction. On the original plat they did show simply an easement here at the southwest corner of this lot. The new plat shows this triangular piece here to be a common lot and a portion of Elk Bugle Lane's easement does cross that. So the revised plat does allow for that -- obviously, for that private lane to continue their full access to get back here to the west. They also modified this portion of the plat. The fire department does need the turnaround and typically they ask for a one lot depth is the placement of where they would have a turnaround, so rather than putting in a temporary turnaround easement on one of these lots, they have expanded the turning radius here on the revised plat. So that's another change. I believe all the other modifications are there. The staff report is dated August 19th for any motion you might have. I'll stand for any questions. Zaremba: I have a question. Why is that not a surprise. On page seven of the staff report there is a section regarding double-loaded lots and it specifically refers to what on the old plat was Lot 6 Block 2, on the new plat is now Lot 7, Block 2, as a through lot, since it fronts on Grand Rapids Drive and rears on Eagle Bugle Lane -- Elk Bugle Lane. Actually, have two questions. My first question is why is that not also true of Lots 5, 4, 3, and 2? Hawkins-Clark: Right. It would be. Correct. Good observation. Yes. There is a restriction for no access to Elk Bugle Lane from the lots of this Drawbridge Subdivision. Zaremba: All lots. Hawkins-Clark: All lots. Zaremba: So do they need to be considered through lots and have front setbacks on both sides? Hawkins-Clark: No. Zaremba: Now my follow-up question is on what used to be Lot 6 and is now Lot 7. Since the back of Lot 7 is now the common Lot 6, does it need to be considered a through lot? Borup: Yes. It wouldn't be anymore, but the other ones would be. As long as there is no access, does it really matter? Zaremba: No. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 33 of 96 Hawkins-Clark: It needs to be a clearly stated purpose for the common lot on the face of the plat and -- Zaremba: Does that eliminate Lot 7 from being a true lot now? Hawkins-Clark: Well -- Borup: Oh, that's true. It has a lot separating it, but the lot that's separating is the road. Zaremba: Is the easement. The common lot is the easement. Hawkins-Clark: Right. Typically -- is the question regarding setbacks or the issue of -- Zaremba: Where we need to require the 25 foot setback from Elk Bugle as through lots or not. If they are not going to have any access -- Borup: I don't think that's probably really a factor with this much lot depth -- when you have lot depth to this extent. Hawkins-Clark: Well, yes. Then the rear -- the rear lot line is there, so the building officials would, I believe, look at that Lot 7 and designate the rear lot line and then the rear setback would be based off of that line. Borup: But I think we could increase that and it wouldn't cause any problems. Why don't we ask that of the developer. I wouldn't think that would be a factor when we are talking these size of lots. Most people are going to want to have a larger area in the backyard anyway. Any other questions from -- Zaremba: No. That was it. Borup: Okay. Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Boyle: Commissioners, my name is Clint Boyle with Pinnacle Engineers, 12552 West Executive Drive in Boise, Idaho. I appreciate this opportunity to be in front of you this evening on this project. I'm here representing Boise River Builders, Mike Lincoln, who is the developer -- proposed developer of this project. I appreciate Brad's comments. We have worked quite extensively with the staff in the design and some of the issues surrounding this particular proposal and, first of all, I just want to point out what the developer has in mind for this development. This particular developer is looking to provide what I think is a type of subdivision that isn't readily found within the City of Meridian at this present time. If you look at the majority of development that's occurring, typically it's in an R-4 zone or higher density, smaller lots, oftentimes smaller homes as well. He is more of a custom home builder and he has been looking around the city for larger home sites, because he believes he has a clientele and people out there that want larger home sites and still want to reside within the City of Meridian. Therefore, he has proposed lots that range between a third acre up to close to half an acre in size. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 34 of 96 This particular development comes in with a gross density of 1.8 dwelling units per acre, substantially lower than some of the other developments in the vicinity, being Bridgetower, which is across the street to the east of this project, which is, I believe, an R-4 zone. The staff has reiterated several comments. We originally received the staff report -- and I don't remember the specific date, but since that time I have worked closely with staff to provide this revised layout. We agree with most of their conditions and their recommendation was that it would be nice to have a revised layout to place in front of the Commission, so they would be able to see exactly how the provisions outlined in their report apply to this site. That's why we have provided the revised layout. Brad did a nice job of expounding on some of the changes that we made. I just wanted to reiterate a couple of points. There is an existing home that has frontage on Ten Mile that sits on the existing parcel of land. That home -- we have designed the subdivision to incorporate the home into the subdivision. Presently its driveway extends out to Ten Mile. With this project that driveway will be realigned to extend out to Elk Bugle, so we believe that will help some of the traffic safety issues as well by eliminating a single family residence backing out onto that street onto Ten Mile, which is an arterial. Borup: You mean Grand Rapids, didn't you? Boyle: Grand Rapids. What did I say? Borup: Elk Bugle. Boyle; My goodness. I've got Elk Bugle on my mind, so I apologize for that, but it is Grand Rapids will be the street through the subdivision. So we have incorporated that into the design. We are removing a couple of the outbuildings as part of the project that are shed areas and going to remove them as part of the project. In addition, we are going to try to preserve as much of the existing landscaping as we can. We will abide by Meridian's ordinances as far as trees. There is quite a few mature trees out along the frontage along Ten Mile Road. We have meandered a sidewalk to extend around those trees to preserve the existing mature tree growth. So we do believe that it's a nice project. Now as far as the changes go that were mentioned previously, the original staff report indicated that staff would like to have a common lot where Elk Bugle Lane or the easement extended across and clipped the corner of the subdivision and the developer didn't have any qualms with that or problems providing that in a common lot. Elk Bugle Lane itself is a private roadway through the county dedicated through an easement. All the private roadways are actually easements, they are not public right of way dedicated to ACHD, so there is an existing easement and -- Borup: And he is on a part of what parcel? Boyle: The parcel south -- adjacent to the south. And I am -- I don't want to make the statement for certainty, but I am not positive that that easement even abuts our southern property line and you will have to look through my documentation, maybe I can find it quickly here, but I believe that the actual easement for this roadway actually Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 35 of 96 sits further south on the adjacent property and the easement doesn't extend and actually touch our boundary through this portion where the roadway is and you can see the existing edge of gravel. Beyond the edge of gravel there is an irrigation lateral that runs along this location here and then there is some additional distance before you hit our boundary. And I have some pictures as well that demonstrate where the existing road is aligned. So, again, I just raise that question. But with regards to that, there was discussion as to whether or not the developer would be willing to grant a front yard setback I believe is how it was stated, a 25 foot setback along the south boundary of the project, and he is agreeable to that. If the Commission feels that that's necessary to preserve and protect Elk Bugle Lane and if you feel it's necessary to do a potential double frontage conflict, he is willing to provide a 25 foot setback there as well and as Commissioner Borup mentioned earlier, that's easily accomplished, because these are large lots, they have plenty of depth to them, so it's not an issue to the developer. The easement for Elk Bugle does clip the corner and you can see how the roadway existing at the edge of the gravel also clips the corner and so we have provided a common lot, which was staff's request, rather than the -- shown it as an easement, even though the easement for Elk Bugle is still in place across that common lot as it was recorded. So the common lot essentially contains a blanket easement for Elk Bugle Lane. Borup: I was wondering if it would have been easier for the developer to sell or give that parcel to whoever owns the land now. I mean it's his choice, but now he's got a part of the subdivision, he's got to maintain it, and everything else. Boyle: Right. And I don't know -- I haven't specifically asked the developer, but I don't -- it really isn't a benefit, per se, to the subdivision, that little corner there with the easement. I don't know -- you know, staff might be able to answer questions as far as the parcelization and just splitting that out and selling it to the adjacent property owner. I don't know, you know, if record or surveys would be required to do essentially an adjustment or how staff would treat that, but I don't know that the developer would be -- would have any objection to working that out with the neighbors, because I don't know that -- Borup: Well, I don't think the neighbors really care and there is no benefit to them, probably, to buy it if they have already got it and the developer owns it and -- depending on who is required to maintain it, but that was just a question I was wondering Boyle: And that is a good point and the developer may be able to answer that more closely -- Borup: I don't think the Commission really has a -- Boyle: It certainly isn't a benefit -- Borup: -- concern either way. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 36 of 96 Boyle: It certainly isn't a benefit to the subdivision to have that there. It's an existing private road and, as such, the developer is willing to preserve the right of way as it exists -- or easement as it exists. Zaremba: I agree with staff's request and the applicant's apparent willingness to split that off as a separate lot, so that it is not the responsibility of the owner of what used to be Lot 6 solely. Having it split as a separate lot probably would make it easy to re- convey or sell or use sometime later if maintaining that little triangle got to be a pain. Boyle: And that is a good idea. I mean once the subdivision plat is recorded, then, obviously, negotiation can take place -- Zaremba: It's a separate parcel. Boyle: Just sell that off. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, staff doesn't have any problem with that whatsoever. The only thing that comes to mind is we probably wouldn't want to call it a common then. You would want to just call it a lot that they would -- Borup: Well, also, if they are really planning on selling it off, wouldn't it be better to not even have it as part of your subdivision, not even record it as part of the subdivision and take care of that prior to or -- Boyle: Well, I guess that's a question for staff, because I'm not sure, because then we would be parceling out the -- Freckleton: I don't think you would want to do that or you're going to end up with a little tiny room that's a triangle parcel of county section of land there. I think it kind of makes things ugly as far as the public record goes to do that. Borup: Well, we have probably spent too much time on that already. I don't know if that's -- Boyle: And I certainly don't want it to be a sticking point on the subdivision. He's willing to have it a common lot and either maintain it or, you know, sell it off or potentially give it away -- I would have to talk to the developer, with whoever, you know, the adjacent owners are there. I don't see that as being that major an issue there as far as maintaining that little portion. The other items on there was with regards to the turnaround, which we had shown originally as a temporary turnaround and, again, after talking to staff, they didn't want that included in the area of the lot, so the developer said, well, let's just -- we will just deed it as right of way, then it's clear to the lot owner, the Highway District, and everybody who is maintaining it. So, again, that was a change that we made per staff's recommendation. The other thing I wanted to point out is the landscape buffer. There was a question on that width of the buffer. We also adjusted the -- my batteries are going dead -- the parcel line -- the parcel line that are along the Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 37 of 96 common lots that are adjacent to Ten Mile, those lot lines we did adjust further to the west to accommodate the required landscape buffer, 25 foot buffer width, so that was another change from the original plat. With that, as far as the lot sizes and R-3 versus R-2, the -- all of the lots in the subdivision are over 18,000 square feet, except for this lot that is in the southwest corner of the site and the other one where the temporary cul- d-sac is and those drop down to where they are both just over 16,000 square feet and we are in agreement with staff that the developer will abide by the R-3 provisions, if that is the desire of the Commission to approve it with an R-3 zoning designation. Now the differences are a difference in density requirements. The R-3 zone requires a minimum lot size of 12,000 square feet. R-2 requires a minimum of 18,000 square feet, so, essentially, probably the biggest reason why we are dropping down to an R-3 in agreement with staff is because of the two lots that drop to 16,000 square feet. All of these lots are still well in excess of even R-3 provisions in the ordinance, as far as size goes. Setbacks -- and Brad can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe they is no difference in setbacks between the R-2 and the R-3 zones. The front and rear side is identical among those zones. So, essentially, it's a density issue, which we are not changing the gross density and a size issue are basically two considerations of advising going to an R-3. With that, the only other item -- and we agree with all of the staff comments outlined in the staff report. The only one that the developer wanted this Commission to consider further was the site specific number four, which was with regards to the fencing around the property and this current site -- and hopefully you have a copy in the packet that has some pictures in it. If you don't, I have some pictures up here that I can submit. This site presently has a -- maybe Brad probably has some pictures. It presently has a -- what you call a three rail vinyl fence around the entire property. Borup: That's on the north of the property right there? Boyle: That is on the north side. It extends around and on the west side and also coming back up on the south side of the property is that three rail vinyl fence and it's a nice fence, it kind of gives a rural atmosphere out there. If you look at some of the other surrounding properties out there, pole fences on some of the properties, south of the site there is another vinyl fencing that is around the home you can see off in the distance here as well that is more of a -- kind of a rural -- I don't know if it's a three rail or semi-private, kind of a lower fence around it as well. And, again, what he's trying to promote here is that this isn't a dense subdivision, he wants to give it kind of that rural open feel and so just -- at this point in time is submitting to the Commission that if he could have it, he'd like to keep the existing perimeter fence that is around the site, the three rail vinyl fence. Borup: It looks like it's got four rails. Boyle: Is there four rails there? Maybe I can't count. Borup: Is there one on the bottom? Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 38 of 96 Boyle: Well, that's why. There may be one on the bottom. The developer may know if there is four. Borup: Just on the corner. Boyle: Okay. Just on the corner. Borup: Okay. Boyle: And with that, I think that sums up the project and I appreciate your consideration of this tonight. Again, this submittal, just for you information, was submitted prior to the Comprehensive Plan that is currently adopted and as a little bit of background on that, we did come in under the '93 Comprehensive Plan when the application was accepted. We met with staff originally in the new Comp Plan that is adopted now, the area was shown as industrial, I believe, at one time. It went to some sort of rural or low density designation and when we went in for a pre-application meeting with them, that was presently what the Commission was thinking of at the time was a low density residential area and then I believe the way the Comp Plan ended up being adopted, they actually changed it to a mixed use designation due to the wastewater treatment plant. If we look at the parcels, though, this parcel is within what the new Comp Plan -- which, again, doesn't necessarily apply to this, but just to give you a perspective, this parcel is one of the farthest parcels away from the wastewater treatment facility as well. So we believe it will fit in really well with the area, with what's happening with Bridgetower, it provides a nice transition for Bridgetower into some large lots within the City of Meridian and then transitioning into some of the larger home sites that are an acre to five acres to ten acre lots around the project. I appreciate your time this evening and stand for any questions, if there is any. Zaremba: I would ask to clarify one thing. The application for the preliminary plat requests approval of nine building lots and three other lots. Is that now nine building lots and four other lots? Boyle: Correct. Zaremba: Okay. Boyle: And there is a common lot that was a storm water retention lot that is in the northwest corner. The landscaping buffer is out front and now the newly created common lot for Elk Bugle on the corner. Borup: Any other questions? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, if I can ask a question of the applicant. Borup: Mr. Freckleton. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 39 of 96 Freckleton: Clint, is it a detention pond or is it a retention pond? Boyle: That will -- the proposal right now is that -- that we will handle all of the initial flows and still have predevelopment flow out into the existing irrigation lateral -- or existing drainway on the north. Freckleton: So it is a drainage way on the north? Boyle: Correct. Freckleton: Okay. The reason I asked, just breezing through the staff comments again, I notice we failed to add some comments that I'd like to suggest to you folks that we add. Basically, with the design of the retention area, I'd like to add to our staff comments that should be designed to a maximum of three to one side slopes, that water will not be retained in the drainage lot more than 24 hours, and I have got some concerns with depth of groundwater. I did get an updated report from your soils geologist that indicates that groundwater depths in July and August were in the neighborhood of 5.7 feet. Test pit well one indicates -- indicates that. Test pit two said it was dry at seven. I don't have a copy of the map that accompanied that, so I'm not sure where test pit one was, Clint. Boyle: And I don't know right off hand either. I would have to check on that. Freckleton: Okay. The concern I have is that the contours you have shown, you show your pond roughly three to four feet deep and if groundwater is at 5.7, you're not meeting the three foot groundwater separation rule and ACHD more than likely will make you line that, so careful consideration in your design needs to be done -- Boyle: Right. Freckleton: -- to make sure that that water does not stand in there. Okay. Thank you. Boyle: We will comply with the requirements. Appreciate those comments, Bruce. Borup: Does that conclude your presentation? Boyle: Yes. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Okay. Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? We have had a few people sign up. Now is the time. Johnston: Hello. My name is Pat Johnston, I'm on 3417 West Elk Bugle Lane. I am the west parcel directly behind this proposed division. There you go. Good. Let's see. A few of the concerns that we have here are that -- we have owned this for I think about seven years now and when we bought it, it was all zoned for essentially five acre lots and a very low density situation and so that kind of affords us a lifestyle that we were looking Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 40 of 96 for in that we have got a lot of elbow room and this sort of thing and so now in putting this in here like this, it does tend to impact the density rather adversely and we are not sure how the property values will go, but we don't think that ours is going to increase because of this. So that's at least one concern along that line. There is kind of an implied social contract with the people that bought these parcels there that, you know, they are in it for the nice, rural, open sort of lifestyle, so that's one of the concerns. On the personal concerns, we would like to see what we can do about maintaining irrigation access. We certainly do pay irrigation taxes and the water is there, we are not too sure how this development would deal with irrigation if it does go through, of course. And so that's a consideration I think that is, at least in my mind, valid. Borup: Could we maybe talk about that just a little bit? Johnston: Sure. Borup: It appears from the plats we have that irrigation ditches on the north and south of the property; is that correct? Johnston: Yes, there are. Definitely. I'm not sure that we -- Borup: Our plat also shows that the ditches are not even on this property, so you maybe can get some clarification from -- Johnston: Right. Borup: But either way, the project would not interfere with your delivery of water. Johnston: Well, we don't deliver water through those -- the north or the south ditches, we have -- there is -- Borup: Does your water go through this property? Johnston: Right. Borup: Okay. Johnston: This property originally was ten acres and we bought it about seven years ago, the back half of it, the five acre back half, and so it was utilizing the flow through from the front -- front five acres to get the back five acres and so now this may be somewhat compromised, to say the least. Borup: We'll get that answered from the engineer, because they will still provide you with delivery of water. Johnston: That would be wonderful. Okay. Good. Now, of course, the fence was a concern and it sounds like that's pretty well addressed nicely. Water depth wise, we did Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 41 of 96 do a test dipstick, per se. We dug a fairly deep hole, stuck in some PVC -- three inch PVC and then periodically, before we started building, we'd go and run the dipstick down and see how much water was there and at times we were getting, you know, within two to three feet of the surface and that was our finding as it was at the time. So now in the winter it will drop a couple more feet, though, too. So that's a terribly informal means of addressing the water table issue, you know. And I think that's about all I have to say, unless there are any questions. Borup: Any questions from the Commission? Are you the only one that's -- how many homes are using Elk Bugle Lane? Johnston: Well, there is -- Borup: So there is yours and then the ones to the south? Johnston: Right. Borup: Okay. Johnston: All of us utilize Elk Bugle Lane. Mathes: What's to the north of you? Johnston: It was Jimmy James's property, who was a farmer. Right now it's in corn. They are allowing him to still farm it, but it is going under development in the near future, whenever that occurs. So it's slated for some developmental situation, which, of course, we understood. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Johnston: Thank you. Rasmussen: Brent Rasmussen. I live at 4315 North Ten Mile Road and I own the nine, ten acres below it. So there is a one acre lot and then we own the rest of it. Yes. So I have a couple concerns I want to address. First of all, extending on what Pat just said, his water rights actually do come from the ditch out in front of the property. He has no water rights on either side. We have dealt with Settler's Irrigation on that on several different things on our property. His water rights are actually from the ditch that runs on the east side of the property. It is being considered and the ditch was supposed to be filled in and removed, where is the water right coming from? An issue with groundwater. We have had several cases where we have had trenches dug and test holes on our property and I have had within a foot -- surface water at a foot. So even more so than what Pat was saying there. We have seen it very close to the surface. And that forced us, on our septic system, to go with a pumped system, instead of a gravity flow. So along my lines, we have been going through a lot of things with the wastewater treatment plant over the past several months, approaching a year now, on this zoning of Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 42 of 96 this area. We want to keep it in the low density being like one house per five acre type zoning, instead of two acres per house or three or four. Most of the people in the area have that mentality and -- or that desire for living in a farming-type community. With the wastewater treatment plant, with the Comprehensive Plan going into effect, that kind of took that into effect, that there would be no -- it was implied that there would be no new permits issued for this area and then several -- just a couple months passed that being accepted, we are getting applications now for that to be changed and we have made several -- Borup: Would you repeat that again? Rasmussen: The Comprehensive Plan that's been working on -- Borup: Right. You said no new applications in this -- Rasmussen: What we understood when it was approved, in that area there was a lot of discussion on that area going up -- Borup: The Comprehensive Plan has that designated as -- if I'm reading this right, mixed use dash wastewater treatment plant. Rasmussen: Yes. And with that there was comments made that there would be -- intended to have no new permits issued -- or no new buildings going through. I don't know if it was the plan, but there were comments made at the time when we were going through that. Hawkins-Clark: Just residential, just to clarify. Rasmussen: Oh. Yes. Excuse me. No new residential. So a lot of decisions we have made on that -- like I say, I have been there for ten years and have lived there with that lifestyle and with all the changes going on, we'd still like to have a little bit of elbow room for us to have lots of animals and room for the kids to play and we want to maintain that. So make decisions based on what -- the decisions that were made there to stay there, instead of moving to a different place, because we thought with what was going there we'd have -- we thought there was plenty of large parcels around us -- Borup: So you would rather see a commercial project go in there? Rasmussen: I'd like to see it the way it is, is my preference, but that's not fair. The biggest concern that I have is we have animals, we have sheep, pigs, turkeys, chickens, sheep, cows, and we have had experience with friends that have had subdivisions in a larger scale one acre lots where they have had a lot of problems with animals. There would be sheep that kept them up all night, roosters crowing and keeping them up all night, and we have a compost pile that at times spell worse than the sewage treatment plant. So a lot of these things are the ones that we have had for a lot of time and we are concerned about whether that's going to affect us now and we Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 43 of 96 thought we were in a good position, but now with the change that's coming and the experience we have had with other people that have lived in subdivisions, that we are concerned that it will impact the style that we want to live. Mathes: Where is your house on your property? Rasmussen: It's situated about right in the middle of it on the southern side, just across the border. But we did get a comment from a developer that if it does go through, we definitely wanted to have a right-to-farm act note put in the notes, so that we could at least protect that as much as possible. Some of the other concerns are that if we make our decision based on what we have come through, like on the Comprehensive Plan and that keeps bouncing back and forth as to it's going to be this way and it's going to be that way, it's really tough to make a decision for our part on what we want to do with our lives, too. I'm not opposed to progress, but it's nice to be able to count on decisions that are made so you can rely on them and that's all I have, if you have questions. Borup: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Rasmussen? Thank you, sir. Kertchner: My name is Richard Kertchner, I own the property on the southwest corner. The one acre. My only question is about the fence at that little triangular piece of property there. The fence line does not follow that property line and I was wondering if the developer will change the fence line to match. Borup: Yes. Could you clarify that? Does the fence line go straight? Kertchner: It goes like this. I think it does. I'm not sure on the survey -- Borup: So the road takes quite a jog right there? Kertchner: Yes. The road goes -- Borup: Does the road go something like that? Just like that same curve there? Kertchner: Yes. It's not quite like that, so my question is will they change the -- when this property was split off, there was an agreement that that angle would be put on there to give us access out of our driveway and it never did go in quite that -- Borup: So you're saying you want -- you want the angle like it is, but it needs to be moved? Kertchner: We would like a little more room in front of the driveway or else we end up backing out into the roadway. Borup: Okay. Kertchner: That's all I have. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 44 of 96 Borup: Okay. Thank you, sir. Zaremba: Would you be interested in buying that piece of property at a good price? Kertchner: No. Borup: A dollar? K.Kertchner: My name is Kathy Kertchner and I live at 4225 North Ten Mile Road and my concern is the fence. I tried to look around to see if there was any other situations like where -- we are going to be here. I'm not really opposed to it, I think if they make it a beautiful subdivision I'm not that big opposed to it, but when I walk out my front door, what I will see is their back yards and that just kind of off's me. I guess if they are nice yards and stuff that's okay, but their fencing is just very very minimal. Also that ditch that goes right there, irrigation, floods over there, because that road is dirt, lots of dust gets kicked up, I don't know -- Borup: This one across -- K.Kertchner: No. The south side. Elk Bugle right there. Borup: Apparently that's not on this property. K.Kertchner: What's not on this property? Borup: That ditch is not on this property. K.Kertchner: I think the easement we are thinking comes over halfway through the ditch. What I'm wondering is with that fence just so minimal, I don't know that that's going to serve very many purposes. I mean I don't think we are going to be happy with that. It's just -- it's just open. I mean there is no -- it has weeds all over it, I mean it's just kind of a mess of a ditch and I'm wondering if they would allow some kind of a fence that people would probably be happier -- we would probably be happier -- yes. Something like that. I don't know. But I'm not sure that fence -- we just face all their back yards and they face our front door. Zaremba: You would prefer a solid fence? K.Kertchner: I would prefer -- or some kind of fence, yes. Borup: Your property is on the other side of Five Mile -- or Ten Mile? K.Kertchner: No. We are right on Elk Bugle. We are the one acre -- Borup: Oh. Okay. Oh. Right. I'm sorry. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 45 of 96 Kertchner: Given the problem with that situation is that nobody maintains the north side of the ditch next to the fence. You can't get in there to do anything. As long as they are happy with weeds, we are fine with it. It's been that way for a long time. K.Kertchner: We would like to have a fence that -- Borup: Do we have anyone else? Would the applicant like to respond? Boyle: Commissioners, again, Clint Boyle, Pinnacle Engineers. I hope I can respond to some of the comments that we have heard tonight. Borup: I have got some notes, too. Boyle: Okay. Do you want to ask me the questions or do you want me to try to respond to some of their comments first? Borup: Whichever you would prefer. Boyle: I'll take a crack at responding to them and I'm sure you will have additional questions. One of the items -- first I'm going to go to -- I believe it was Mr. Rasmussen was talking about farming operations, smells, etc., and this developer is fully aware of that. The final plat will reflect the right-to-farm act on the plat, which this Commission I'm sure is aware of, basically any agriculture operation that existed prior to the subdivision going in can continue to operate and essentially the subdivision won't object to smells, noise, dust, etc., from those agricultural operations. That will be noted on the plat. The developer also intends to include language within the CC&Rs to that effect and also add language into the CC&Rs noticing people that there is a sewer treatment facility -- I don't know the exact distance, but within proximity to the subdivision and that there may be smells, etc., from that. And he does intend to include that in the CC&Rs. The irrigation issue, we will comply with the subdivision requirements. We will provide irrigation waters to adjacent properties that run through this site, as they historically ran through the site, I believe -- now I don't even have my pointer. One of the irrigation lines that was mentioned was out along the frontage. That is not going to be filled in and abandoned. By ordinance we are required to tile that. It will be piped, so the water will still be flowing in an irrigation line out across the frontage. It will still flow through the irrigation that is off our site in the laterals and there is another lateral along the top north beyond our site -- Borup: Now are those two laterals providing water to the property way to the west passed these neighbors, apparently? Is that your understanding? K.Kertchner: Yes. Borup: That's what they have said. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 46 of 96 Boyle: The neighbors are indicating yes. I'm not sure exactly how much further the south one travels. The north one does extend further beyond the property. Borup: So how are you proposing to bring water to -- through the project or do you know at this point? Boyle: How are we proposing to take it through the project? As far as our own pressure irrigation system? Borup: No. For the neighbor to the west. Boyle: To the neighbor here? Borup: Yes. I believe he is the only one that's affected. Boyle: Correct. And I guess, you know, we will have to look at how he has historically received his water, you know, but we will provide him with whatever water right and whatever water flow -- Borup: Either at his present location or another that you could coordinate with him. Boyle: Correct. Correct. So we will take care of the irrigation water for the surrounding properties. They will still get the same -- same amount of water that they have historically and we will abide by the provisions of the ordinance as far as the conveyance of those waters. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Mr. Freckleton. Freckleton: A point of clarification. The ditch you're referring to, Clint, as being -- you're going to pipe, is that the one that on your plan says existing ditch to be filled and compacted? Boyle: Which one are you looking at there, Bruce? Freckleton: The one that runs north-south along Ten Mile Road. Boyle: North-south on Ten Mile. Correct. Freckleton: Your notations say to be filled and compacted. Boyle: You mean existing will be filled and compacted and if you will look, there is a new irrigation line where it's tiled. I mean if that's the interpretation, the intent is that it will be piped and we have that designated as being tiled. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 47 of 96 Freckleton: Okay. You have set it back out of the right of way, is what you have done. Boyle: Exactly. It's out of the right of way and we are compacting it and filling in the existing open ditch and providing a new irrigation line that is outside of the right of way that conveys those waters, so they won't lose their water, the ditch will still run, it will just be in a pipe. And per the standard requirements of ACHD, we are required to move those out of the right of way and onto the subdivision property, which is a fairly standard requirement of the Highway District. Freckleton: That's correct. Do you folks see the ditch he's talking about? Borup: It's not labeled, but it's labeled 12 inch and you got a box -- Boyle: We will size it appropriately for the water. Borup: Twelve inches is a lot of water. Boyle: The neighbors are stating that's too small. We will size it so that it has the flows that it currently has. Borup: Where does that -- where is the water source for that ditch presently? Boyle: There is several locations where we have irritation water running on -- this ditch is out along Ten Mile, there is water that is conveyed along the north property, there is water that's conveyed -- Borup: It's all the same ditch? Boyle: -- along the south. I believe that it is. A Voice: No, it's not. Borup: It's two separate -- okay. That's -- Boyle: And you also have other conveyance of water that's crossing Ten Mile from Bridgetower. Borup: Okay. So apparently there is three ditches all around that area, then? Boyle: Right. Borup: Well, did you still have your list? The comment was on moving the fence at the triangle. Boyle: And they are correct, the existing vinyl fence basically runs in this location here and it bisects that common lot and the developer isn't opposed to realigning that fence Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 48 of 96 where the actual easement is located. You know, the only thing that's going to happen with that is there will be more just an area that's kind of a no-man's land, so to speak, but the neighbors are -- Borup: That also allows the neighbors to widen the road if they wanted to. Boyle: Correct. Correct. Yes. So the developer doesn't have any problem with -- well, we will move that fence so it runs -- Borup: Along the lot line? Boyle: -- along the lot line. Correct. Zaremba: From its present location? Boyle: Outside of that, the only other comment that I had written down here specifically was with regards to property values. And, again, this Commission is -- not that it's appropriate to consider property values, this will -- I believe I can speak for the developer saying this will not be a starter home or a low end subdivision that he's proposed here. He's definitely, from my discussions with him, proposing I guess what most people would consider upper end homes, so I don't know that there would be a negative impact on surrounding property values per se. And with that I just wanted to summarize one thing -- Borup: Maybe one question, if you know. Do you know, what, if anything, is planned for the property to the north? Boyle: Staff may have seen proposals on that. I have heard rumor of -- Borup: Who owns it or who's got an option or anything at this point? Boyle: I don't know off the top of my head. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, I do believe it's the same developer as Bridgetower. Borup: Okay. Boyle: This particular project, again, we did submit this under the '93 Comprehensive Plan. That was what was in effect at the time we submitted the plans. The new Comprehensive Plan that was recently adopted was still going through public comment and, obviously, there have been changes in this area, but we do believe that the subdivision fully complies with the Comprehensive Plan that was adopted at the time we submitted this and I believe that some of the residents were concerned about the subdivision land in the new Comprehensive Plan, which just seems a little surprising to me, because under the new Comprehensive Plan it actually allows industrial-office-type users in this area and I would think that they would feel more comfortable with a Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 49 of 96 development that proposed single family residential, but maybe not. This is an area that is growing within the City of Meridian and I understand that they do want to preserve their rural feeling that they have there and I believe that this will actually provide a nice transition from the lots -- they are south of our project into a little higher density and proceeding into what will be, essentially, much higher density than what we are proposing to the north of our site based on what the Comprehensive Plan has indicated for us. So I think it's a nice kind of stepping up and staging of the lot sizes in the area and I think it's something that when the neighbors see the final product in the subdivision, from what I have been told by the developer, I think they will be very happy with it. And with that I would respectfully request your favorable recommendation of the annexation and the subdivision. Thank you. Borup: Any questions from the Commissioners? Thank you. Zaremba: Should we close the Public Hearing? Borup: That's just what I was going to ask. Do we want to leave it open for anything or are we ready to close it? Zaremba: I think my only questions are procedural. Borup: I thought we were through with public testimony. Come on up. K.Kertchner: I just know that -- Borup: You need to state your name again. K. Kertchner: Kathy Kertchner, 4225 North Ten Mile. I just feel there will be problems with that fence. I mean animals and the overflow -- I mean it's just going to be -- I think there will be -- I'd like to get along with my neighbors, it's really a big deal to me, and I don't think that little fence dividing all that farm with all the animals and irrigation that goes on there is going to be acceptable and it will just end up kind of a sore point and I would just request, again, that they do something different with the fence. Borup: I guess I'm not understanding your concern, other than the looks. K. Kertchner: Well, just that it's such a rural -- I mean we have donkeys, we have chickens -- Borup: Are you afraid they are going to go through the fence? K. Kertchner: No. I'm afraid that the neighbors that build there will be very bothered with this open -- I mean the animals and irrigation and the dust and whatnot and I -- and I -- you know, I want to get along with them, I just think we have got to have some kind of fencing that is better than just the little rails -- the rails they have got. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 50 of 96 Borup: So you're concerned about their perception? K. Kertchner: Well -- and ours, too, because I think that they will -- they will complain a lot with what we have going on. Borup: Okay. Thank you. K. Kertchner: I mean I would if I didn't have animals and lived there. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, I would point out that the way that the condition is currently drafted is they do have to have a solid fence on the perimeter, the full perimeter. So if you adopt the staff comments you, would basically be requiring a solid fence around the full perimeter. It's in number four on page eight. Borup: Right. Hawkins-Clark: If I recall, the three foot vinyl along the north -- the concern is along the south, though. Correct? Yes. So it would -- it would require -- I might suggest adding a height on that, if you so desire. Borup: Yes. I was going to ask you to come back up anyway, Clint. Zaremba: Well, my question would be to the applicant -- I mean to the speaker who had the property to the west, have an opinion about what fence he would like to have separating him. You need to address it at the microphone, though. Johnston: I'm Pat Johnston, 3417 West Elk Bugle Lane. And I believe that the fence that borders us would be just fine. Zaremba: The one that's already there? Johnston: Yes. The north and south fence. Yes. Right. And one other little thing. I fly control line model airplanes in the very back end of mine and I would just like to make sure that this maintains an airplane favorable climate. We have been thrown out of parks and everything else and so we bought our own land, so I could fly airplanes, and I do use mufflers and they are not obnoxious and I teach the neighbors how to fly and Boy Scouts. But that is just an ongoing situation that, you know, happens. We fly. And -- not obnoxious, but I just wanted to make a note on that one, because it is a little different twist. Borup: I have several neighbors that do the same thing. It's sure a lot of fun. Johnston: And they are probably radio control people, I bet. Borup: Okay. Clint. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 51 of 96 Boyle: Again, Clint Boyle of Pinnacle Engineers. I have some pictures here and maybe this would help the Commission, if I could present them, and these are two different sheets here, if you wouldn't mind. And basically they are just some site pictures on -- along Elk Bugle Lane and also the property that's west of the site, the home. As you look at those pictures, I guess what I wanted to point out there was the fact that as you look at the homes, there is three homes that we were looking at when we were considering this fence issue, the one that is to the west, which, again, has stated that he doesn't have a problem with the three vinyl -- three rail vinyl fence. And if you look at his home -- I'm not sure -- I don't think he has a three rail vinyl fence, but he has some sort of decorative, kind of a lower vinyl fence, if I'm not mistaken, right around some yard area, it appears to be, and then he's got a substantial yard outside of that. So, again, I think we fit in pretty well with what he is doing. The other houses are shown there as well. As far as livestock issues and whatnot, you can see by how they are presently developed, I don't think that we are going to have any sort of livestock issues with those two neighbors to the south, just for the sheer fact that they have got -- they have got their yards out along Elk Bugle and the livestock is beyond. But, again, we can put the right-to-farm act on and I guess it is this Commission's option or recommendation to the City Council. The developer feels that the fence that's in place -- and the reason he wants to keep it there is because it's a nice fence, it's a three rail vinyl fence, it gives a rural, country atmosphere and that's exactly what he's trying to market to here, rather than kind of a closed-in, six foot cedar or vinyl fencing out around the subdivision, he wants this to have more of a -- more of an open feel, because they are large lots and he wants to kind of promote the low density, major subdivision, rather than a standard higher density urban-type subdivision. So he is requesting the three rail vinyl fence that exists around the property and would respectfully request your consideration that that be allowed to be maintained outside of where he will just propose to relocate it for Elk Bugle. Borup: Would the future homeowners, do they have an objection on what they may want to do? Is there going to be anything in the covenants that would restrict additional fencing or -- actually, I think the best screening -- I mean the fencing is landscaping, personally. Boyle: And there is plenty of room on the lot for landscaping on our side and you can tell the neighbors -- at least in my opinion, they have done a pretty nice job of landscaping their front yards well, they are fairly well screened, if you look at those pictures, even coming off of Elk Bugle Lane -- Elk Bugle Lane itself is lined with some big nice trees along the south side, if you look at the road. So there is already a lot of landscape material that is out there providing some buffering between this particular subdivision and those parcels that are to the south. And, actually, the more open area is to the west where our neighbor to the west has stated that he would rather see the three rail vinyl fence. That's actually more of what I would consider an open area than the neighbors to the south. And I think that's fairly clear from the pictures. Borup: Okay. Any other questions, Commission? Thank you, Clint. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 52 of 96 Boyle: Thank you. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Yes, Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move the Public Hearing on both of these items, AZ 02-019 and PP 02-015, be closed. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close both public hearings. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: I have a procedural question and probably even a legal question. Borup: Go ahead. Zaremba: Since this is applied for and noticed as a hearing about an R-2 zone and nine building lots and three other lots and all of our staff reports refer to that, many of the problems have been solved by making it R-3 and going to nine building lots and four other lots, but I wonder if whether we can approve an R-3? Borup: Don't we have the option of annexation as an R-2? Zaremba: No. Borup: Does the applicant have to request that? Can't we change that ourselves? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, my understanding is with the consent of the applicant -- well, even without the consent -- the Commission can make whatever recommendation you would like on the request. The request is R-2 formally. We have requested an R-3, they have agreed, so I think the R-3, if that's in your motion, I think that essentially sets the record straight. That would be my read on it. I don't think they -- they don't need to formally submit a new application. You have the ability to make whatever recommendation you would like. Borup: And we have that state before, we could annex something in a different zone than what's been applied for. They may not like it, but in this case I don't think that's a problem. The other thing is the subdivision, the lot layout essentially hasn't changed. It's the same kind of -- it did comply with the two streets, the reduced lots -- were you going to say something? Wollen: My only question would be public notice and what the Commission is recommending approval on, if there is a problem with approving -- well, recommending Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 53 of 96 approval of an R-3 when it's been publicly noticed up as a recommendation on an R-2. But I don't have an answer regarding -- that's just one concern that I would have -- the only concern, because this is a recommending body, rather than an approval body. Borup: See, I've definitely had a concern if we added -- you know, they added two more lots to it or something, changed the number of lots, but -- Zaremba; Well, we may have more flexibility in that as counsel mentions, than the City Council would. This will again be noticed when they have a hearing and if we had recommended it to be an R-3 and other recommendations, that's what will go to the City Council and their meetings would be noticed as an R-3 and four other lots, so there is the opportunity at the final -- Borup: Right. Zaremba: -- arbiter to have that correct. Borup: Okay. Did you get both your questions asked? You said you had -- Zaremba: Yes. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: It was a combined two questions I had. Borup: I have a question for staff. Could you discuss a little bit of the definition of mixed residential? Especially mixed residential-wastewater. Hawkins-Clark: You mean mixed use -- Borup: Yes. I mean that's -- Hawkins-Clark: And I was wondering if Mr. Rasmussen's comment had gotten answered, because the application was submitted -- Borup: I'm sorry. Mixed use. Hawkins-Clark: The application was submitted just prior to the formal adoption of the new plan. Borup: Right. How it fits in with the new -- the present Comp Plan. Hawkins-Clark: Yes. The present comp plan does recommend no new residential permits in the mixed use wastewater treatment area, MU-WWTP, no new residential permits. There are some small scale retail allowed. It says there is storage units would Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 54 of 96 be allowed, similar to what is already just adjacent to the north there. Office, warehouse, flex-type space. Borup: Bus barns. Hawkins-Clark: No bus barns. So it was -- there is about six different areas -- land use categories that are kind of spelled out in the new Comprehensive Plan. Borup: Along with commercial type uses. Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Not heavy -- heavy industrial is also excluded. So it really is intended to be a fairly light intensive kind of industrial. Borup: The light industrial still. Zaremba: Certainly that's not this whole square mile, though, is it? Hawkins-Clark: No. Zaremba: Is there a distance from the wastewater treatment plant as a center point? Hawkins-Clark: No. It's defined based on existing parcel lines. Zaremba: I'm just color blind enough that I can't read the chart to see which one that is. Okay. Borup: So it just includes this area of the north boundary line is the boundary change. So directly north of that is medium density, which is essentially R-4, medium density? Hawkins-Clark: Could go up to R-8. Borup: Okay. R-4 is what borders that. That probably is a pretty good transition buffer. Zaremba: Well -- and, again, this is a Comprehensive Plan that was not adopted when this application was made. Borup: Right. Right. Zaremba: Although we do plan to comply with it in the future. Borup: Okay. Thank you. That's answers the question for me. Zaremba: I think its sensitivity to the property to the west. On the whole this appears to be a good development. The west property is only faced with two lots. It isn't like there is ten lots backing up to that other piece property, one of which is quite large, and, actually, three lots, one of them is the common area for drainage. So I feel that there is Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 55 of 96 going to be quite a bit of open space preserved for the neighbor to the west. I would be inclined to, for the moment, stick with the staff's requirement on the fence, that it be a solid fence and, again, let the applicant make their case to the City Council if they wanted to do that -- something different. It's the City Council that would have to put it in writing to change it anyhow from the ordinance. So I would be inclined to leave that provision the way the staff requested it and -- Borup: And I'm visualizing some of the property in Eagle -- and I realize this isn't maybe as large, but a good number of those are rail fences, because they have got large lots and open field. Of course, one of the first things I would do if I was living in there is I would plant shrubs all along the back of the property line. Well, a vinyl rail fence is going to hold up and stay looking nice longer than a cedar fence is going to. I mean these pictures already show the cedar fence -- or I think that was probably around the existing house, but at this point that is probably the only real issue. Zaremba: So you're siding with the current fence that's -- Borup: Well, I don't know. I'm not sure what the future property owners -- I mean there may be some that want to fence their yard in and I'm not sure how that's going to look either. Mathes: Could they put the fence in front of the vinyl or behind it? Borup: Probably in front. I mean on their side. Mathes: Right. Borup: I don't know. I live in a subdivision with acre lots and most of them don't have fences, they have a rail fence, or some have got -- so we have got a real mixture in ours. Everyone has got different opinions on what they like. Here there is probably going to be some covenants that may affect that. I'm fine either way, however you want to make the motion. Mathes: I like the solid fence. I'm thinking of pets and stuff. They are going to say in a lot better with a solid fence than a split rail. Zaremba: Are we ready for a motion? Borup: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of AZ 02-019, request for annexation and zoning of 5.01 acres from RUT to an R-3 zone, not an R-2 zone, for proposed Drawbridge Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc., 4365 North Ten Mile Road, to include all staff comments with the following exceptions: Any staff comment where the change from an R-3 zone -- I'm sorry. The change from Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 56 of 96 an R-2 zone into an R-3 zone solves the problem, those comments are considered satisfied. That's it for the annexation and zoning. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Wollen: Commissioner Zaremba, I guess I'd have to ask staff is that something that can be easily done in here, because it's not something that I'm going to be able to do on the -- do in my recommendation, because it's not going to be something I can go through and do a very good seeing what's going to change at all between an R-2 and R-3. Borup: I don't believe that the setback -- were there any comments that would really be affected? Hawkins-Clark: In the annexation and zoning comments, there are only two recommended conditions and neither one of those conditions references the zone. Wollen: Okay. So as far as substantive conditions upon the developer, there wouldn't be any changes? Hawkins-Clark: For the annexation application that's correct. Wollen: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: No. Borup: The staff recommendation just says staff recommends approval and requests annexation of R-3 zoning. That's being changed to an R-2 zoning. Borup: I think what you're getting at, Commissioner Zaremba, is -- Zaremba: R-3 is the preference. Borup: Oh. I'm sorry. Oh, that's in the staff comments. Zaremba: That was their recommendation, that it be made an R-3 and the applicant presented a revised plat for the R-3. Borup: Your motion is to adopt the staff's recommendation. Zaremba: Yes. As an R-3 -- to recommend approval of the R-3 zone with all staff comments. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 57 of 96 Borup: Okay. Did we -- we had a second. Did we vote on that yet? Mathes: Uh-huh. Borup: Oh, we already didn't. Yes. We voted and counsel had a question on how to do his -- Wollen: Okay. And I apologize. So it has been seconded and approved. Okay. Zaremba: It was seconded. Do we want to take a vote again just to be sure? Reconfirm our vote? Borup: No. It is. Zaremba: In that case, Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 10 on our agenda, PP 02-015, request for preliminary plat approval of nine building lots and four, not three, other lots on 5.01 acres in a proposed R-3, not R-2, zone for proposed Drawbridge Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc., 4365 North Ten Mile Road, to include all staff comments, with the following exceptions: Page eight, under site specific comments preliminary plat, item seven has a paragraph item 17, I would change that to read Block 2, Lots 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 are through lots -- the rest of the sentence is -- and subject to 25 foot building setback on the private Elk Bugle Lane. Paragraph eight is deleted. That has been satisfied. Going to page nine. I would add an item 13, which is the retention pond shall have three-to-one maximum slope and not retain water for greater than for 24 hours. I would add a 14, that the plat shall include the necessary language about the right-to-farm act and all other places where an R-2 zone is referred to and those conditions satisfied by making this an R-3 are considered moot. Hawkins-Clark: I believe number nine could be deleted entirely. Borup: Right. Because that's been redesigned to -- Zaremba: Yes. On page nine, item number nine, can be deleted as satisfied. Wollen: Commissioner Zaremba, as part of your motion on the site specific comment number seven, sub 17, that was block -- Block 2, Lots 2, 3, 5, and 7 and 4? Zaremba: Two, three, four, five and seven. I believe I'm done. Hawkins-Clark: I'm sorry, still another clarification, if I could. On page eight, number seven, the new note that is recommending front setbacks, Item 16, I believe that's an error. It should be 25 feet from back of sidewalk. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 58 of 96 Zaremba: Okay. An additional exception is on page eight, item seven, the sub parenthesis 16, the front setback for the subdivision shall be 25, not 23 feet from back of the sidewalk. Mathes: Second. Borup: Okay. Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: I think I'd just like to comment it's kind of really refreshing to see a project like this come before us. We have not seen lots of this size with full city services. Commissioners, are we -- would you like a short break or do you want to proceed? (Recess.) (Reconvene at Item 14: Tabled Public Hearing from September 5, 2002: PP 02-014 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 439 building lots and 50 other lots on 209.01 acres in an R-4 zone in a Planned Unit Development for Bridgetower Crossing East Subdivision by Primeland Development – northeast corner of North Ten Mile Road and West Ustick Road Borup: Okay. I think we are ready to reconvene our meeting. Let's -- it has been requested during the break if we could rearrange the schedule and move Item 14, which is Bridgetower Crossing East on up in place of Item No. 11, so -- Zaremba: Do we need a motion to that effect? Borup: I don't know if we do. Wollen: I believe the agenda can be changed however the Commission sees fit. Borup: Okay. Unless there is any objection. Okay. Let's go ahead and do that. I'd like to open -- oh, this was -- this was tabled from our September 5th meeting, PP 02-014, request for preliminary plat approval 439 lots and 50 other lots on 209.01 acres in an R- 4 zone in a Planned Unit Development for Bridgetower Crossing by Primeland Development. I'd like to open this hearing at this time and start with the staff report. I just asked for the staff report on Bridgetower Crossing. We changed the agenda. Hawkins-Clark: Did you get it? .Borup: It was very short. Hawkins-Clark: My apologies. Okay. Bridgetower Crossing East. The application is a portion of an already approved planned development, which I guess, Chairman Borup, Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 59 of 96 you were the only one here at that point in time, but it would primarily just be the full eastern half of what has already been approved as Bridge Crossing -- Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision planned development and at this point in time they are coming through with the actual plat on the phases. The overall project is 370.55 acres and has a density of 2.84 dwelling units per acre. This portion is 209 acres. They are proposing 439 buildable lots. The -- I guess we don't have any existing site photos of this one. I will go over some of the -- just kind of key highlights and then I let Becky hit on more details. But they are basically in compliance with what has already been approved. They have this residential collector street that's proposed connecting to Linder Road here, an approximate 12 acre elementary school site that is located on the north side of that collector. McMillan Road here on the north. They have provided a local street connection here to McMillan Road, which was not a part of their original planned development, but that is a new addition that is matching with what the staff asked for originally. They have the -- the White Drain, as you may remember, is a dominant feature of the project. It courses more or less east or west -- east and west and this common lot right here in the middle is a proposed relocation site of the White Drain. They are proposing to relocate three different large canals and drains. The Settlers is along the north and they are proposing to relocate that slightly to the south. The White Drain, again, is being relocated to this area and then -- or the Coleman is along the south. Coleman does more or less kind of run up along this east boundary and that's going to be proposed to be relocated in this common lot area as well and then continue to the west. The Bridgetower Crossing does already have a phase final platted over here off Ten Mile Road. This portion will be connected to the south through another north-south collector. Here is a little bit more detail of some of the sections. They are proposing some office lots here that front on Linder Road. There is three that are north of the collector and three of them that are south of the collector. There are several micropaths in the project and Joe Silva of the Meridian Fire Department has in his staff comment requested a couple of additional micropaths. His concern is primarily related to one point of access into these pods. They are proposing to have a median -- a landscape medium here, so that in some ways there are two -- it's a split entry into these. There is one here, there is another one here on the south side. There is one here. One here. So as you can see it goes in -- if it serves more than 30 houses, the fire department does have concerns that there be a secondary access into these pod areas, rather than just a single point. So what the fire marshal has asked for is a couple of improved pathways that would be just emergency only, they would not be full-blown, so that would be something for the applicant to discuss. Here is -- going south in the project, this is a little bit more detail on the plat itself. They are proposing a community clubhouse at this location within a common lot. There is a requirement in the planned development for a pathway that would be adjacent to the White Drain. In the applicant's written comments that were submitted today, they have discussed that and are in agreement with providing that. So, again, that would kind of serve this clubhouse area and then would continue west and then cross all the way over to Ten Mile Road. And then here is the southern portion of the proposed plat. As far as the staff report dated September 16th, I think there is just a couple of items to point out to you. The additional considerations that start on page three, the first one is -- relates to the -- well, I'm sorry, number two relates to the phasing plan and Ms. Bowcutt has asked that you grant the Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 60 of 96 staff some latitude to review minor changes to the phasing. It is a large project and so they are asking for some flexibility there. We would need that to be part of your motion, since the subdivision ordinance is pretty clear about how phasing is handled. So if you want to do that, I would just recommend that that be a part of your motion that we have some flexibility in phasing there. There are -- there is one primary point of disagreement. Staff has recommended two additional stub streets for interconnectivity. I will go back to the opening here and we are -- they are currently providing a stub here to the north on the -- or to this 40 acre piece that is to the south of the office lots. There is also a proposed stub right here and then there is another one, let's see, right here. So staff is recommending two more be added in this half mile stretch on the eastern boundary. We feel that the planned development that was approved gives a concept approval and it does allow us to ask those things as part of the preliminary plat, the actual submittal. So I think the only other item to point out for us is there are several issues with regards to the Settlers Irrigation District and I'll probably just let Becky speak to some of those, that they are -- that may impact the design of the plat. I think that is the majority of -- there is -- they have said that they would comply with most of our recommendations. They will provide that easement for a pathway, but the city will need to work with Settlers in terms of liability issues. The parks department, in my understanding, has not submitted anything to us in writing yet. I did have a conversation with Elroy Huff at the Meridian Parks Department and, you know, he felt that that would probably be able to be worked out. I guess the only -- yes. The fencing issue, item number four under streets and pathways, the applicant is in agreement with the condition if the fencing is installed in the previous phases, they prefer not to deviate from the four foot fence with the two lattice tops currently constructed and certainly for continuity throughout the project it makes sense to continue the same type of fencing. That's it. Borup: Okay. Questions from any of the Commissioners? Would the applicant like to submit a presentation? Bowcutt: Becky Bowcutt, 1100 East Valli-Hi, Eagle. I'm representing the applicant in this matter. As Brad indicated, this is the second preliminary plat of a larger project. This is the Bridgetower project in its entirety. When we -- this project has been annexed. The property is zoned -- currently zoned R-4. We revised the Planned Unit Development ordinance and brought through an ordinance amendment in conjunction with this project and we have a conditional use for this planned development that you see here. It has a mix of office, commercial, single family residential, and some attached single family residential or townhomes. When we submitted the application, the original application, we only platted half of it or provided a preliminary plat just on the western portion of the property. The staff, as part of our conditions of approval, was concerned that we would come in, in a timely fashion, with the second preliminary plat in order to accommodate the Meridian elementary school that's proposed on this property. So we submitted this application the end of June in compliance with that condition. As Brad indicated, most of you haven't seen this project, because it was prior -- it pre-dates you, so I will just kind of give you a quick overview. It's designed off of a collector system with different types of housing lots provided, different sizes of homes. We have smaller lots that range from Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 61 of 96 like 9,000, 8,000 square feet and then as you go toward the interior the lots get larger and larger. In this particular area here we have lots that are like 90 by 150 feet in depth. In this area those lots range in the 70s and 80s in width, down to about 115. We have no lots -- I don't think we have any lots that are any less than about 110 feet in depth and those are up along this McMillan corridor. These collector roads come in from Linder, comes down, intersects with Ustick and then also goes out and intersects with Ten Mile. What that provides is excellent interconnection within the interior of the section. It captures traffic, unlike subdivisions that are on 80 acres or less, their traffic comes out to the arterials and then they are dispersed throughout the arterials. Here we have the traffic dispersed within the interior on those collectors. All of these office lots take access within the interior. We have no direct lot access to the arterials. There is an access roadway, 25 feet, runs across the rear. So like if there is a dentist office here and you live here, you would stay on the collector and you could come in here without going out onto the arterial. As Brad indicated, one of the changes that was asked of us was to add a connection to McMillan Road, so we did add that and it's reflected on the preliminary plat. This project has two clubhouses and two swimming pools. One of the clubhouses is under construction, along with its pool, in the southern portion here. The other clubhouse would be located along the collector roadway in the mid section. I'll jump to the staff report. I know it's getting late and if we can get out of here early everybody is happy. We have changed some of the phasing a little bit in this project and we changed the phasing for different reasons. One, engineering reasons. Two, market conditions. And, three, obviously, to make sure that we have that school site available when the school district needs it. They have given us dates such as possibility of one in 2003, 2004, it all depends on which elementary school out in this northern area they decide to build first. But the property has been set aside, it's in the project, so it is reserved for them. They do not own it at this time, but we are holding it for them. The applicant asks that we have some flexibility in our phasing. Obviously, phasing is dependent on market conditions. If I show 50 lots in a particular phase and the housing market gets very soft, the applicant may just plat half of that, maybe 25 lots, as an example. We need to have some of that flexibility. If we have, for an engineering reason, that we need to adjust, maybe include additional lots into a phase because it makes sense, we have to have that flexibility. The only -- you know, the one thing that the staff would look at is just minor things like that. If we were to say move the school phase way out to the last when it's shown as one of the earlier phases and the district needs it, then that would, obviously, be something that the staff would say, no, that is significant, we can't allow that. So we are looking for those minor -- minor deviations in phasing and other projects have requested that also. That's item two under additional considerations. Item three, the staff asked we show a cross section of 33 feet for the street section. That's the local section. ACHD in their conditions says unless otherwise approved you will confine these streets to a 36 back to back with a 50 foot right of way and a five foot sidewalk. The key is unless otherwise approved. They have changed their policy manual and are allowing us to go down to 33 foot street sections if we meet certain criteria, that's less pavement, less storm drainage, we can allocate more area for -- you know, to nonimpervious surfaces and so forth. It just -- it just gives us a better flexibility in design purposes. We have some streets out here that are 36 back to back, but if we can go 33, we would appreciate that and the highway district gives us that Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 62 of 96 latitude. The fourth item is the White Drain. I kind of went into a lengthy discussion in my narrative concerning the White Drain. I just wanted the Commission to be aware of the fact that we have been working with Settlers Irrigation District for two years. We have received letters that we could turn the White Drain into a water amenity, then we received letters that mandated that we pipe the White Drain, then they reversed their position again and said, no, we want it open. They were going to allow us to run it through our ponds and then they came back and said, no, we won't allow that, they want it separate from any ponds, whether they be storm drainage, irrigation, or just an esthetic pond. They do not want any interconnection. They were going to accept some predevelopment discharge with storm filters being installed, which are very expensive and have been very effective. Boise has been testing some of them with the new Wal- Mart facility downtown that discharges into Julia Davis Park's pond, then they came back and said, no, we won't allow that. They have been a very difficult agency to work with. I just wanted that to be on the record, because we have some concerns when we have an agency that continues to flipflop when we are trying to design a project. It would be the city's responsibility as far as the pathway is concerned -- we have always been in agreement that we want a pathway running along the White Drain, along this collector roadway. Settlers wants the city to accept liability and enter into some type of an agreement very similar to what the city entered into with Nampa-Meridian on Five Mile Creek pathway. I did provide Settlers with a copy of that agreement for their review, but I will need the city's assistance in that matter. Item five is the issue of Settlers Canal. I did adjust my preliminary plat prior to submittal to allocate additional area, more than what we had originally shown in the original -- or the first concept, because the White Drain will have to be located south of the new transmission poles. Right now it is north of those transmission poles. Settlers indicated to us for two years that they want a 40 foot easement. They indicated, I guess in writing, that they want a 50 foot easement. We have allocated adequate area to accommodate that Settlers canal, whether it be open or whether it be piped. We are in agreement with staff. Settlers asked that we provide access along both sides of the settlers Canal, plus fence both sides. That would just be an eye sore and the staff is in agreement and they have asked I think in their comments that we get with Settlers and try to negotiate that out. We have been working vigorously to come up with very esthetic improvements on these facilities and they don't necessarily care about the esthetics, they are looking at the functionality. So I would hope we could find some middle ground, but I do want it on the record that we have had extreme difficulty with them. The only disagreement that your staff and I have is concerning two additional stub streets. ACHD and our traffic engineers reviewed this, analyzed it, ACHD's engineers analyzed it, there are two parcels here, located here, the Brenneger parcel is the north 40, this southern 40 here was purchased by Kevin Howell. I provided him with a copy of our stub street locations a few months ago, so, obviously, he's been working on a design that -- off of the existing stub street locations that we show on our plan. We stubbed here, we stubbed there, and there is a parcel down here and we provided at stub street connection there. Borup: Becky, can you clarify -- you mentioned two parcels. The plat we had it looked to me like four or some of those -- Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 63 of 96 Bowcutt: I think Kevin Howell -- there may be multiple parcels, but my understanding is he's bought the 40. So where you see the RUT, yes. Borup: That's the one -- Bowcutt: That's Brenneger's -- no. That's Brenneger's and I don't know of any developer that's purchased that. Borup: That's one parcel? Bowcutt: Right. And I have provided a stub street on its northern boundary. Then if you go to the south, my understanding is Kevin Howell has purchased those parcels consisting or approximately 40 acres. Borup: Okay. Even though they are -- there is four parcels there, but two mainly, but the same ownership you're saying? Bowcutt: That's my understanding. And then there is a parcel to the south, kind of an L- shaped, and we have provided a stub street there. When we provide these interconnections we don't want to make it as convenient as possible for people to get into their vehicles. If we can promote people to walk or bike between neighborhoods, between uses, obviously, that is one goal we have as a planner. I don't want to make it so it's easier just to jump right in your car and drive over there if at all possible. And that's one reason that I feel if we create too many stub streets we are just making it convenient to get into your car. As far as item three was discussed, the pathway and the liability issue. Item four is the fencing. I guess what I was alluding to is out there right now we have vinyl fencing. The slats have a three-quarter inch gap between each slat, so it's not completely site obscuring on the four foot bottom section and then we have a two foot lattice that is kind of crisscross vinyl across the top. And so we would hope -- staff kind of gave a -- defined what they wanted to see out there. I think they used the word, what, 80 percent, Brad? Eighty percent nonsight obscuring, I mean I don't -- I haven't gone out and measured the lattice, but I would hate at this point to try to deviate. The staff has gone out and they have inspected a couple phases now, we are on our third phase, so I guess I'd defer to staff if they believe that what we have out there meets that criteria. Do you have any questions? Borup: Questions from the Commission? Zaremba: Would you, on the larger map, clarify for me which -- no. The one that's standing up above that has all the phases -- which parts of that are we discussing tonight and which parts are already approved? Just with your hands. Bowcutt: Probably easier to show you here. Zaremba: Okay. That one works. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 64 of 96 Bowcutt: You see the lots that are in the darker -- the bolder type here? This is the phase you're discussing. It comes along the out parcel here, comes down, we made a little bit of revisions to this collector, at one time the collector shown it splitting with a median, but we ended up -- Borup: He's having a little trouble hearing, so if you can -- Bowcutt: I'm sorry. We ended up making that just single collector roadway that's functioning the same and then it comes down and comes around like that. So it's kind of like the eastern portion of that project. Everything you see in the lighter text was previously approved on another preliminary plat, but the PUD covered all of it and the annexation and rezone covered all of it. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Now on that same one, I understand your discussion and the reasoning for not having more stub streets and you make a strong case for it, trying to get people out of their cars and I agree with that. I think the issue was probably this area and this area, is that there were too many houses for the fire department to have only a single access into those loops. Down here it looks like there is a pathway. Bowcutt: Yes, sir. Zaremba: Are those wide enough so they could be emergency access pathways? Bowcutt: The lot -- Zaremba: I was just thinking of some secondary emergency way -- Bowcutt: The lot itself is 20 feet wide and then we are required to have, I believe, a five foot wide path and then landscaping on both sides. All of our pods are interconnected. This is our seven acre private park here. There is a pathway comes through to the north of it, then we have a public street, pathway coming to this pod, and then if you come up, this pod is connected, this pod, then we have got another connection here, coming out here. So all of these are interconnected with pathways. Zaremba: Could the pathways be used by an emergency vehicle? Bowcutt: They have to be 20 feet wide and be able to handle 75,000 GVW, so we would have to pave the whole thing to accommodate a fire truck. Now what we have done is, as Brad indicated, we have put these medians in. I do not have a median at this -- in this loop, nor do I have a median here. But all these other loops do. And this median is short, but could be extended clear down here. And, as Brad indicated, what the fire department looks at, they have one point of ingress and egress, if that point were to be blocked say, for example, they use there is a car accident, then they could -- they would have no access in there, but when you have the median separating it, it would be pretty difficult for them, because it's so much wider and you have got that landscape median, to block the entire entrance into that pod. So that's their reasoning behind -- behind Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 65 of 96 those islands and I believe staff stated at one time -- or one of the staff members, that the fire department had accepted that in some other developments. I think it was Dave McKinnon I was talking with, but I couldn't tell you what projects those were. Zaremba: Another question. Access to the elementary school is only on your internal road; is that correct? Bowcutt: We have access on the collector and this collector right here. As far as McMillan Road is concerned, that would be determined by that school district, ACHD, and the city staff. They talked about potentially having like a teacher -- a teacher parking lot in the rear, but that was before we added this, and so they have got a lot of area here to come off that collector, so I would hope -- they don't have to use McMillan, they have got two points of good ingress-egress. Zaremba: That's good. This approach here to Linder -- Bowcutt: Yes. Zaremba: -- is that far enough south from McMillan to satisfy ACHD? Bowcutt: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. Bowcutt: It is two, four -- about 500 feet, approximately. And we moved it 30 feet further south to mitigate the impact of the lights on the English's home. That's the couple that's here this evening. Zaremba: Those are my questions. Borup: Okay. That concludes -- Bowcutt: Yes, sir. Borup: Mr. English, I'm assuming you stayed for -- or your wife? Let's go ahead and give you a chance and then we will ask staff some questions. English: Margie English, 4650 North Linder Road. We commented on this last year. Commissioner Borup was there, so I think he remembers us. We always seem to be here in the late hours of the night and the last people at the meeting. I have one primary concern remaining. I don't know, Commissioner Borup, if you still have our letter from a year ago, April 28th, 2001. We put several concerns down in writing and you took time to read our concerns and you acknowledged that they were some of the more valid concerns, but because you were only approving the western side, you said, well, these are things that can be worked out in the future. So here we are. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 66 of 96 Borup: This is the future. English: Yes. And if you don't -- if you don't have a copy of this letter anymore, maybe you could find a xerox machine to give to it you, but -- Borup: We do not have that, so -- have you had a chance to meet with the developer and work out some of those things? English: Yes. Most of them. And Becky mentioned she -- and I agree, she has been being very responsive in working with us. Borup: Bruce is prepared to make copies. English: It's late and I may not remember. Borup: You want to pause just a little bit and maybe we will ask staff a couple of questions. English: Okay. Borup: Does anyone else have any questions of staff? I would like, Brad, maybe some comments on the stub streets and the fire department's comments. Hawkins-Clark: Sure. We just like to disagree with the developers. Borup: You've got to find one area. Hawkins-Clark: We've got to find one. On a project this big, if we don't find one, something's wrong. My understanding -- the concept for planned development did give them 1,500 foot -- they could exceed the maximum block length up to 1,500 foot. One thousand is the standard. Borup: Right. Sixty percent increase. Hawkins-Clark: Yes. A lot of this issue of stub streets comes down to where do you measure a block from, because the ordinance says a thousand foot block length. So then you say, okay, well, what's a block. And the ordinance is a little bit vague on it. Historically -- and we feel pretty consistently we have measured, particularly on the perimeters of subdivisions, we have taken the rear -- the rear lot lines and essentially gone from a street center line to a street center line. So, for example, I will go back up to -- for example, if you take this stub street that is right here, if you take the center line of that street and you say, okay, let's start the block and so you move west along this lot line and then you come south and you keep going until you hit a new block, this is all a part of the same block right here. So you're coming down to this stub street right here. That's the approximately 1,800 feet, if you measure the lineal footage along there. So I guess in our opinion that it's greater than 1,500 feet, so you break it up and you add in Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 67 of 96 a stub street and that creates another block and so you have met that -- it's the same principle down here. If you start from this stub street and you continue south and you make the turn to the east and you come down to this point, that's also greater than 1,500. So ours is -- our interpretation of the block and the measurement of that is that it exceeds even what their planned development granted in terms of the 1,500 foot. I mean certainly we are not looking for people to get out of their -- or get into their cars either. You know, I guess there can be some design issues, if there is some concern about future residential subdivisions on these parcels, you know, using these stub streets to cut through, I guess in our opinion the more likely is that Bridgetower residents would use future stubs to access Linder Road and would help to shorten trip lengths if that occurred. So I don't know if I'm getting to the question or not. Borup: Yes. I was looking for support for your argument and I think that's what you're doing there and the number of parcels wasn't necessarily a big factor. Hawkins-Clark: No. It was more just the lineal foot of a block. Borup: The only other question I have on that is in this case -- and I see what you're saying and I agree with the over 1,500. I wonder if in this case you also have the waterway canal or whatever it is going through there, which effectively separates the blocks. I don't know if there is maybe some consideration on something like that. Hawkins-Clark: Technically, it is still Block 18. Borup: Right. Hawkins-Clark: But, you're right, in terms of a future extension of the pathway that they are providing, you know, there is a way that could be made if you want to -- well, I guess the pathway wouldn't be interrupted, necessarily, should that future -- should that future parcel continue the pathway, then that wouldn't necessarily be interrupted, but I guess I don't necessarily buy the argument that that common -- common lot shortened or should give them an out on the block length, but -- Borup: Okay. Zaremba: From your angle you are not able to see the two areas that I was asking about. You probably were able to figure out, but -- that I was concerned about one access into this pod and one access into this pod with how many houses there are there and the discussion about whether or not these pathways could be used as emergency -- a second emergency exit or entrance. Hawkins-Clark: Yes. The fire department has asked -- and I'm forgetting if Becky addressed this or not, but if you can see this little small line right there? That's a micropath. The fire department has asked for that to be extended out here to the collector. Do you see what I -- so that would essentially give them the emergency access -- that would have bollards. He has requested bollards. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 68 of 96 Zaremba: And that would satisfy fire. Hawkins-Clark: It would. Zaremba: The same thing down here. Hawkins-Clark: On this particular one I believe they are -- you would have to angle that micropath, because of the location of the stormwater pond and the slopes of the White Drain right here, I think you would have to angle them and we have always discouraged having angles in micropaths just for the hiding -- you know, you can hide in them more easily. It's just a safety thing. Mathes: Could you move it up one? I mean -- Hawkins-Clark: Certainly. I think the fire department is certainly -- just is looking for another way in, so I don't think they would care. It would make for a straight -- you're right, it would make for a straight shorter -- Commissioner Mathes. It might accommodate a stormwater drain and maybe that's the reason that 20 foot is there. I don't know if that could be shifted or not. Borup: Okay. Mrs. English. English: Margie English, 4650 North Linder Road, and I wanted to hit on tonight probably our biggest -- well, two of our biggest remaining concerns with the proposal and the one is with our irrigation. I understand -- I mean, obviously, I understand that by law they have got to provide our irrigation. However, we take our irrigation from gate 28, as it's written here, and our return line, our waste line, currently flows across the Bridgetower property and I think here we counted -- tried to estimate which lots it would impact in our letter. Right now there isn't any design to deal with that, to address the return line, so my concern is that I want to insure that that is taken into account and I would request that -- that you folks make that as a condition of your approval, that the irrigation return line is taken into account. When we wrote this letter a year ago, we put in some specific items based on what our understanding was at the time. I mean certainly item number one -- you know, that they don't go in and start ripping out the return lines during the irrigation season. I don't want the irrigation water to back up on our property. If it does do that, it flows right into our septic drain field area, so, you know, it's a very real concern for me. And I also am concerned if it's in the non-irrigation season, that they at least have some sort of provisions for getting somewhere where that water will channel, because there have been some pretty strong precipitation events since we have been there, approximately eight years, where even in the wintertime the precipitation runs down that irrigation return line. So that's what I'm requesting tonight, that as a condition of your approval that you put that requirement on there. Also you will see that much of the rest of our letter concerns traffic issues and I don't know if this is really an item for this meeting or if this is more of a City Council thing, this was brought up last year and it seems to me that the representative from Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 69 of 96 ACHD, according to my notes, came to the City Council meeting and not to the Planning and Zoning meeting and I'm not sure if this is in your ballpark, but in the City Council meeting, the representative from ACHD very clearly specified that they had not reviewed the eastern side of the plan and that they had -- she stated some of her concerns did match what we had laid out in our letter and I guess my question would be has ACHD now looked at the size of the subdivision and maybe have these concerns addressed. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. B.English: Brian English, 4650 North Linder. If I can clarify a couple of the concerns we had. One of the issues we have raised with the traffic study was that Bridgetower did a traffic study without taking into account some of the other developments that have been approved around and now with this new section there has been even more developments that have been approved around. We are concerned that the way the connector system is that that connection comes out to Linder Road -- right now the high school that services this area is Eagle High School. We have trouble getting out -- we have a lot of trouble getting out of our driveway and turning right in the morning and their connector is going to be coming out across the street and it's going to be carrying elementary school traffic. We wonder if there is not going to be a lot more people that are going to cut through and use this access to McMillan Road. We wonder if that could be looked at. We wonder if the -- some of the other developments they are putting in -- they are proposing 270 homes in that section just south of the 40 acres that we live on. Thank you. That was not approved at the time the traffic study was done. There is going to be a middle school that's already approved in that spot there and we wonder how -- and we have attended all these meetings -- you know, the regional meetings for the seven or 14 for whatever -- they change it all the time. Twelve square miles now? They have changed it about four times on that and we also attended the Comprehensive Plan meeting and the North Meridian meeting and we tended to leave those meetings more confused than when we went in, because the North Meridian Plan does not match the Comprehensive Plan and what ACHD was putting out in their plan didn't match either one of those and so we were wondering has the traffic been looked at and have those concerns been addressed. Thank you. Borup: I can say that we do have a 23 page report from ACHD on this project, dated -- what is the date? November 7th. But they have updated it. They have mentioned an extension on the North Meridian Planning area also, but we do not have an update from November last year. But they have made several references to the 12 square mile study area in their report, so they were looking at the overall surrounding development also. B.English: One of the problems I had with that plan is that it assumed that all of those roads were done and built and that really -- how that is going to happen hasn't really been addressed and explaining what has to happen with what's there. Borup: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 70 of 96 B.English: I'm wondering if -- when they get to the point when that last phase is built in the northeast corner, is Linder Road going to be capable of handling the additional load it's going to have as a result of the elementary school, a middle school, there is a proposed high school in the next square to the north, plus all the development, the roads are going to have to -- you know, will the roads even come close to keeping up, because right now they haven't. Borup: Thank you. Any of the Commissioners have any other questions they'd like to ask before we have Becky come up? Zaremba: No. Borup: Do you have any final comments? Bowcutt: I will quickly try to answer the English's questions. Concerning their wastewater ditch, their ditch does come -- go west through our property. I did kind of discussed with them prior to the meeting a route that we could pipe it. It is our responsibility to pipe that, so, for the record, we will be working with Englishes to make sure that that wastewater is continued on, that it is in pipe. That is one of our latter phases. Another thing I'd like to make sure that you understand the project is about a seven to ten year project, so, you know, it's not like we are going to have instantly, you know, 400 and some odd homes going up. Concerning ACHD, we did get a new action from ACHD on August 7th. The Ada County Highway District acted on the application. What they did is they basically looked at the traffic study and adopted the previous conditions that were applicable to the first preliminary and applied them to this, including in the event that any additional impact fees are allocated and are instituted in this area, that it would apply to this project. We have been working with ACHD as we build this project to make sure that these roadways are upgraded. We kind of did a private-public partnership on Ten Mile Road when we installed our center turn lane. We did some rebuilds of the road at our cost. We also installed the turn lanes and in conjunction they came in and contracted with our paving company at the same time to go in and overlay Ten Mile and that was from the Creason about 400 feet short of the McMillan intersection, so we have a nice section of road there, whereas before we had a roadway that was rural and falling apart. So we have been doing as we had promised in the previous meetings, working with these agencies trying to help bring this infrastructure up at our expense and trying to save public funds at the same time. I think that's it, unless you have any questions. Oh, concerning the streets. You know, I guess one last note on the stub streets, we spent a lot of money on these collector roadways and this is one of the few projects that I have had where we have continuous collectors and they are very expensive to construct and to landscape. We have approximately I think 54 acres of open space in this project in its entirety. When we start putting these stub streets, we do change the pattern of that traffic and we will create shortcuts out to Linder Road for some of those pods, depending on the design of the vacant 40 acre parcels along Linder. If they have a very direct design out from Linder, it will become a shortcut, so, therefore, they will be underutilizing the collectors that we are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to build. So you do need to take that into Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 71 of 96 consideration. I do understand staff's concern about block length. We can create some additional interconnectivity through micropaths and we have done -- we are doing a lot of pedestrian pathways in this project and even along the Creason Lateral to the south we will have a pedestrian pathway that runs behind lots and interconnects it right here. And it will link in with your future Five Mile Creek pathway. So we have gone the extra mile to try to provide alternatives to vehicular access within our project. Thank you. Borup: I think we have got a few questions. At least I do. Back to what you were talking about on block length. Bowcutt: Yes, sir. Borup: Did you have any problem with the 1,500 feet at the previous application? I mean it was increased from 1,000 to 1,500. Was that acceptable at that time? Bowcutt: To be honest with you, Commissioner Borup, I don't remember the 1,500 feet. I guess Brad looked it up. I don't know whether I have spaced it or what. Or maybe it's just late. All I know is we asked for deviation from block length in the original planned development application, because we knew we would exceed it with this type of pod design, because we did not have a grid-type system where you're breaking those blocks up in less than 1,000 feet -- or at that 1,000 feet. It's tough to break them up at 1,000 feet, even with a grid, because you end up -- I mean you don't want to have excessive stub streets and you don't have to have streets that aren't necessary. I'm not sure where we got the 1,500. Where did they come from, Brad; do you remember? Hawkins-Clark: I had forgotten it as well, but I looked it up to write this staff report and I came across it. It was pretty clear in the finding. Bowcutt: So I guess I never -- I never went through -- you know, we measured some blocks, but that was when we did the PUD. I couldn't tell you off the top of my head what the distance is. It all depends on how you measure them, too. Borup: Right. I have still got some questions on that myself. How about the fire department's concern? Bowcutt: The fire department -- it's a new issue that's just came up within the last probably 60 days, as far as secondary means of access. I have met with Joe Silva, we have talked about this secondary access concept on multiple projects. If we put them out the ped paths, then the ped paths -- I'm sure the staff does not want 20 solid feet of asphalt and then, you know, a fence on each side -- on the edge of that asphalt. You have to probably expand the ped path to a minimum of 30 feet so you could get at least five feet of landscaping on each side of the 20 feet. Borup: What was Joe's attitude on the divided entrance that -- Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 72 of 96 Bowcutt: I was told that he was buying off on that on other projects by -- I think it was Dave McKinnon. But, like I said, I can't tell you what project. I assume -- I didn't think we would get into it here at the Commission. It was probably an issue that I think the Council is going to have to make the call on. What Joe is doing is he's going off of the International Fire Code, which the city has not officially adopted and will not adopt until January. What's in effect at this time is the Uniform Fire Code, so he's kind of jumping ahead and saying, well, this is what we are going to be requiring, we may as well start now. I think the Council on some of the -- like decreased street sections, Heritage Commons, for example, the 29 foot street section, the fire department took a very hard stance against that and Council overruled them. So it's going to end up the Council's decision. So, you know, we could discuss this for an hour. Borup: Do you feel that meets a lot of the concerns on the divided entrances? Bowcutt: I feel it does. And if it's accepted -- it needs to be consistent, so if you have accepted it in some projects as a secondary means, I would hope that it would be applicable to this project also. Borup: So that would mean you have this entrance here that would not -- that does not have a divided entrance. Bowcutt: Yes. Because I have lots fronting right there on that neck. Borup: This one is a parcel? Bowcutt: Yes. It would have to be expanded and I do have the room to expand it, because, as you can see, I've got landscaping on both sides -- Borup: Right. Bowcutt: -- of that entrance. This one we could -- we could retro fit a median on that one. The problem -- Borup: Well, you have got a secondary access on that one. Bowcutt: Yes. We do. The problematic one is this one with the long neck, if we are looking at the median -- Borup: Do you know how many lots are in that pod? Bowcutt: Probably about 40 some lots, I would assume. Zaremba: Well -- and for me that would be answered if this were an emergency access. Bowcutt: Right here, sir? Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 73 of 96 Zaremba: Uh-huh. Bowcutt: That would give you interconnection for emergency purposes. Borup: If this is something that, you know, I think needs to be addressed, there is probably three solutions, but -- you know, a divided entrance, emergency through there, or a stub street here. Either one of those three would address that. Zaremba: Well, the issue on a divided entrance here is that there is three houses on one side facing it and three on the other -- or two on the other. Those people would only have right in and right out to their driveways -- five different houses would only have right in and right out and always have to come up and make this u-turn, with some of them leaving and some of the arriving. Borup: What's J? Oh, I guess I could read. Bowcutt: That is the cemetery. Borup: Oh. Bowcutt: There is like a cemetery from the 1800s and it's pretty small. There is I think -- Borup: Are there graves there? Bowcutt: Six, I believe, and we allocated a substantial amount of area around it and we are going to go in and landscape it and make it -- protect it, but yet make it so it's not a focal point, I guess I'll put it that way. We are preserving it, because it is historical, has some historical significance. Borup: And that's why it's got such a long entrance? Bowcutt: Yes, sir. The cemetery itself takes up just a small portion of that area. Borup: I was just looking at a redesign, but the cemetery -- Bowcutt: We felt that we didn't want the back yard that close to the cemetery. It was not appropriate. Zaremba: So you're saying the three solutions are in here, which I'm not so thrilled about. Borup: It looks like there is two. Zaremba: Making this an emergency access or putting a stub street out here, those are the three choices. I would be happy with this as an emergency access. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 74 of 96 Borup: And that doesn't address block length at all. Mathes: Can you put micropaths in, though, to break up lot lengths? Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Mathes, that has been considered an option in some planned developments. We have discouraged it. Mathes: Why? Borup: It usually hasn't -- depending on whether you're talking about the perimeter of a subdivision or internally, but Baldwin Park, which I believe is the other one that Becky was referring to, that the fire department allowed the split entry to be used, if you recall, that did use ped paths to break up block lengths. It has been admittedly a point that staff has varied on over the years. It's been in both cases. We have looked at it case by case. Borup: Are these the same block? Zaremba: Yes. According to his measurements. Bowcutt: Yes. The Ada County engineer, I think under state code, determines the block. It's broke up by a public right of way. That breaks the block and then it changes block number. Borup: Okay. Bowcutt: And that's how we do the final plat. Borup: So you can't number your own blocks? Bowcutt: No. Borup: What would be your preference, Becky? Other than leaving it the way it is. Bowcutt: Well, I think that's probably up to Frank. It's hard to think this time of night. Borup: Would staff be -- I mean the ped path really doesn't answer the block length. Or maybe it does. Is that -- is that something that they could work out with staff later? If it was, you know, one or the other? Hawkins-Clark: Can you remind me -- are each of the existing parcels -- the large parcels on Linder Road does have a street stub; is that correct? Bowcutt: Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 75 of 96 Borup: Because the one parcel is owned by -- I mean two parcels owned by the same individual it does. Hawkins-Clark: You know, we try to look at -- on these -- I mean certainly the redevelopment potential, you know, comes into play and we don't have evidence tonight that those are owned by the same person. I guess I don't see why -- I can see not having both. I mean you have got three -- three large parcels here -- I mean should this one be developed -- yes. I guess this one, out west is that -- right here. Okay. So this one has a stub -- so this is the one that does not have the stub street yet. Borup: Right. Hawkins-Clark: So that's -- in terms of future redevelopment, they come in, how are they going to lay out their subdivision, the ability to layout the streets and have their block length be met is a factor and this north -- this northerly one, you know, with the White Drain bisecting it and, you know, access to Linder and access up to the north and they are probably going to start down to the south, I can see where the redevelopment of that would work without having any kind of vehicular access over to the west. Borup: That was my feeling, because of the White Drain. Hawkins-Clark: Right. Borup: But I -- yes. There is a potential problem on the southern part, which is a good point. How do they meeting the thousand -- now they are not going to have -- they may not have the option of a 1,500 foot block length, because if they try to comply with the 1,000, they really will have a problem, won't they? Let's go ahead and get your name on the record. Varielle: Frank Varielle. 4702 Fieldcrest View, Boise. My recollection on the 1,500 foot block length was we asked for that because of the pod design that we have and the measurement that we used was circular. What Brad is bringing up is a different interpretation. When this was being laid out that was not applied. So I think that that's where that 1,500 feet came from. Borup: So you're measuring here 1,500 feet from here and around? Varielle: Internally on each pod is my recollection how that was done. And, you know, going on the perimeter was not a -- was not something that we had looked at at that time, so -- and I'm not saying that he's incorrect, but thinking back at that time that was why we had requested it, so that it would facilitate this pod design. And as far as a preference as to whether to use the ped path or a stub street, the problem with enlarging those ped paths, even though we may put a bollard on them or whatever, is it's been my experience that they become traffic ways for everybody, you know, kids want to drive their car through there and it just turns into somewhat of a problem and you have to really -- you know, they go around -- drive on the landscaping, do whatever Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 76 of 96 you got to do just to get through there. So if I have to make a choice there, I would say that the sub street would be a preference, simply because of the problems that I think that are caused by trying to create a vehicle access there -- an emergency, and then trying to chain it off and do whatever, I think. Borup: Unless you enlarge them, they are really ugly. Varielle: They are. Borup: Horrible landscaping. Varielle: Yes. It's a real -- it's a real problem. I do -- you know, I think the discussion has been with the island that you have two ways in, that has been an acceptable design standard in the past and, again, that was taken into consideration when we did the pod design, that's why we brought those items in. And I think that in every case that we can apply that, I would prefer to see that and if we have no other means to make that work, then perhaps a stub street is our only alternative. Borup: Taking into consideration what you have said, then, if we -- you know, if we give them some leeway on this one, because of the White Drain, and we have got the divided entrances on all these others, that answers the highway -- or the fire department concern. Really we have just got the one pod that's a concern and that would probably be the one that gets the stub street. Varielle: Yes, Commissioner Borup, that seems to be a workable solution. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: So then the question would be should a stub go to the unproposed development to the east or should it stub back into -- Borup: Oh. To itself. Well, that's not a stub then. Then you're doing away with the pod design, because you have got different housing types here, don't you? This is in the -- aren't those different housing types on this pod than this pod or -- Varielle: That's correct. Borup: Yes. So you don't necessarily want to tie those together. Varielle: That's correct. Borup: So you're saying a stub street to that parcel somewhere. Zaremba: To the east. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 77 of 96 Borup: Okay. That would really -- I mean I think we answered -- I mean the divided highway I think answers the fire department concern and it sounds like adding -- adding one stub street to take care of the staff's concern, because of the White Drain and the northern portion. Zaremba: Well -- and on this pod making this island go all the way. Borup: Yes. Zaremba: That was the solution to that pod. Borup: Yes. Zaremba: Extending it. Borup: That doesn't answer block length, then, but it still -- it's got access to the out parcels. Zaremba: And I intend to buy into -- Borup: I think that's reasonable. Zaremba: I buy into the argument that the block length is originally intended and lends itself to solving a grid pattern problem. This being a different kind of a subject that may be the more important one for here is how many houses have one access. Borup: Right. If this is strictly block length, the access could be moved down and reduce that, but that's not really changing anything. I think that's a good solution, to add a stub street on the -- whatever street that is. It's on the second page. Maybe Becky can tell us. What's the name of that street? Bowcutt: San Remo. Borup: Where did you want to put the stub -- or however you want to work the design. Probably anywhere along this whole stretch I would assume. Well, no, that's -- that's not true. There needs to be -- from where that parcel line is down. So that puts it -- Bowcutt: San Remo. Borup: Yes. From Lot 31 south. Bowcutt: Correct. Hawkins-Clark: Is that what you -- Borup: Anywhere from lot 31 south. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 78 of 96 Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Borup: Well, I think we have addressed everything. Are we ready to move on? Actually, that was a lot of time for one issue. Zaremba: That's a big issue. Borup: It's a big project. Zaremba: This could have been five different subdivisions and it could have taken us months. Borup: Okay. Brad, do we need to include in the motion something concerning on the phasing latitude? Or does that matter? Somebody wrote a little note on here, it says motion item. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, I think we would, yes, recommend that that -- there just be a specific item on your motion that grants staff the flexibility -- and I wouldn't necessarily worry tonight about, you know, the wording on that, but I think because it is ordinance that phases, you know, are pretty strictly adhered to year by year and we have done that, I think -- gee, I think it would be helpful to have that in your motion. Borup: Okay. Is there anything else we need to add to the staff comments on the motion, other than -- I mean Mrs. English wanted to add some things on the wastewater ditch. That really pretty much goes without saying, so I guess it doesn't hurt to include it. Zaremba: What I would add there is not necessarily the specific solution, but at least the phrase that their service will not be interrupted. Borup: Well, she was more concerned about the wastewater ditch than -- Zaremba: Then we will do it for both. Borup: Because I don't think her water comes from this project, her water comes from the east. Is that correct? So she's worried about the waste that goes across the road onto this project. So her service can't be interrupted -- her water can't be interrupted, it's the -- Zaremba: Her waste drainage. Borup: Yes. Could back up and that would -- okay. Zaremba: Well, first, Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing. Mathes: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 79 of 96 Zaremba: On item 14. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Borup: Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: All right. I will give it a stab here. I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 14 on our agenda, PP 02-014, request for preliminary plat approval of 439 building lots and 50 other lots on 209.01 acres in an R-4 zone in a Planned Unit Development for Bridgetower Crossing East Subdivision by Primeland Development, northeast corner of North Ten Mile and West Ustick Road, to include all staff comments of their memo of September 16th, with the following changes: On page three, additional considerations, under the phasing plan, staff shall have authority and flexibility to work with the applicant for minor changes in the phasing plan. Page four, items four and five, the White Drain pathway and Settlers Irrigation, the applicant shall resolve these issues two weeks prior to this going to the City Council, in conjunction with the owners of the White Drain, the Settlers Irrigation District. Borup: Is that feasible, Brad? Did you catch that? Resolving the issues with Settlers two weeks before it goes to City Council. Hawkins-Clark: The applicant has been working with Settlers Irrigation for two years. Zaremba: Well, it can't go to City Council without being resolved. Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Yes. Our Council has been pretty vocal about wanting issues cleaned up before they hear them. So I guess the motion needs to -- Borup: Isn't part of the solution is Meridian signing a resolution with them? The city signing -- Hawkins-Clark: A resolution that -- Borup: Or an agreement, the -- or am I talking about two different things here? Freckleton: You're talking about the liability? Borup: Yes. Hawkins-Clark: Yes. The liability issue for the pathways? Is that -- Borup: Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 80 of 96 Hawkins-Clark: That would be a direct agreement, I believe, between the City of Meridian and Settlers Irrigation District. Borup: Is that one of the things you intended to have cleared up before City Council? That's an action City Council has to take on the liability agreement. Zaremba: I would reserve that that item could be handled by the City Council upon discussion of this preliminary plat. Does that make sense? Where are we going? Let me restate that part of the motion. On page four, items four and five, White Drain pathway -- let me deal with the White Drain pathway. The applicant and the owners of the White Drain would work out an agreement that can be approved by the City Council -- a tentative agreement to be finalized two weeks before this goes to City Council and on five, paragraph five, that the applicant and Settlers Irrigation District work together and have their solution by two weeks before this goes to City Council. In addition to that, the applicant has agreed to add one stub street south of Lot 31 on -- what was the name? Borup: San Remo. Zaremba: On San Remo and to extend the island -- don't have the names. I'm going on here. What is that name? Borup: I don't know. Mathes: Becky, what's the name of the -- Hawkins-Clark: Los Flores? Zaremba: What is the name of that little street there? Borup: Why don't you just say the entrance into Block 18 and 32. Entrance into Block 32. Block 32 is the block in the middle of that. That would probably answer that. Zaremba: Okay. The applicant has agreed to extend the island on Los Flores or just the entrance to Block 32. In addition, the applicant will continue to work with Mr. and Mrs. English in resolving the English's waste drainage to a resolution that will not interrupt their service. Is that it? Borup: I think so. Does staff have any concerns with that motion? Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? The ayes have it. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 81 of 96 Item 11: Tabled Public Hearing from September 5, 2002: MI 02-005 Request for change of Area of Impact by Mike Caven, Caven, Inc. for 39.64 acres located at the northeast corner of North Eagle Road and East Ustick Road: Borup: Okay. Next item is -- Zaremba: Eleven. Borup: Yes. I had read through it, so that's why I was looking at 12. Item No. 11, MI 02- 005, request for change of area of impact by Mike Caven for 39.64 acres, northwest corner of North Eagle and Ustick Road. I'd like to open this Public Hearing and start with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: You should have received a staff report from us dated September 12th. The miscellaneous application -- generally the issue is -- this is -- parts of these that are two existing parcels, both are owned by Caven, Incorporated, approximately 39 acres. It is currently in Meridian's area of impact. That's right. There is an area -- it is 36.94, not 39.64 acres. The deed should be referenced in correcting that and notice the right acres, but -- Borup: The staff report does say 36. Hawkins-Clark: Yes. The way that the City of Meridian handles any requests to be either added into or moved out of our area of impact is through miscellaneous application. During the Comprehensive Plan amendment process Caven, Incorporated's, attorney did testify at the hearings and requested that this be removed. At that point in time neither the P&Z Commission, nor the City Council recommended removing them from the area of impact during the Comprehensive Plan amendment process. The staff report does mention that the Council did have a meeting -- it was not a Public Hearing, but they did have a public meeting where this exact issue was discussed. Essentially the Council had some consensus that since, at that point in time, Meridian sewer was not available, they felt it would probably be appropriate to be sewered by Boise. Since that meeting the Public Works Department has made quite a bit of ground on the South Slough extension and maybe Bruce can speak further to where exactly that would extend to, but there is a much higher likelihood of increasing the time frame on when this parcel could be served by Meridian, so -- or shortening the time frame. Essentially, what we have done in our staff report is go over the three areas in state statute that deal with the area of city impact changes and we are recommending that the parcel remain in City of Meridian's area of impact, given that the South Slough extension time frame, as well as the market being largely Meridian's market in terms of commercial and industry, rather than Boise's market, and that market is one of the factors in determining area of impact. The W.H. Moore parcels on the west side of Eagle Road are -- staff has also had quite a bit of discussion with that there is an agreement that the City Council said that they would extent city services beyond the city limits to serve that parcel and there is certainly a relationship between those two. In terms of design, for example, Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 82 of 96 landscape buffers and building setbacks and building heights, we feel it would just be more appropriate to have those two corners on the north side of Ustick be more compatible, rather than having it be two different jurisdictions. So we are recommending denial. Zaremba: Can you point out to me where the Summers Funeral Home is? Water service is already there, as I -- there? And is that -- Borup: No. I believe it's here. Isn't it? Zaremba: And are they within -- Borup: Or -- I'm sorry. Okay. Zaremba: My question is we are serving them with water, are they within the city limits of Meridian? Hawkins-Clark: They are not. Zaremba: So they don't have to be within the city limits of Meridian to be served? Hawkins-Clark: That's correct. If the City Council grants an extension of city services beyond city limits, they can be do that, and, you're correct, they do have -- Mathes: Ada County? Hawkins-Clark: They are under Ada County jurisdiction. Right. But they are within the City of Meridian's impact area and would be city limits. Mathes: And they can eventually be annexed in? Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Borup: Any other questions for staff? Zaremba: Yes. Would you indicate, if you can, by drawing on the map you have in front of us, where is the closest city boundary at the moment? Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Zaremba, the colored items on the map are city limits. Borup: The parcels that staff referred to in their report was this parcel here and this parcel here. Zaremba: Those are the W.H. Moore properties? Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 83 of 96 Borup: Well, this one is, I believe. And then there is rumors about this one. Is that correct? Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Borup: Or is it more than rumors? Hawkins-Clark: The so-called Davis parcel. Borup: Have they been in for a pre-application meeting or anything? Hawkins-Clark: We have not had a pre-app meeting, no. Not formally. Borup: Do you have some comments on the sewer? Freckleton: Certainly. Mr. Chairman, we are on schedule for breaking ground on the South Slough sewer extension around the first part of November. It will be bringing the South Slough sewer trunk through -- it starts about here, the project does. It comes down through these parcels -- I could be getting screwed up on exact alignment, but it comes out onto Leslie Drive, then it branches -- there is one branch that goes north and it goes to Ustick and then east along Ustick, we bore underneath Eagle Road and we stop right at their corner. We are on the south side, so basically we will be within 50 feet of their boundary. The second leg of the sewer branches south and goes out Leslie Drive to Eagle Road, where we have another bore and the project terminates on the east side of Eagle Road right here. Like I said, we are on target for breaking ground the first part of November and all of our easements are in place and we are just getting things lined up. Zaremba: Elevations and depths are all such that it's gravity? Freckleton: We are -- at this location here we are 15 to 20 feet deep, so I don't see any problem being able to gravity sewer this corner. Mathes: What's the estimated time frame? Freckleton: You know, I'm not sure, Commissioner Mathes. Borup: If they are starting the first part of November, are they intending to be done before -- Freckleton: It will be spring. Yes. Borup: Before the water table is up, I assume? Freckleton: Oh, yes. Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 84 of 96 Borup: Is that what they are trying to do? Freckleton: Yes. And, you know, we do water main, like you said, it runs right down Ustick Road right across the southern frontage of the property to the Summers parcel. Borup: Any other questions from the Commission? Becky, have you got anything else you would like to add? Bowcutt: Just a little bit. Becky Bowcutt, 1100 East Vali-Hi, Eagle. This issue has been around forever. The first letters written to Mr. Caven date clear back to 1991. I was an employ of Ada county. That was when this area was in no man's land and the City of Boise and the City of Meridian were arguing over who should take this area in and who could best provide services. The City of Boise ended up taking the property further north on Eagle Road, even lopping over onto the west side of Eagle Road up by McMillan. I did the area impact change application at Boise, Meridian, Ada County, for that whole -- most of that area back in, I think, the mid '90s. When the city took this property in, a letter was written January 23rd, 1991, by Mayor Kingsford at the time, stating that -- I will quote: It is the consensus of this Mayor and Council of the City of Meridian that if in the future those property owners desire to petition the City of Meridian to have the impact area boundary changed in this vicinity, there would be no objection. However, this change would be at the property owner's expense. A letter was also written by the county commissioners basically stating the same, that they would have their choice, if, in the event that Meridian could not provide services, because at that time Boise was far closer to these parcels than the City of Meridian. I went before the City Council on March 12th as a discussion item. Mr. Caven, has been trying to get out of the impact area for I think probably about four or five years now. Bruce might correct me. I worked on it when I was at Briggs also. At that time we were told absolutely not and many promises were made to Mr. Caven that that sewer would be there within six months, three months, eight months and those time frames came and went. Finally, I went -- well, I went to the Council March 12th. The Council said, you know, we jerked you around long enough. If you want out, we will let you out. You're the only property north of Ustick, east of Eagle, you're kind of an odd duck, if you want -- if you want to leave the impact area and go to Boise, that's fine. In 1998 Mr. Caven paid Briggs Engineering to design sewer and water services to that property from United Water and the City of Boise. So there are United Water and Boise City Services at its northwest corner and that was prior to the Eagle rebuild, because if he had any opportunity to get out, once that Eagle Road was built he couldn't get out services, the services would be further north. I understand staff's position. They have always been of the opinion that they disagree with this property being let go to the City of Boise. I agree with staff that the sewer will be coming November 1. It can service this property. The original sewer plan indicated that it could not and we had that analyzed two years ago, but now that it's 15, 20 feet deep, I believe it can sewer. This is basically a decision of the City Council. So that's all I have to say. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. That's kind of what I was thinking, too. That's up to the City Council. If we don't have any other testimony -- Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 85 of 96 Zaremba: Close the Public Hearing? I move we close the Public Hearing on Item 11. Mathes: Second. Borup: Do we need some discussion or do you want to make a motion? Zaremba: I made a motion to close the Public Hearing. Borup: I'm sorry. All in favor? Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Do you have a motion, Leslie? Zaremba: I have some discussion. Borup: Okay. Let's go through discussion. Zaremba: I agree that the City Council is the final arbiter and I'm ready to pass this onto them. However, I am of the strong opinion that commercial properties are important to Meridian. This is not a small piece of commercial property, a fairly large piece. Within a reasonable amount of time we would be able to provide the services that they require. The City Council certainly can make their decision, but independent of staff, I feel the same way that staff does, as a result of their thinking, my thinking came out to the same result, even though recently we gave up a small piece of residential property, I don't see giving up a large piece of commercial property and with that discussion, if there is no further discussion, I would make a motion. Mathes: Okay. I would make a motion to deny MI 02-005, request for change of area of impact by Mike Caven, Caven, Incorporated, for 36.94 acres located at the northeast corner of North Eagle Road and East Ustick, including all staff comments, dated September 12th. Zaremba: I second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 12: Tabled Public Hearing from September 5, 2002: AZ 02-016 Request for annexation and zoning of 42.72 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Sundance Place Subdivision by G.L. Voigt Development – east of North Meridian Road and north of East Ustick Road: Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 86 of 96 Item 13: Tabled Public Hearing from September 5, 2002: PP 02-010 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 144 building lots and 5 other lots on 42.72 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Sundance Place Subdivision by G.L. Voigt Development: east of North Meridian Road and north of East Ustick Road: Borup: Becky, by making that one short, we have time to start the next one before our cutoff time, so aren't you glad we didn't spend more time on that? Item No. 12 and 13 are both tabled public hearings from September 5th, AZ 02-016, request for annexation and zoning of 42.72 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Sundance Place Subdivision by G.L. Voigt Development and PP 02-010, request for preliminary plat approval of 144 building lots on the same parcel. I'd like to open both public hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, unless you would like to hear more, since you have already received the detailed staff report in a previous meeting, I will mainly just defer to the applicant to address anything they would like to highlight. We have received a revised plat that's stamped September 10th, 2002. That revised plat does address some of the issues that were brought up by staff previously. Borup: The previous issues were -- I mean it was tabled, but we decided to go ahead and discuss it a little bit to try to get a little bit of a jump on tonight. So it may be appropriate if you want to address things that it does not look like we covered in the revised plat. I don't know if there is any other -- are there any other concerns that you still have from the previous staff report? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, no, I think the -- one of the concerns was the design of the open space area and the plat, again, that's on the screen is not the correct one, but we are talking about this open space lot right here. They have revised that to offer much more visibility, visual corridors into this area. I think these were only 40 foot wide frontages and they are in excess of 90 now. So they have more than doubled the common lots frontage right there. I think the main other issue was the stub street access to this south and I guess unlike Bridgetower Crossing, I'm actually in agreement with Becky's comment in her September 19th report, which I don't know if you received it, that was just today. Maybe she's going to hand those out. That's right. But they have -- she has replied in writing and has -- is in agreement with all staff recommended conditions. That block length is -- the parcel that that serves is pretty small and I think if you were to extend a third stub, the design would be fairly awkward to that parcel to the south. Borup: I agree and I have a little bit of a problem with the definition of block length on some designs, like a cul-d-sac. It doesn't really seem to fit the intention of a block length in my mind. I mean the street certainly is that long, but -- isn't that what you're talking about that the cul-d-sac -- the tip to the south there is what you're referring to? Hawkins-Clark: No, Chairman Borup, actually, it would be this boundary here. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 87 of 96 Borup: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: And breaking up -- breaking up this southern boundary that continues all the way over. This is the Heritage Commons Subdivision here and they are utilizing that stub street that Heritage provided here on their east boundary. Go back to the -- here is the parcel that we are talking about in terms of breaking up the block and this parcel has a -- the flap is 100 feet wide coming from Ustick and then it comes up to an area that I think is approximately eight acres, not including this flag, so it begs the question how would one design this 100 foot wide flag. Is it ever going to be used. This Sundance Place Subdivision does provide a stub street here, so there is interconnectivity there. Heritage provides one to the east. I think the distance of this future block here is less than 1,000 feet. Again, as we talked about on the previous item tonight, the ped paths do come in as an option and certainly some -- some kind of connection between the Sundance Place Subdivision and this future piece here is warranted. So I think we would probably recommend the pedestrian pathway. And let me go back. It could be -- it could be extended adjacent to one of these two lot lines at the end of the cul-d-sac. That cul-d-sac is named Tipton Place. It's a 12,013 square foot lot, this Lot 35, at the end of the cul-d-sac, so I think there is -- I lost my pointer here. Here it is. This is Lot 35 right here. So that -- the size -- the square footage of that lot would certainly allow for some -- you know, a ten foot wide -- or, I'm sorry, 20 foot wide path and still meet the square footage, so -- Borup: How about frontage? Can't meet -- even shifting those -- Hawkins-Clark: It has 45 feet of frontage on the cul-d-sac as designed. Borup: You need 40. Hawkins-Clark: Yes. It needs 30 if it's a flag lot. The one now adjacent has 45. I think that there would be adequate flexibility there to get it in. Zaremba: Would it be a reasonable alternative to think about making a walkway there? It looks to me like this lot is a large lot and it could be made slightly smaller by shifting this and putting the pathway here. Borup: It's not a large lot for a corner lot. Right now, the way the interpretation of the ordinance is, if that lot goes any smaller the house has to face east, which makes no sense at all. Hawkins-Clark: Yes. We also have 68 foot lot frontages along this south boundary and it is 65 minimum, so they are only three feet in excess of the minimum frontage, so -- Borup: Well, let's hear what the applicant has to add to that. Anything -- any other concerns? Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 88 of 96 Hawkins-Clark: No. Bowcutt: Becky Bowcutt, 1100 Vali-Hi, Eagle, representing the applicant in this matter. This is the preliminary plat that shows the shifting of the open space further north, therefore, improving the visibility to the open space and making it more usable and just more neighborhood oriented. The applicant is in agreement with staff on all issues. The Blaise property, as I indicated in my argument, you have got a stub street coming from Sundance Subdivision on its western boundary and a stub street from the east from Heritage Commons. On these smaller parcels, if we have more than two stub streets, it's really going to hamper your ability to design that if this were to ever be developed, because that sets how you lay those streets out and those lots and I have seen situations with in-fill parcels where it's almost impossible to develop them due to so many stub streets intersecting at the wrong places. So your only option would be like some type of a pedestrian path. If that's the wish of the Commission, I guess given the flexibility to see if it would fit in here or would better fit in this area, they can do -- they do have some latitude to do a little bit of shifting. So just provide them the flexibility if we deem the ped path is appropriate. Thank you. Do you have any other questions? I'm trying to keep it short. Zaremba: I agreed with the staff comment that the open area, which was originally here, needed to be moved a little farther. I was kind of hoping to see it -- take this area and shift all those houses down and that would be very prominent and very usable to be at the end of that block. Is that a possibility? Bowcutt: I see what you're getting at and -- Borup: You don't have access to the lots that would be in that area then, other than what's there now. Zaremba: Well, the difficulty with not being very open, the difficulty would be the lots -- Bowcutt: The location of your open space is dictated by the topography of the property. Zaremba: Okay. It's the low point? Bowcutt: Yes. So they try to -- we try to have a dual purpose, making it usable, but yet, you know, be effective for storm drainage purposes. If you move it up there I think you're at the high point. Zaremba: I can accept that. Borup: Any -- so the main thing we need discussion on is -- Zaremba: Just had one other question and I don't know whether this is for staff, but it's probably pertinent to the applicant, Becky. Is this usable as an emergency access? Again, I'll tell you where I'm at. My concern is your phasing. If this area starts to get Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 89 of 96 developed before either this stub street or that stub street goes anywhere, you have a lot of potential houses with only one way in or out, something we have talked about before. Bowcutt: Yes, sir. The White Drain trunk traverses through -- is going to be constructed through that, so there will have to be a minimum of 14 feet, Bruce? Borup: Your plat shows 20. Bowcutt: Well, 14 feet of hard surface for maintenance of that sewer trunk. They would have to expand that for fire department purposes another six feet. Zaremba: Could you do that? Bowcutt: They would have to add a little area, because your staff doesn't like it just to be solid pavement, so they would have to add ten feet. Borup: Does staff have any interest in that happening? I could even see it being temporary, because it makes a -- there will be other access in -- Borup: Well, to the south is developing first before this? Bowcutt: Yes, sir. Borup: So there will be access at this point here. Zaremba: Well, not for people. Borup: Oh, you're saying to only one there. Zaremba: You're right. Yes. Borup: Well, there might be a point there until Heritage is -- gets out that far. Bowcutt: That would be one of the latter phases of Heritage. Their first phase is -- I think they are starting at Locust Grove; right? Borup: Yes. Right. Zaremba: Even if it were temporary, I'm uncomfortable with that many lots being able to be developed with only one access. Bowcutt: They would have to shift around about ten feet to make it so that your staff would accept that. Can't we get away with five feet of landscaping on each side of a hard surface pathway? Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 90 of 96 Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Borup: Or can there be a temporary? Hawkins-Clark: It could be -- grass creet could be installed, potentially, to -- on the sides, you know, as a temporary measure so you -- Bowcutt: That's true. Hawkins-Clark: -- would essentially have your -- Borup: That's what I was wondering. It would have to be a temporary easement through there and then vacate it when the -- Bowcutt: That's an excellent idea. You could have just minimal pavement for the pathway and then some type of base and grass creet on either side of that to give you the width that you need, but still have some turf in it. Hawkins-Clark: That would be 14 foot solid surface with three foot grass creet on either side. That would give you 20. Borup: Is that something that -- Zaremba: Is that doable? Bowcutt: I think it's doable. It's viable. Hawkins-Clark: You could add the clause in your grass creet or, yes, an approved equivalent design that meets fire department standards. Borup: We are also assuming that there will be no access to Heritage Commons yet. If that access is in there, then it's a mute point, isn't it? Bowcutt: Correct. Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Yes. Are there -- one of the requirements from previously was to submit a phase plan ten days before this hearing. Could you show the phase lines? Bowcutt: My understanding the phase would just be logistically taking in that first loop, second loop, third loop. I mean that's my understanding. That's really the only way you could phase that logistically. But I will, prior to Council meeting, Brad, make sure that there is some -- that is added. Hawkins-Clark: Okay. Borup: Do we have a time frame even on this? Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 91 of 96 Bowcutt: For? Borup: Development. Bowcutt: It's a continuation of the Sundance Place Subdivision. Borup: Right. Which is just -- Bowcutt: It's pretty much the same type of product, so I believe if you put the two together you're probably looking at four, five years, maybe less, depending on market conditions. Borup: Right. That's kind of what I assumed, too. Bowcutt: But, yes, they are concentrating on the Sundance Development at this time. Borup: Why are they applying for that so soon? Bowcutt: I believe because the White Drain was being constructed through there, they, obviously, wanted to get their site plan established. Borup: Okay. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Doesn't it have to be -- Freckleton: Meridian city ordinance does require the final plat is filed within one year of the preliminary plat -- Borup: That's what I was thinking. Freckleton: -- approval, so what we are probably going to see is some concurrent development going on. We are going to have Sundance and then we are going to have some going on in Sundance Place, too, in order to keep their preliminary plat alive. Borup: Either that or they are going to have to apply for an extension. Freckleton: Correct. Borup: Is that -- Bowcutt: Yes, sir. So we could be two years out. Or, like Bruce said, they could do the first phase of his in conjunction with the second or third phase of the Sundance project. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 92 of 96 Borup: Okay. Do we need some -- I'm surprised staff didn't say something about the access to that eastern parcel. Do we need to word something in there that it would be needed, unless there is other access available or something along that line? I mean, obviously, it's going to depend on how fast Heritage Commons develops, too. Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Chairman Borup, yes, I would concur with you that it is dependent on the timing and certainly if -- you know, the phasing of the final plat, it probably could be attached to the final plats and staff, essentially, would review access at the time of final plat submittal for Sundance Place future phases and, yes, you could just simply, yes, say prior to the second phase there needs to be a -- Borup: Secondary access. Hawkins-Clark: -- secondary -- Borup: Either permanent or emergency. Hawkins-Clark: Either permanent or emergency constructed. Borup: Does that sound like that covers that? Zaremba: It works for me. Borup: Okay. You're the one that caught it. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move that the Public Hearing on Items 12 and 13 be closed. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 12 on our agenda, AZ 02-016, request for annexation and zoning of 42.72 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for the proposed Sundance Place Subdivision by G.L. Voigt Development, east of North Meridian Road and north of East Ustick Road, to include all staff comments of the staff memo of September 11th, 2002. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 93 of 96 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Okay. Item 13. Did we ever settle anything on our ped path? We quit talking about it, didn't we? Zaremba: The applicant agreed to figure out a place to put one. Borup: A lot of it depends on how that property is going to develop. It could be a real waste. You could have a pathway to nowhere. But I don't know. I don't know what a good solution is. Zaremba: What advantage or disadvantage would it be to the other small parcel? I mean if they start to develop it, again, understanding they have stub streets in a small parcel is a problem, is a pathway going to do more problem than good? Borup: Could you have a pathway coming up -- I don't know if that helps the block lengths, but a pathway coming from the open area there, too. Actually, it's already there, essentially. Zaremba: The only difficulty with that, in my thinking, is inviting people from another subdivision to use your open space. Borup: Well, never mind. I was looking at the old plat. The new plat -- the new plat doesn't do that. Zaremba: Yes. It doesn't connect. Borup: No. I was looking at the old one. Zaremba: Yes. Borup Well, it would be a lot easier if the neighbors would decide what they want to do with their thing all at the same time. I have heard a couple of rumors on what he wants to do, but -- Zaremba: I would be willing to phrase it in such a way that the applicant and staff could work it out. Just leave it hanging? Borup: Well, is that something that could be adjusted when this phase is ready for development? Is that too much of a -- Hawkins-Clark: Well, the final plats have to come in, in substantial conformance to the preliminary plat. I believe that if they submit a final plat -- if you said no pathway and they submit a final plat and for some reason the City wants to add one, that would be adding a lot to an approved preliminary plat. I -- no, I think -- Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 94 of 96 Borup: So if we said, yes, pathway, and then they eliminated it -- Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Yes. You can reduce the number of lots, so that would probably be the better way to go. Borup: What I'm thinking, you know, four years down the road be able to judge better what's really reasonable and feasible. Yes. I mean what's going to be feasible for the other property, mainly. How does that sound, Becky? Zaremba: Everything is thumbs up. Borup: Is that -- I mean what we said there is require a pathway somewhere, realizing that four years from now it may be eliminated. Zaremba: In that case, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 13 on our agenda, PP 02-010, request for preliminary plat approval of 144 building lots and five other lots on 42.72 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Sundance Place Subdivision by G.L. Voigt Development, east of North Meridian Road and north of East Ustick Road, to include all staff comments of the staff memo of September 11th, 2002, with the following exceptions: On page seven add an item eleven that says a pedestrian pathway shall be added in Block 5 at the applicant's choice in the area of Lot 28 or the area of Lot 35. To add a paragraph 12 that says if phasing should cause the development of the eastern portions before the proposed stub streets connect to anything, a second access will be provided -- a second emergency access will be provided over the existing sewer easement that is at Block 4 between Lots -- it is Lot 5? I'm sorry. Block 4, Lot 5 is the sewer easement. Borup: And they would decide on their method of surfacing? Zaremba: Uh-huh. I'm leaving that open. Freckleton: Commissioner Zaremba, you might want to throw something in there that it would be a surface and design that was approved by the Meridian Fire Department. Zaremba: Yes. Continuing with my motion. Such access -- emergency access to be designed in conjunction with approval by the Meridian Fire Department. Borup: Does that conclude your motion? Zaremba: Did I put in that that was conditional on other streets not being connected? that condition -- okay. Then I'm done. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any other discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 95 of 96 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 15: Tabled from August 29, 2002: Planning and Zoning In House Laundry List – Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance Amendments: Borup: Thank you. It's after midnight, we don't take anything after midnight. Zaremba: Mr. Mayor, I move that we table Item 15 on our agenda to some other time. Mathes: Second. Borup: And I don't know if we need -- do we need a -- I don't know if we even need a time certain on this. We will just schedule it -- can we just delete it from our agenda and we will schedule it again when we see a time? Hawkins-Clark: That would be something for the attorney. It is -- it has been formally tabled. Zaremba: I'd like to see it come up in our second October meeting again and if we need to table it again, we will. Borup: Okay. So it's going to be tabled and second -- well, maybe no. Zaremba: I will amend my motion to table it to our second meeting in October. Borup: Oh, wait. Did we table -- we didn't table it last time, we already handled three of the items, didn't we? We did table it? Didn't we hit part of those items? Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Borup: So it shouldn't have been tabled, it should have been continued. Am I remembering wrong? Hawkins-Clark: There was more than just the cell tower ordinance, noticing ordinance, and definitions. There was, yes, dust abatement. Yes. There was a few other items, I think, that were on the laundry list that you did not move forward to City Council. Borup: See, that's almost an open-ended list. Hawkins-Clark: It might be worth -- yes. Borup: Actually, it doesn't matter whether it was tabled or continued to the second meeting in October? That was your motion? Zaremba: That is my motion. Which would be October 17th. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 96 of 96 Mathes: And I -- Borup: Did you already -- Mathes: I already seconded it. Borup: Okay. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Thank you. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we adjourn. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: We adjourned at 12:21. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:21 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED ____________________________ _____|_____|_____ KEITH BORUP - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ____________________________ SHARON SMITH, DEPUTY CITY CLERK