The URL can be used to link to this page

2003 06-05Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting June 5, 2003 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M., on June 5, 2003, by Chairman Keith Borup. Members Present: Keith Borup, Jerry Centers, David Zaremba, Leslie Mathes, and Michael Rohm. Others Present: Bruce Freckleton, Steve Siddoway, Jill Holinka, David McKinnon, Jessica Johnson, Brady Hawkins-Clark, Anna Powell, and Dean Willis. Item 1. Roll Call Attendance: ___X___ David Zaremba ___X___ Jerry Centers ___X___ Leslie Mathes ___X___ Michael Rohm ___X___Chairman Keith Borup Borup: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We would like to begin our regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission. Start with roll call of Commissioners. Item 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve minutes of May 15, 2003 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting: Borup: The first item, approval of minutes from May 15th. Centers: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Centers. Item 4. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: MCU 03-001 Request for a Modification of Conditional Use Permit to increase the size of the building and change orientation of the building on the site for Bodily RV by Insight Architects, PA – northeast corner of Overland and Linder Roads: Centers: Our most capable Assistant City Clerk Sharon Smith had mentioned that she meant to type a B instead of a four for the Consent Agenda and Item 4 should be moved to the Consent Agenda, as we have already approved that previously. Borup: Okay so, is that -- Centers: So, yes, I would make the motion that we move Item 4 to Item B under the Consent Agenda. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 2 of 100 Borup: All right. Rohm: I'll second that. Borup: Do we have a second? Rohm: Yes. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Do we have a motion on the Consent Agenda? Centers: Did you have any revision on the minutes? Zaremba: No. Centers: Well, yes, Mr. Chairman, I would make the motion that we approve the Consent Agenda as submitted, the minutes and the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for approval of MCU 03-001 as written and submitted. Rohm: I will second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 5. Public Hearing: PP 03-009 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 12 building lots and 6 other lots on 10.92 acres in an R-4 zone for Bear Creek No. 7 by Bear Creek, LLC – north of West Victory Road and east of South Stoddard Road: Borup: Okay. The first Public Hearing is PP 03-009, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 12 building lots and six other lots on 10.92 acres in an R-4 zone for Bear Creek No. 7. I'd like to open the Public Hearing at this time and start with the staff report. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I have highlighted on the overhead the area that we are going to be talking about tonight. It's located in the southwest corner of Stoddard and Victory Road. This is going to be called Bear Creek No. 7. This portion of the subdivision was originally approved as part of the Preliminary Plat for the original Bear Creek Subdivision. However, tonight they have requested a Preliminary Plat, so this is a new item that's not tied to the original plat, this is something entirely separate from that. As you can tell from this site -- from this overhead, there is a large canal that runs along the north boundary of the proposed subdivision. That's the Ridenbaugh Canal. The aerial shows how there is a separation Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 3 of 100 from the rest of the Bear Creek with the canal. The applicant is not proposing to connect this project to the other portions of Bear Creek rather they would prefer to do a gated community with large estate size lots. The gate would be located near the entrance off of Stoddard, with a cul-de-sac that terminates near Victory Road. The applicant will be applying for a Variance for the cul-de-sac length. The Landscape Plan shows the landscaping adjacent to Victory and Stoddard, plus the entryway. The subdivision itself does not have a large degree -- a large amount of open space. As you know, the subdivision ordinance requires that five percent of all subdivisions that are larger than five acres in size to have five percent of the gross area of the subdivision to be an open space. The open space that they have provided is located in the drainage lot, a small landscape island by the gate, a little more there -- and I got a shaky hand, I can see some in the audience -- and there is some landscaping that's part of a parkway adjacent to the road. Those are the pictures. The issues that we have tonight, I think if you take a look at the staff report really quick, have you turn to page three of the staff report, just the additional considerations. I have already mentioned the cul-de-sac length and they will be applying for a Variance for that. It's approximately 600 feet in length and the maximum allowed is 450 feet. The second item under the additional considerations is the construction of a pathway. When this project was originally approved as part of the Bear Creek Preliminary Plat, the Comprehensive Plan had not yet been adopted and there were no plans for a pathway adjacent to the Ridenbaugh Canal. Since that time the Comprehensive Plan has been adopted that shows part of the master planning with a pathway adjacent to the Ridenbaugh Canal as part of the master plan for the city's park system. Because this is a new application for a new plat, something different than was originally approved, the Comprehensive Plan would -- in order to comply with the Comprehensive Plan, they should have to build the pathway and that's what this comment makes reference to. The Parks Department has requested a 10-foot wide hard surfaced asphalt pathway and they would like that to be located on the south side of the Ridenbaugh Canal. The reason for it to be on the south side of the Ridenbaugh Canal is because there is currently no connection on the north side of the Ridenbaugh Canal for the rest of the Bear Creek Subdivision. As part of the Bear Creek No. 7 Subdivision, they could provide a pathway -- connection to the path -- a micropath connection to the multi-use pathway through the subdivision. The Parks Department has requested that. Item Number 3 underneath the additional considerations, the five percent over space requirement. If there were a pathway constructed, they would meet the five percent open space requirement. Without the construction of the pathway, they would not meet the five percent open space requirement and they should be required to provide additional open space. Number 4, the sidewalks, at the bottom of Page 3 when Bear Creek Subdivision was originally approved for the entire plat, there was no sidewalk requirements on the Ridenbaugh Canal. The sidewalk would come down Stoddard, down Victory, and, then, stop once it got to the bridge and, then, continue again once it got passed the bridge and that was a requirement to add some sidewalk to the bridge, if at all possible. The intent on that is to provide connectivity, not to require them to build a new bridge. If there is no space for that, there wouldn't be a requirement, but if there is space, they need to place sidewalks adjacent to the bridge. Item Number 5 if you could turn to the next page, on Page 4 the landscape island, the small tic-tac shaped landscape island located right there next to the gate, is located too close to the gate, so Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 4 of 100 that people, when they pull up, they would have to back out. We have asked them to move it further to the west, so that people can pull up to the gate. If they can't access the gate, instead of having to go in reverse, they can pull forward and make a u-turn around the island, rather than having to back up into oncoming traffic. I have had an opportunity to talk with the applicant about a number of these issues. I haven't seen him here tonight, but one of the members of the partnership is here tonight. They can answer any questions. The items that are located in additional considerations are in the comments as conditions of approval, including the sidewalk and the multi-use pathways. If you have any questions, I will take those at this time and turn the time back over to you for a Public Hearing. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Mr. McKinnon, you say you have had a chance to talk with the applicant on the issues. What did they have as a response? McKinnon: They did have a response and one of the things that the applicant said he was going to do is talk with the Parks Department this afternoon and get together with Doug Strong, the Parks Director, to, again, meet with him to discuss the multi-use path and that was about 3:30 this afternoon. I have not heard back from him at that time to discuss his -- his discussion that they had on the phone earlier today. The landscape island they have agreed to move. The cul-de-sac length they have agreed to submit for a Variance. The five percent open space is an issue that they would like to discuss with you tonight. The sidewalks, if they can fit one in, they are agreeable to that. If they can't fit one in, they do not want to be required to build new bridge crossings that would be wide enough to accommodate a sidewalk and staff understands that, but if there is room, there should be a requirement for that. They have agreed to most of the issues here tonight. Again, this is a private road and it's going to be built to ACHD standards. It's a gated community. We don't have very many of these in Meridian and that's something that you may want to discuss tonight as to whether or not this should be a community that's gated. In the staff report, I had mentioned that in the Comprehensive Plan there are goals to state that there should be a variety of housing types and there are not a lot of gated communities in Meridian, so this provides some variety to what we currently have in the City of Meridian right now. I'll entertain any other questions at this time. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Centers: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: Yes. Mr. McKinnon, the pathway -- what would be the connectivity or is the pathway just usable basically by that little subdivision? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, the pathway is shown on the Comprehensive Plan as continuing across Victory Road. Again, we discussed in the past how the land -- how the pathway system was never land truthed, nobody actually went out and made the follow up. If you look on the Comprehensive Plan, the road -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 5 of 100 Victory actually cuts across the Ridenbaugh Canal three times before it gets back over to Eagle, so that would be three crossings. What we envision happening, in discussions with the Parks Department, is for it to connect to a sidewalk on Victory Road and continue down to a point where it can cross with the crosswalk at Eagle and, then, come back to the pathway. On the north side we envision that it would cross across Stoddard, which is a collector street, it doesn't carry the same volume of traffic as Eagle Road or even Victory, for that matter, although Victory also is classified as a collector at this time. That it would come across and follow the Ridenbaugh Canal all the way back up around to Black Cat to complete the master circuit. Centers: What do we have right here and right here? Vacant land or -- McKinnon: More residential. I can go back to the aerial. This is where it comes back. The Ridenbaugh Canal follows this route. Then, there is more residential and it is true there is not a great deal of houses out there at this time. Centers: Does Bear Creek have a pathway, the main portion of Bear Creek? McKinnon: Bear Creek does not have a master pathway. There are pathways within Bear Creek. Centers: Within the sub. McKinnon: To provide interconnectivity. Centers: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: Do we know the Fire Department and Police Department's opinion on gated communities? McKinnon: I have got with Joe Silva in the Fire Department and he has stated that he would support that with the conditions that he's placed upon that. I believe the major condition that he had was a knox box, so that they could get access to the gate with their fire engine. Zaremba: Okay. McKinnon: One issue that they may have in the future would be the cul-de-sac length and we will address that with the variance. Borup: Thank you. Is the applicant here and would like to make their presentation? Arnold: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, for the record my name is Steve Arnold. Work address is 1800 West Overland Road. I'm here representing the applicant for Westpark Company. I missed the beginning of the presentation, so if I duplicate some of the things that were stated by staff, I apologize. What we have here before you tonight is, basically, the same plan that was approved back in '99, with the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 6 of 100 one exception of the private road. The client wishes to get -- to make this kind of the premier portion of Bear Creek. If you have been out to Bear Creek, the further south you go, the larger the lots and the nicer the subdivision becomes. Essentially, the only thing that has changed from our original approval is that -- it is the private road and we do plan on getting it off. We will comply with all of the conditions. The only one that we have exception with is the pathway. Speaking from experiencing, I have dealt with another subdivision, it's The Lakes at Cherry Lane No. 9, dealing with the Eight Mile Lateral trying to put a pathway along that. That subdivision was approved in '90 -- late '98. I still have yet to build a pathway. The Council directed me to bring the subdivision back. I am to submit a modification, because, basically, Nampa-Meridian does not want us to put a pathway next to a ditch that's not piped. The Ridenbaugh Canal is a little bit too large to pipe. I don't think they would allow us to pipe it. Again, I missed some of the earlier discussions, but I don't -- I have not had a conversation with the Parks Department to find out if any of that has been resolved. Meaning if the -- if they have got some sort of master agreement -- they did have an agreement along drains to where the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District would allow the city or the developer to construct pathways along those drains, because of the low volume, slow moving water. Live canals and, especially, this one -- this is a headache that -- it will go on forever and we will be back before the Council that -- basically having that condition removed. That would be one item tonight that I would request that this Commission not require us to do. There were several other items within the staff report that I believe -- I don't know if they did get addressed -- Borup: Well, it did. You said you will comply with all of those, moving the island at the gate back far enough for a car to turn around and -- Arnold: That's correct. Borup: I think that was probably the main one, other than apply for a Variance on the -- Arnold: Cul-de-sac. Borup: -- on the cul-de-sac length I mean, Commission, in my mind one of the factors -- and maybe the distance does make a difference. One of the factors is how many homes are on that length and the larger the lots, the fewer the homes are, and I think in this case we have fewer homes than we would on some shorter ones, so -- Zaremba: Well, I think the logic behind a cul-de-sac length is that if some accident happened at the beginning of the opening of the cul-de-sac you don't want to be trapping too many people -- Borup: Right. Zaremba: -- down the cul-de-sac and I -- the solution to that is the bigger lots and if we are only having 12 building lots here, if you had 450 foot cul-de-sac with apartments on it, you could have thousands of people and I see no reason why this Variance wouldn't be an easy one to grant. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 7 of 100 Borup: The other question I have is you said -- have you made a decision to revise the plat or just because you don't have the five percent open space, which you cannot -- I mean the pathway would solve that problem. Arnold: Chairman Borup, actually, the way I have calculated it, if you take the Ridenbaugh lot out, which is 2.95 acres, you take that out of the total of the sub, because you're not allowing us to count it as open space, so we will -- if we take that out, you're down to 7.92 acres. The required amount of open space for that would be 17,358 square feet. I believe when staff calculated my open space they didn't include the street buffer along the private road. That equated to approximately 8,276 square feet. If you take, the 9,000 square feet that we got for the common lot in the front, along with the 8,000 -- or, excuse me, the 8,276 square feet -- Borup: Now, what are you referring to as the street buffer? You mean the divided -- or the separated sidewalks? Arnold: Separated sidewalks. Borup: Doesn't the ordinance call for usable open space? Arnold: I don't believe that it does specify. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Mr. Arnold, if I could just interject. The subdivision ordinance actually says that we have to calculate the five percent based on the gross area of the subdivision, so you can't exclude the Ridenbaugh Canal from the gross calculations of the subdivision. The way Steve calculated the open space area, that the five-foot parkway, plus the drainage lot, plus some of the additional landscaping it doesn't quite meet the five percent requirement. If you add the pathway to that, then, all of a sudden you do reach that threshold of the five percent. Borup: Okay. The other question I had, Mr. McKinnon, is have there been any substantive discussions with Nampa-Meridian on pathways on a canal? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, yes, there has been discussions with the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation system concerning the pathways located along drainage canals, especially, those that have been included as part of the master pathway plan. A few minutes ago Mr. Arnold alluded to the Cherry Lane -- Lakes at Cherry Lane No. 9 and he is correct, there has been a great deal of confusion and struggle to get something to happen there. However, that pathway on -- within that subdivision is not part of the master plan, it's not one of the ones that you see on the Comprehensive Plan, and so that was, you know, a subdivision amenity, not something that was basically integral to the master plan of the city in the future. There is a master plan in place with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation. It's approximately three pages of conditions and we have to give them six months notice as to what it is. They have laid Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 8 of 100 out certain standards that they will allow pathways on those drains with notice from the city. Borup: So, have we had any approved since we have had the Comprehensive Plan adopted? McKinnon: Case in point with the Ridenbaugh Canal, I believe El Dorado Subdivision backs up to the Ridenbaugh Canal. Borup: Okay. McKinnon: Further to that would be the Sutherland Farms application, which is kitty- corner across Eagle from the El Dorado, with the pathway that runs on the other side of Eagle adjacent to the Ridenbaugh Canal. Centers: The Ridenbaugh runs through El Dorado at Eagle and Overland? McKinnon: It runs back by Victory. Centers: All right. I had a question. You know, we keep referring to the Parks Department, but I didn't see any comments from them. I didn't see a memo or anything from them. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, I did request something in writing. I did talk with Doug Strong, actually, today, to double-check with him concerning his request for the subdivision. Centers: How long has he known about this -- McKinnon: When he received his referral, Wendy and I, actually, about two weeks ago -- we did it at his office and sat down with Elroy Huff and Doug Strong to discuss this issue. Centers: So, he's had plenty of time to get us something in writing. Thank you. Borup: Okay. Anything else you'd like to add, Steve? Arnold: Well, yes. Borup: Go ahead. Arnold: Well, I guess the -- Commissioners, one of the other things to look at here is we have got a pathway system that's along both Victory and Stoddard Road that we are required to construct as a condition of approval from ACHD. I have not yet worked with Nampa-Meridian along this canal way and I'm a little bit skeptical that they are approving things. I'd like to see one built, but my only reference is back to my own experience with the Lakes at Cherry Lane Nine with a lot smaller ditch. That being said, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 9 of 100 that apart from that issue, the -- I think the other thing that we need to look at here is it appears to be duplicating what we are already putting out onto Victory and Stoddard. In regards to the open space, we are showing currently right now a 23-foot wide right-of- way lot along Stoddard Road that's approximately 13 feet wider than we need to. If we reduced that right-of-way lot down to 10 feet, use that 13 feet as the common open space, I can count approximately half of that additional buffer as the open space requirement. When I counted that earlier, that's approximately 5,000 square feet. It looked like we needed only 23,000. If I add what I have got to the 17,500, we will be right there. Meeting that five percent is not an issue. We don't need -- for our subdivision, we don't need to put the pathway in to meet the other ordinance about the landscaping requirement. Again, I guess I would reiterate that we are only doing this for the private road. Currently, we do have a subdivision that is almost exactly the same as that one that is approved. We'd just request the Commission to not require the pathway. I'll stand for any other questions and I believe the client is here that would also like to discuss this. Borup: Any questions, then, Commissioners? Okay. Schultz: Good evening, Commissioners. Matt Schultz, 660 East Franklin, representing Bear Creek, LLC. I won't keep you very long. To kind of comment on the whole pathway system, Steve touched on it, that we are providing a very nice, wide landscape buffer along both Victory and Stoddard. It's, actually, going to have the creek amenity. There is some elevation there to allow us to have actually falling water. That will come off the hillside. We think it's going to be a very attractive place to walk and we want to encourage people -- the Ridenbaugh Canal, however, is concrete lined, dangerous, dirt road, you know, on the side of the ditch that we have never really planned to landscape. We were going to keep the weeds down and the lots will be elevated over it, kind of looking towards the Boise front. It really doesn't make sense for us to landscape that from a -- from any kind of standpoint, other than the Parks Department, but, like Steve reiterated, we believe we do have that same pathway to get from Victory to Stoddard across there. We basically are surrounded by a pathway. It just seems a little redundant to us. As far as the other conditions go, we already did have a variance approved with the original Preliminary Plat for cul-de-sac length. Because this is a new Preliminary Plat, yes, I guess, technically, we do need to submit for another applicant for the Variance, just another fee we need to pay to get that in -- to get that done. We think it's well justified, given the unique shape of the property we are dealing with here and kind of -- there is only one way to do it, in our opinion. The five percent open space, we believe we have it, it's just how you interpret it and kind of splitting hairs at this -- coming out of acres -- I'm used to dealing with acres and acres of open space and this is such a small plat, dealing with thousands of square feet is kind of splitting hairs, in my opinion. An ordinance is an ordinance and we will comply with it one way or another and we believe we do, it's just a matter of interpreting it the correct way. The landscape island, I don't have a problem moving that back. The sidewalks, we will fit those in crossing the Ridenbaugh from our Bear Creek 4 and Bear Creek 1, if we can fit them in there and still get safe pedestrian access. It is pretty tight visually it looks to me. I haven't gone out and measured it yet, but it looks pretty tight where the road narrows down. It will be a real huge bridge expansion for us to get more room, maybe, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 10 of 100 but maybe not. If we can, we will, we will connect those all the way across. Other than that, that's kind of where we are at. We ask for your approval tonight and stand for any questions if you have any. Thanks. Centers: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Schultz, so the pathway -- giving up the -- you're not giving up any land for the lots for the pathway. It doesn't really affect the lots that back up to the Ridenbaugh. Schultz: No. We have to give up a 50-foot easement to Nampa-Meridian anyway. Centers: Yes so, it doesn't affect your lots to do the pathway. Schultz: No. Centers: I was looking at another application tonight where they wanted a 10-foot pathway with four feet on each side of gravel. I guess, you know, the Parks Department or the city, wanting a 10-foot paved pathway, is inconsistent there and I'm disappointed we didn't get anything from the parks department, but I like to see the consistency but you did say you intend to keep the weeds down. Schultz: Yes. It's, actually, the city -- it's actually a common lot is what it is. We will dedicate it as a common lot, so the HOA is responsible to take care it for weed maintenance, keeping it down, and everything. Centers: So, it's just the cost to put the pathway in. Schultz: The pathway and full landscaping and sprinklers or whatever else, which -- Centers: But they didn't say anything about that. Schultz: They didn't say, did they? Centers: No. Schultz: That's what I would -- Centers: Ten-foot hard surface pathway. That's it. Schultz: Yes. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but that's just my opinion, just to put that in. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if I could just jump in. In my discussions with Doug Strong, the Parks Director, he had requested to me and I'm sorry if it didn't make it into the report, the 10-foot pathway, with five-foot gravel shoulders, just the five feet of gravel on each side of the pathway, just as he requested in Trailway. Centers: So, they can come and spray weeds. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 11 of 100 McKinnon: That's correct. The reason they request five feet of gravel on each side is because their equipment is currently set up to spray five feet on either side. Borup: So, if this pathway goes in, even though it's a common subdivision lot, the Parks Department would be maintaining it? McKinnon: They would be maintaining it. That's correct. Not the whole lot, just the pathway, and the five feet of gravel on the sides. Borup: Well -- Zaremba: If I may ask, I understand the pathways around the smaller canals and drains. I have not walked along the Ridenbaugh Canal, but I have looked at it and, I agree, this is a large, swift moving body of water. Are we doing a pathway along as much of the Ridenbaugh Canal as we can and is there any fencing between the pathway and the canal or what's happening other places? Borup: And that was a question I had, too, along that same line, is that the other section of the Ridenbaugh, are they cement lined? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if memory serves me correctly, in El Dorado it is fenced and it's also below the Ridenbaugh Canal within El Dorado. It's not immediately adjacent to it within El Dorado it runs along the base of the slope that runs up to the Ridenbaugh Canal. In Sutherland Farms, they have a six-acre park that lies adjacent to a majority of that pathway and I do not remember whether or not there was a fencing requirement adjacent to the pathway and the canal at that location. Borup: And I'm not sure if the other canals were concrete. Centers: Is this fenced over here? Excuse me. Schultz: Yes. There is a wrought iron fence on the north side and we are planning on putting one on the south side at the back of our lots on the top of the berm as it slopes down. Essentially, to keep people out of the canal, you would have to put a second fence, you know, basically, a tunnel through there if you're going to keep people out, if you want to. I'd prefer not to have that open. I don't know. I'd like to keep that as a -- you know, Nampa-Meridian puts like no trespassing signs across there. I'd prefer people, from a liability standpoint, not to walk along there, but that's just me personally. Borup: And I think, Mr. Schultz, you can see that -- the benefit to the city on the pathway systems that we are talking about. It seems to me like what you're saying here is you are already putting in a sidewalk on Victory and on Stoddard that would tie into a trailway system that did go on Ridenbaugh and once you have a full system and that -- maybe they are the same two out of line with me either, because they would still tie into each other. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 12 of 100 Schultz: Excuse me real quick, Commissioner. I agree, in general, the pathway concept adjacent to natural drains or low flow drains is very appropriate, very natural, very esthetically pleasing. Even if this were a natural drain, I would still agree -- or disagree with it, in that we are providing in this location an alternate route in this one specific location just because it was a little unique. I'm not sure I agree with it next to the swift moving, concrete lined Ridenbaugh. Borup: That's the biggest concern to me is the concrete lined. I know the areas in Boise those are very dangerous canals. Schultz: It's hard to get out of them, because they get slick and it's hard to climb out of them and they have ladders occasionally, but, still, they are tough to get out of and the water is moving fast, I know that. Not from experience, but I have seen that happen, so -- Borup: Any comment from staff on the concrete lining? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I have a question for the legal department concerning the liability issue adjacent to the canal and, then, after her response I'll take the time to answer that question, if that's okay. Borup: You think she's going to have an answer tonight? Holinka: I would probably have to look into that and get back to you. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, this is part of the regional pathway system that was shown on the Comprehensive Plan that I know that you discussed for a number of years. In making this as part of the regional pathway system mentioned earlier, there was no ground truthing done to the pathway system as to whether or not each one of those locations made sense. However, they did try to find a way to make them all interconnect and the major waterways and where they placed it, just regardless of whether or not it was concrete lined, fast, or slow. We do have a pathway system that's adjacent to the Five Mile Canal that runs between Meridian and Linder Road right now and Tulley Park. There is no fence adjacent to that. That's an open ditch onto the side of the pathway and it's -- it's open, people are using it, and I don't know if we have had a loss of live yet. I -- Borup: But there is a little vegetation along that canal. McKinnon: There is vegetation along that canal, but it's not what you would consider to be a safe canal slope where a youngster could climb out of. There is no four-to-one slope on that and there is water that is moving in that canal. Borup: Okay. Anything else, Commission? Thank you, Mr. Schultz. Schultz: Thank you. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 13 of 100 Borup: Do we have anyone else here to testify on this application? If so, come forward. Seeing none, Commissioners? Centers: I'd like to move to close the Public Hearing. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Would we like a little discussion first? Zaremba: Yes, I could comment that I could go either way on the pathway. I see should surrounding subdivisions -- future subdivisions make a pathway along the Ridenbaugh Canal, there is still connectivity here using the Stoddard and Victory pathway that they are putting in. What that leaves me, though, is they were running through the calculations a little faster than I could keep up on whether there is enough open space. Borup: Well, they said if there weren’t they would revise the plat to make sure that there would be. Zaremba: Somewhere. Borup: Right. That's -- that's what I gathered from the testimony. Sounds to me like they weren't quite there, but it was close. Zaremba: I agree with the pathway system and -- but I could be sold on the connectivity to a future pathway being there, with the path that they are providing that doesn't actually go along the canal, as long as the other open space issue is covered. Personal opinion. Borup: Well, that's what we are asking for at this point. Centers: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I agree with that, and, in my opinion, it would save the city the expense of going in there and spraying weeds when the developer doesn't want them. The question regarding the attorney and talking about the liability later on, I don't think you want an answer to that, because it could address other issues on canals that you just mentioned that there hasn't been a problem and I would say thank God. I would also say two wrongs doesn't make a right. I agree with connectivity by the sidewalks and let them go around and I know why the developer doesn't want, it's not the expense, he doesn't -- he wants the privacy. He doesn't want people walking through their subdivision, the private gate is there, and I understand that. To be honest with you, I like the large lots and that will create a lot of tax revenue with four or five hundred thousand dollar homes in there, rather than 110 or 120,000 dollar homes that don't even break even with the city. That's the way I feel about it. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 14 of 100 Borup: Well, I'm a real strong advocate of the pathways, but I guess the biggest argument that sways me is the pathway along a cement canal is really not aesthetically pleasing, I don't think, that -- and the safety concerns of the people in my mind, but -- any other comments? Do we want to discuss a motion or we just -- is someone ready to do that? Centers: Well, I'm looking for the reference to the open space. Well, it's site-specific. Yes. Well, it could just be added. In place of Number 12 on Page 5, we would just add that the applicant would have to provide a minimum five percent open space and you -- if you're in favor, Commission, we would strike Number 12 on Page 5. It's that simple and insert -- McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, addressing the five percent open space, if they are going to revise their plat, is that something that you want to see come back before you again before it goes onto Council to see how that would affect this subdivision? Borup: You know, I guess part of that would depend on how it's revised, wouldn't it? Earlier the applicant talked about the extra 13 feet. Did that make sense to you? McKinnon: Yes. Borup: And, then, it appeared that they may need to enlarge -- McKinnon: The landscape buffer on Victory Road. Borup: Right. McKinnon: They could count 50 percent of the excess towards the open space. Centers: With the size of the lots there he's not going to do much damage to the size of the lots, so -- McKinnon: That's true. Borup: And you may need to adjust the lots a little bit or maybe increase Lot 31, if that's what's necessary. Commissioners, are you feeling you want to see it back or -- Centers: I wouldn't -- Zaremba: I'm not sure I need to see it. Borup: It sounds like the answer is no. Zaremba: Ten days before the City Council hearing. McKinnon: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 15 of 100 Zaremba: To staff. McKinnon: All right. Borup: Okay. Centers: So, Mr. Chairman, I'm prepared to make a motion. Borup: Okay. Let's go ahead. Centers: I would recommend approval of Item 5 on our Agenda for PP 03-009, request for a Preliminary Plat approval of 12 building lots and six other lots on 10.92 acres in an R-4 zone for Bear Creek No. 7 by Bear Creek, LLC. North of West Victory Road and east of South Stoddard Road, including all staff comments, with the exception of on Page 5 strike Number 12 and insert applicant to provide a minimum five percent open space and revise the plat prior to City Council. End of motion. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 12. Public Hearing: PP 03-007 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 36 building lots and 7 other lots on 11.65 acres in an R-4 zone for Clearbrook Estates Subdivision by R.K. Development, LLC – west of North Meridian Road and south of West Ustick Road: Centers: Mr. Chairman, maybe you'd want to address Item Number 12 on our Agenda. They had requested a postponement. Borup: Oh, I should have mentioned that earlier. If anyone is here for Item Number 12, Clearbrook Estates, there is some additional information the applicant is working on, they have asked for that to be continued and so we probably will be doing that tonight, there would not be a Public Hearing on that item, if there is anyone here for that. Zaremba: They asked for it to be moved to our June 19th -- Borup: Right. I'm sorry. Two weeks. Zaremba: Are we anticipating agreeing with that? Centers: Yes. Borup: We would anticipate it would go to two weeks on our June 19th meeting. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 16 of 100 Centers: Yes. I'd make that motion. Borup: We want to handle that -- do we need to -- Centers: Pardon? Borup: I just thought I was doing that as informational for the audience and, then, we can address it when we come to it. Centers: When we get to it? Okay. Fine. Item 6. Public Hearing: PP 03-006 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 17 building lots and 2 other lots on 10.17 acres in C-N and R-40 zones for Devon Park No. 2 by Fairview Lakes, LLC – 824 East Fairview Avenue: Borup: Okay. Item Number 6, Public Hearing PP 03-006, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 17 building lots and two other lots on 10.17 acres in a C-N and R-40 zones for Devon Park No. 2 by Fairview Lakes, LLC. Like to open this hearing at this time and start with the staff report. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. In Devon Park No. 2, this is part of the ongoing Fairview Lakes saga. We have had a lot of discussion about this. Tonight we are just going to be discussing Devon Park No. 2. Last month we addressed this with a Conditional Use Permit and changed this from being 196 apartments down to 92 apartments with some office buildings. The applicant is requesting to plat just the portion with the -- with the apartment building and this office -- the office units that are on the eastern side of the property. The western side of the property with the office units they are treating that as one lot. In the future, they will come back with another Preliminary Plat to subdivide that. I know you have all read the staff report and had an opportunity to review that. We have reviewed this at length a number of times. It complies with the approved Conditional Use Permit for this site. Part of the reason for platting this lot at this time is so that -- these lots at this time is so that the private road that was approved originally can be constructed and dedicated to Ada County Highway District prior to occupancy of any of the buildings pursuant to the Development Agreement on the annexation of this property. At this time I will end my staff report and ask if you have any questions. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Does the applicant have a -- Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: Yes, I do have a question. The one thing I don't see on what I believe is my copy of the Preliminary Plat is the requirement that the buildings on Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 be limited to one story. I know we made that issue last time. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 17 of 100 McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Zaremba, if I remember correctly, that was something that was dropped as a condition. We decided not to include that as part of the conditions of approval, because it was no longer being a three story apartment building, it was going to be office use, and the applicant at that time said this is not going to be part of the -- these are going to be one story office buildings, because of the size of the lots and it was a drop from the -- I don't have a copy of the minutes from the last meeting, if someone has that we can -- Zaremba: My recollection was the applicant didn't care and we did put that condition on it. McKinnon: Okay. Well, we can take a look at that. If that's the case that would be something to fine tune at this point. It's not something that we typically see with a Preliminary Plat requirement, because it's not part of our subdivision ordinance, it would be something that would be pursuant to the Conditional Use Permit that was approved, and all plats do have to abide by the Conditional Use Permit that was approved for that plat. Rather than include it as part of the conditions of approval for the plat, which in addition to all the requirements that we currently have, if it is in the Conditional Use Permit it would be something that would still be required. Borup: And that's what I was going to mention. Go ahead, Commissioner Mathes. Mathes: Dave, didn't you say you wanted to add a CUP on the front of the plan anyway? McKinnon: On Page 3, Number 3, and Note Number 12. Mathes: Right. McKinnon: The development of the subdivision -- Mathes: So, that would be covered, even if it's not on there. McKinnon: That's correct. Mathes: Okay. Borup: Okay. It looks like that would handle that, Commissioner Zaremba. Okay. Does the applicant have a presentation they'd like to make? Vaught: Steve -- excuse me, I have laryngitis. Steve Vaught, 11 Auto Drive, Boise, Idaho. We are fine with everything that staff has recommended and as far as the underground-pressurized irrigation system, we are working with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation and it will be a private system dedicated to Nampa-Meridian. Borup: Any questions from any of the Commissioners? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 18 of 100 Zaremba: Well, it would require a long answer but they have all been answered. Borup: Do we have anyone else here to testify on this application? Seeing none, Commissioners? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Public Hearing on Item 6 be closed. Centers: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Do we have a motion? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 6 on our agenda, PP 03-006, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 17 building lots and two other lots on 10.17 acres in C-N and R-40 zones for Devon Park No. 2 by Fairview Lakes, LLC, at 824 East Fairview Avenue, to include all staff comments of their memo of -- well, it's for hearing date of today, received by the City Clerk on May 2nd. Centers: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Powell: Chairman Borup, before you move on to the next item, I would like to say that that was Dave's last presentation before you all and though I have not been here long, I know he will be missed. I just wanted to acknowledge that -- oh, some of you didn't know. Borup: No, we didn't. Powell: Oh. Dave has given notice, tomorrow is his last day of work, and he will be joining Pinnacle Engineers. You will see him again, but we won't talk about that. Borup: He's gone to the other side. Zaremba: He has been a fount of useful information and provided us much background in many things and I wish him well. We will miss you. Maybe we will see you on the other side of the microphone sometime. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 19 of 100 Centers: Yes. We will miss you, Dave. I didn't know that. Zaremba: I assume that's a happy move for you. Congratulations. It's not so happy for us. McKinnon: Sorry about the surprise. Item 7. Public Hearing: AZ 03-010 Request for annexation and zoning of 39.15 acres from RUT to R-8 (PD) for proposed Trailway Park Subdivision by Hillview Development Corporation – east of North Meridian Road and south of East Blue Heron Lane: Item 8. Public Hearing: PP 03-011 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 161 building lots and 25 other lots on 39.15 acres in a proposed R-8 (PD) zone for proposed Trailway Park Subdivision by Hillview Development Corporation – east of North Meridian Road and south of East Blue Heron Lane: Item 9. Public Hearing: CUP 03-021 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for single-family residential use with reduced setbacks, lot sizes, lot frontages, and house sizes in a proposed R-8 (PD) zone for proposed Trailway Park Subdivision by Hillview Development Corporation – east of North Meridian Road and south of East Blue Heron Lane: Borup: Okay. Next item for Trailway Park Subdivision. We'd like to -- we have three hearings in conjunction with that project. We'd like to open Public Hearing AZ 03-010, request for annexation and zoning of 39.15 acres from RUT to R-8, planned development for proposed Trailway Park Subdivision by Hillview Development Corporation. Also PP 03-011, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 161 building lots and 25 other lots on the same 39.15 acres. Also CUP 03-012, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for single family residential use with reduced setbacks, lot sizes, lot frontages, house sizes, in a proposed R-8 PD zone for Proposed Trailway Park Subdivision by Hillview Development Corporation. Again, we'd like to open all three Public Hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Kirkpatrick: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, again, this is three applications, an annexation and a Rezone of 39.14 acres. It is currently zoned RUT and is located in the county. They are proposing a Rezone to R-8. The application also consists of a Conditional Use Permit and a planned development for what will be 145 single family detached dwellings and 16 single family attached dwellings. There will be a total of 161 buildable lots. The applicant is also requesting reduced lot sizes, reduced frontage, reduced setbacks, reduced house sizes for the zone, and to exceed block length requirements. They will -- this will be done through the planned development. The property is located on East Blue Heron Road, north of Fairview Road, and east of North Meridian Road. What I'm going to do, briefly, is go to what I think will be some of the major issues that will come up while you discuss this application. These are things Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 20 of 100 that staff has asked for the applicant to change in order for staff to recommend approval of this application and I think you all have in your packets a comment letter from the applicant addressing some of the points that staff had asked for changes and they are disputing those changes. I'll go ahead and starting going through those. Let's see. We are going to do that one last. The Fire Department-- get my pointer. Well, you can see this turn around there. The Fire Department has asked that parking be prohibited in the turn around of Block 8 or that building on Boise Place on the plat prohibiting structures in the rear of the lots. The Fire Department is concerned that if there were cars parked in the turnaround, they would not be able to access these rear lots in the event of a fire. They would like for either parking to be prohibited at that turnaround so that trucks would be -- the trucks would be able to make that route or for there to be a restriction on the plat where no structures could be located at the rear of the lot. Let's see. The second thing here -- this is actually a point -- let's go to the -- the applicant is proposing to pipe a portion of the Jackson Drain through their open space. This is a 2.05-acre park to be located there. The applicant is proposing that they pipe the Jackson Drain where it goes through this park. I want to point out that our Comprehensive Plan calls for us to -- calls for the Jackson -- calls for the Jackson Drain to be designated as a creek to be improved and protected. We want for you all to make the interpretation whether piping the Jackson Drain there is, indeed, improving and protecting the creek. It's up to you. Let's see. I think our next major issue is going to be addressing this regional pathway. The Parks Department standards ask for a 10-foot wide regional pathway and for five feet of gravel to be located on each side of the pathway. The applicant -- the applicant's proposal only has two feet of gravel on each side of the regional pathway. The Parks Department -- and David addressed this earlier -- they prefer to have five feet of gravel, because their machines that are set up to spray are set up for five feet of gravel on each side of the pathway. Let's see. We have the applicant -- we have asked for the applicant to add an additional micropath to improve connectivity in this area. This would be between Lots 11 and 19 of Block 5. Let's see, I want to get to the ponds, which I think will probably be our biggest issue this evening. Okay. If we can go back to the aerial photo. Okay. Let's see. There are -- these two pieces of property that I have designated with these arrows are directly adjacent to the subject property. This is the proposed subdivision. I'll go ahead and point that out. On this piece of property, there is located -- I'll go ahead and get you the exact name of the establishment. Actually, we have the property owner here. Meridian Meat Packers. They do wild game processing, domestic, and wild fowl processing. I have actually taken a tour of the site and we have a concern -- while the meatpacking establishment is located here, these ponds here -- or these lagoons are actually part of the meat packing operation. The way that I had this explained to me through Jamie Schwer -- and he's here tonight, so you can ask him questions -- was that while they are washing down equipment and washing down the floor of the meat packing facility, some of that runoff -- or this runoff goes through a grease trap and filter. Then, into these ponds -- or these lagoons that are located next to the subdivision. Now, I talked to our Legal Counsel today and our Planning Director and the termination that we had made is that these lagoons, even though they are on a separate parcel from the meat packing facility, are part of the meatpacking or processing plant. Our landscaping code requires there to be a 35-foot buffer between a processing industrial plant and a residential development. We are asking that there be a 35 foot buffer between the ponds and this Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 21 of 100 proposed development. I'll go back to the plat, so you can see how that's going to affect the subdivision. Essentially, we are talking about these duplex lots. These are the attached family homes on the western side of the property, would have to be -- they would have to do a reconfiguration and change where these lots are created -- where these lots are depicted. We are not as concerned about these lots at the south that aren't directly next to the lagoons. We are concerned about these lots to the north. Okay. Are there any questions of staff? Centers: Mr. Chairman. Could you go back to the initial map that you had up there. Is this pretty much land locked? Surround by city is what I meant. Borup: Oh, yes. Kirkpatrick: Correct. Centers: So, it's a great in-fill situation? Kirkpatrick: The subdivision? Centers: Right. Kirkpatrick: It is in-fill, yes. Centers: Thank you. Mathes: Can you explain how a building envelope works? Kirkpatrick: Okay. Go back to the plat. Well, an envelope -- and, actually, we could probably have Bruce address this also. A building envelope would be the buildable area that is marked on the plat, so there would, actually, be a box on that that and, then, there would be a plat note addressing that a building is only allowed in that box on the plat and it would live throughout the life of the subdivision as a plat note. Centers: Thanks for asking that question, because I was wondering, too. In other words, you're going have a footprint on a specific lot that the only place they can build the house is right there? Kirkpatrick: Correct. Centers: How is that going to assist the Fire Department? Kirkpatrick: Well, if the Fire Department-- Centers: If there is cars parked. Excuse me. Kirkpatrick: Right. I guess the way that Joe Silva from the Fire Department explained this to me is they have a certain length of hose on their trucks. If they are able to park Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 22 of 100 at the edge of this cul-de-sac without entering it, with this building envelope those hoses will be able to reach within the building envelopes and he's the one that, actually, recommended that building envelope idea to me. Borup: And what distance did he recommend? Is that in here? We don't have a distance recommended? Kirkpatrick: That's a clarification, actually, that we could ask before Council, if it's not in those. Borup: Another question I had. The 35 foot buffer, was that in those last -- which ordinance was that a part of? How long has that been -- Kirkpatrick: It's from our landscape ordinance and -- Borup: Was that what it is, in the landscape ordinance? Kirkpatrick: Correct. Borup: Okay. That answers my question. Centers: But the applicant has stated in her comments that if the Fire Department insists, they'll just simply remove the island and -- Kirkpatrick: And that would solve this problem. Centers: And that solves the problem and they are just trying to provide some esthetics, I think, that -- I think we need to hear from the applicant. Borup: Okay. Anything else on your presentation? Kirkpatrick: No. I think that's it for now. Borup: Would the applicant like to come forward? McKay: Becky McKay, I'm with Engineering Solutions, 150 East Aikens, Suite B, Eagle. I'm representing Hillview Development, the applicant in this application. Can everybody see that? Centers: It's nice to know your way around. McKay: Yes. As staff indicated, there are a few items that we do disagree on. I will just, basically, go over some of the project and, then, I will delve into the staff's conditions and some of our concerns with those conditions. As Commissioner Centers indicated, this is an in-fill parcel. The definition of an in-fill parcel was that, typically, at least 80 percent of the area around a particular open or vacant site is developed, so this would qualify as an in-fill parcel. The property is approximately 39 acres in size. We got Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 23 of 100 multiple mixed uses around us. As staff indicated, there are two existing ponds here. They are located in an R-1 residential -- estate residential zone under county jurisdiction. To the west of that is an M-2 zone, which is the -- where the facility is located. The M-2 zone is a general industrial zone under the county. We have the Aspen Hills Apartments. We have Bridgewood Park 4-plexes. We have La Playa duplexes or attached single family. We have mobile homes to the south. Then, we have single-family dwellings along our eastern boundary and single-family dwellings along our northern boundary. We do have kind of a hodge-podge or a mixed use around this particular parcel. As staff indicated, we have 161 building lots. Of those, 145 are single- family dwelling lots and, then, we have 16 attached lots. I'd like to show you a few pictures of the area out there to kind of give you an idea of what is around there. We have got the Jackson Drain, which traverses the site. It comes in and enters at the south boundary and, then, runs diagonally. Even though the Comprehensive Plan designates that as a waterway that they would like to see protected, I don't think that that prohibits the piping of that facility. It is under Nampa-Meridian Irrigation jurisdiction that there is a 75-foot easement associated with that facility. According to Nampa- Meridian -- John Anderson is who I spoke with -- it is their preference -- not only their preference. They would mandate since that facility traverses through our pocket park, which, obviously, draws children, small children, mid size children, they would prefer that it be piped, it is their facility, according to that quote from Mr. Anderson, and we do not view it as a water amenity. I'd like to show Commission some pictures of that drain, kind of gives you an idea -- this is a picture -- and I'll submit these for the record. This is a picture up by Blue Heron Lane. As you can see, the drain is fairly deep, fairly wide. In the summer, according to Mr. Anderson, it runs a substantial amount or a high volume of water. When it traverses through the site -- I have some photos that kind of give you an idea -- here are some photos of it as it traverses the site. I don't know if any of you are aware of, but Nampa-Meridian does not allow us on drains to go in and do what we call a four-to-one slope, which is typically what we try to do when we are making a drain a water amenity. That standard comes from Boise City's ordinance. We kind of use it as an industry standard in the valley, in order to take a water facility and make it what we consider safe for our children to be around, so if they fall into it, they can walk out. This, however, would not meet that criteria of a water amenity. Nonetheless, it is on your Comprehensive Plan that a multi-use pathway be constructed along the -- along the drain and what we show here in our plan is a multi-use pathway that we will be constructing and that is one of our amenities that we ask for under our planned development, we would be constructing that multi-use pathway along parallel with the drain. This is the historical location of the drain and, then, the drain came through here and, then, it goes up. As you can see, the majority of that drain has been retained and retained in its historical location. We will come along, install the 10-foot asphalt pathway, and make a connection here in mid section and, then, we will be bringing a connection here. This was one that was added by staff that we said was fine we'd make this connection here. The pathway would, then, cross the public right of way, come across, and, then, we'd bring that pathway on up, link with our sidewalks and, then, bring it on up to the north and, then, link with some future sidewalk up at Blue Heron. This property has multiple stub streets, as you can see, that are preexisting, so as far as the design of this development. We were very restricted in order to, one, accommodate and preserve the majority of the drain and, two, make these Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 24 of 100 intersections, our primary access being James Court and, then, Blue Heron Lane as our secondary access. James Court is a collector roadway that leads out to Meridian Road, which is a minor arterial. As you can see, we are providing landscaping along there and, then we have our pocket park here, which is approximately two acres. Now, staff has asked that we come through here with -- right here with a pedestrian access. In my response to the staff's comments I'm opposed to that. For one reason, this block is less than 800 feet it does not exceed that 1,000-foot. Secondly, we are constructing sidewalk with -- along our roadways and I just don't see that that is beneficial -- you know, we are not breaking up an excessively long block, so, thereafter, in order to run one through there I'm going to lose a lot on each side. That's two lots. We came off the end of each block and provided landscaping and some -- and the sidewalk would be detached and running in that, just to kind of give it a little bit of an extra flavor and we do also, for the record, have a stub drain on our eastern boundary. It's piped through this development here that adjoins us, The Willows. This comes here, opens up, comes down, and then, dumps into the Jackson Drain. I have been in contact with a resident that lives on Lark Place. According to that resident, she indicated that their fence is inset about 20 feet from where their property line is because of that drain and she said that she was going to speak with her neighbors and see if they would consent to allow us to pipe that, therefore, getting rid of that and, then, working out with Nampa-Meridian the possibility of them being allowed to move their fence back to where their property line is or exists. And I have spoke with John Anderson of Nampa-Meridian concerning that. He said that is a possibility. He will require that we provide some type of a separate lot, so they could access the pipe if any maintenance needed to be done. They don't want it just in a backyard, but they would consider reducing that easement from 60 feet if we put it in pipe, which, therefore, could allow them to recover those 20 feet that we lost. I have dwelt with this before and according to Nampa-Meridian we always have to have consent of the property owners in order to do work on a ditch facility. I stressed to that individual that she would have to get with her neighbors and get them all to agree and, then, we may be able to make that work. She said it's kind of an eye sore for them at this time. That's stub drain is not a real pretty thing, as you can see here. It is coming into the site, there is a pipe that's coming from the east, and so it's not a real beautiful facility. If we could eliminate it and, then, they could be allowed to use that area, that would benefit them and that was -- seemed to be her position. We have a real good project here. The designation on your Comprehensive Plan is mixed use neighborhood. That's the same designation to the east -- or to the west of us. The ponds that were brought up by staff -- I'd to submit this into the record. As you can see, they take on a lot of ground water. The facility that they spoke about primarily does jerky and pepperoni processing. They don't -- they don't have any live kills there or whatever you call it in that type of industry, so it's not like it's an Armor processing plant that's next to us. I went into the facility, it was very clean, very sanitary, and they do primarily jerky and pepperoni. They do, do some live game. I asked what -- you know, what's out in those ponds. They said, oh, primarily ground water. They do flush out -- they have some drains in their floor, they do flush out their equipment, some brine, they said some soaps, some bleach that they use to clean, but we are not seeing any solvents or anything like that. Also, that property owner to the west has came to our firm and has retained us to submit application to the City of Meridian for annexation and zoning to eliminate those ponds, get that facility on city sewer. They would like to develop that Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 25 of 100 area with some type of mini storage to service this primarily residential area, which that's the long-term plan, but that would, obviously, be very compatible. As you can see from the pictures that I have shown you, the ponds -- there is ducks, there are geese, there are willows -- I don't see them as being grotesque or horribly looking. As you can well see, there are multi-family developments right adjoining them. I just don't -- I think that staff is just getting a little bit overwrought for nothing. I know what the ordinance says, but I just don't see that it applies here. Going through, you received -- you guys all got a copy of my responses to staff -- the staff report. Concerning the pathway, Doug Strong called me Doug asked if we had enough room to go with a 10-foot wide asphalt and five feet on both sides. What I told Mr. Strong, I said we would have to blowup our topographic map, take a look at that, and see if we have got enough area to make that work. In doing so, we did have some areas where we are very tight, so that's why, you know, we figured Nampa-Meridian standard is 14 feet for access. If we did a 10-foot asphalt path and we had two feet of gravel on each side, that gives us a total of 14 feet for Nampa-Meridian which, one, meets their criteria. Yes, sir. Centers: Excuse me. You really want the pathway for the development, don't you? McKay: I think it would be a very -- Centers: It's part of your initial plan. McKay: Yes, sir. Centers: Yes. McKay: Yes, sir. There is a pathway to the southeast that I guess there is just a short stretch that at some point in time they will link up, so we could end up seeing it and I guess there is a path to the northwest, so this is a good linkage between those two segments. I don't know where the five-foot gravel came from. This is the first time I have ever encountered. I guess, you know, there is a new director for the Parks Department and they are, obviously, trying to come up with standards and I encourage that, but there are situations where we are restricted on the area. Item G under annexation and zoning with the Fire Department. We put that landscape island in this -- we put this landscape island in this kind of little knuckle thing, because it breaks up the asphalt. Unlike a standard turnaround, this is just done in order to get the frontages that we desire to make this kind of nook here a buildable area. It breaks up the asphalt it's just an esthetic thing. I guess our opinion was if a fire -- if this house was on fire, I don't see that truck pulling up right smack in front of it, they are most likely going to pull up right here. I guess I have never asked Meridian Fire Department how long their hoses are. Boise City told me -- we have a maximum cul-de-sac length there -- I think it's like 700 feet. I said where did that come from? They said our hoses are only 700 feet long. I guess I would be shocked that Meridian's hoses only go 150 feet, but maybe that's the case. If this is problematic, I guess we'd rather remove it, than try to make -- take on a cumbersome process of identifying building envelopes and restricting parking -- I mean it's just not worth it. We were trying just to make it look good. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 26 of 100 Centers: Excuse me, Ms. McKay. If you just put a no parking sign that kind of matched the aesthetics, wouldn't that please the chief and please everybody else? I think that's what he said. McKay: I think he wanted the building envelopes, too, in addition to that. Centers: Oh, in addition to the signs? McKay: I believe so. If -- Centers: I thought it said no parking or -- Borup: It was or. McKay: I think -- Borup: The staff report said or. McKay: Did it say or? Centers: So you put a nice looking little sign up. McKay: If we could do no parking, I guess that would be up to the applicant if they could live with no parking on those cul-de-sacs. We have done it in some projects. Under Site-Specific Number 1, that was -- that's the issue of the existing sewer easement. There is a sewer easement along the south boundary on the western side. I guess it's been there for many, many years. Bruce indicated to me that the sewer line is not centered in the existing easement. Our plat reflects that existing easement. Bruce would like to see, I believe, ten feet of clearance, so he said we are only talking two or three feet. I don't see that that's a problem. I can work with Bruce on that and move that lot line further north. I didn't realize that it was such a minor amount, but he clarified that for me. As far as access, Bruce talked about restoring the gravel road. Right now it's just weeds. I don't think you can drive down there, but then, the question arose, well, and then, if we don't put gravel on it, then, what do we do with it? I guess, you know, maybe Bruce has some ideas on how we could handle that as far as if they ever had to get back in there and maintain that. Item 4, we just want to make sure that we aren't required to fence any of our perimeter which already currently had fencing. That's a given. Then, Item 5 would be the 35-foot landscape buffer, which we definitely disagree with. Item 6 would be the five feet of gravel on each side of the 10-foot pathway. Then, Item 9 being the added micropath in that lot, nine I think it is. Then, under site-specific for the CU, I wasn't sure -- staff made a comment about a tot lot, but there was no clarification on that. I believe it read item four, site-specific CU, add a tot lot to proposed park, Block 9, Lot 13. Centers: What are your two amenities now? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 27 of 100 McKay: Our two amenities -- we are providing 13 percent open space and the multi-use pathway. Those are our two amenities. Borup: So, you're saying your amenity would be additional open space. I mean you're already required to have open space. McKay: Well, I don't know when she says tot lot if she meant play equipment or -- I guess I need her to clarify which -- Kirkpatrick: By tot lot I meant including play equipment in the park. Borup: So, what were you planning to have in the park? McKay: At this time we had planned on, obviously, having our pathway and putting in trees, landscaping, and, then, typically my clients take a look at, you know, what they want, if they want to add some additional things to it. We thought we had met the requirements of the two amenities. I guess that was our -- Centers: Well, that's the question. Have they met the two requirements for the PD? Kirkpatrick: They have, but they have minimally met the requirements, but we are asking or suggesting that they provide a tot lot. Centers: Okay. Kirkpatrick: But, yes, they have met the requirements. McKay: But I guess it's up -- it's the discretion of the Commission and, obviously, the Council to determine if the amenities meet the demand of the proposed development, so that -- I'd leave that up to the Commission. We have a real good project here. I think the city has wanted to see this particular parcel developed and make all these connections to all these stub streets and connect these developments together. We feel we have got, you know, a good project, we have a lot of site constraints to work with, but all in all this is a good project and we feel it can benefit this area. We are providing two types of mixed uses, the amenities, and our density, as I indicated, is 4.11 building units per acre. The designation allows three to eight. We are in that mid -- middle range. Do you have any questions? Borup: Questions from the Commission? Centers: No. I interrupted enough. Borup: I don't know, Becky, if you went into any explanation on your rationale for some of the reduced setbacks, lot sizes, frontages, et cetera, other than that allows you to have more homes, but is there any other rationale? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 28 of 100 McKay: Commissioner Borup, we went with a planned development because it did allow us to go down to the 6,000 square foot versus the 6,500 that is the minimum lot size for that R-8 zone. Typically, in the in-fill projects cities encourage those developments, so they most generally have a little higher density, have differing lot sizes that may be less than the standardized lot sizes to encourage the development of those parcels. Those parcels are usually pretty spendy and we are normally dealing with a lot of different site constraints. The drain, the stub streets, they limit our design and they limit our density. In order to get it so it is economically feasible, we had to go with the planned development, asking for allowances on these setbacks, frontages, and lot sizes. Borup: Actually, the one I'm interested in probably most, maybe, is the cul-de-sac frontages. I don't see any 25 percent -- or 25 foot in your design anywhere. Well, the staff -- did you request those -- a minimum cul-de-sac lot frontage? Staff has it in their report as 25 feet. Was that not -- that was not a request for the applicant, then? McKay: I think she may have been -- she must have got it from a Site Plan. Borup: No, I didn't see -- McKay: As I look at those, it looks like they are all 40. We have 40-foot frontages all along -- Borup: Well, you -- no, I didn't -- McKay: Along the cul-de-sac to the north. We are looking at our -- Borup: You mean to -- to the cul-de-sac, but you're talking your little bump out there? McKay: No. Borup: You got a 36. McKay: No, sir. I'm looking at -- Borup: Oh, that one. McKay: The width on these is 40 feet. Borup: Okay. No, I was looking on the single family. McKay: On the single-family we have the little bump out, which has a 33-foot frontage. Borup: Right. Well, you're down to 30 is the smallest I see. McKay: Yes. I don't see anything that's 25. Not that I can see. I don't see anything less than a 30. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 29 of 100 Centers: And, Ms. McKay, you had mentioned the CUP Site-Specific Number 3 you agreed with and, then, you requested reduced setbacks and minimum house sizes, but you didn't get specific. On your memo, Page 4. Borup: I think the reduced setbacks would just be from 20 to 15 on the house, as long as you had 20 on the garages, is that -- McKay: Yes. I think -- I think that response was just to bring that to the attention of the Commission that we had asked for -- Borup: Well, no. Okay. Now that stays the same. I'm sorry. The reduced setback is on the two story to be reduced to five feet is your request, rather than ten per story -- or five per story. McKay: Yes. We are in agreement with staff. We don't -- I don't think we -- Centers: Okay. So your bold type -- McKay: -- have any disagreement. Centers: -- on Number 3 -- McKay: Yes. I think that was just a mistake. I'm sorry. Centers: Thank you. I caught you. McKay: Yep. Borup: Any other questions from any of the Commissioners? Okay. We did have a couple of people that signed up that may have some questions. Are any of those here and would like to come forward on this application? Come on. Bengoechea: Excuse me for my ignorance. My name is Mike Bengoechea, 2061 Lark Street. I'm going walk over here. This ditch bank that she's talking about back here that is -- that's my house right there. We are all for getting that filled in. I really think my biggest concern is -- and this photo really doesn't show it, is this is Willowbrook right here and we all know where the car wash and the Primary Health is on Jericho. Well, to me it makes more sense to -- people coming down Fairview going home, they are going to go down Jericho to Willowbrook to get to their house. They are not going to use these, which is going to increase traffic in our subdivision huge. That's my only real concern about the whole thing and I just want to make that point. Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Brylet: How are you doing this evening? I'm Shawn Brylet, 451 East Brown Bear Street. The only problem I have with this, folks is Ms. McKay saying they have an irrigation ditch in here. They also have irrigation -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 30 of 100 Borup: It's a drain. It's not an irrigation ditch, I don't believe. Brylet: The water actually runs through this ditch right now -- or drains however, you want to put it. There is also a piped irrigation -- can't show you on that. I can show you here. This would be my land right here. This is an irrigation -- piped irrigation underneath here that feeds a pressurized irrigation system for the Fothergill Subdivision. When Mr. Fothergill still owned this property that's annexed -- not even annexed yet, but his personal agricultural use property, they put an opened outlet right here, so that he could irrigate this field. That box to irrigate that field sits in my yard. What I need to do is either get rid of the box, because the only way to flood this is to drop a gate in there. That box is four-by-four by eight feet deep. He has gone through right now and covered that box, put a steel plate over the top of it. Now, when they release this property, this is going to come back into my yard. All I need to know is what we are going to do with this box. Borup: We will get an answer from the applicant on that. Your preference I'm hearing you say you'd like it removed; is that correct? Brylet: I would, actually, like the box removed. Now, I don't know what that's going to take as far as Nampa-Meridian Irrigation or is that part of the development for Engineering Solutions or maybe that even falls back on the John Ewing part of the Fothergill Subdivision. That may be another option to look into. The other issue I have is Ms. McKay said the perimeter of this is all fenced, except half of my yard. They stopped -- they stopped fencing this after that box. Now my yard is still open to this field back here. Borup: They would be fencing the area that's not fenced. Brylet: Okay. Okay. Centers: And, Mr. Brylet, the applicant has also stated -- and I'll read it verbatim. The irrigation ditches will be piped where necessary to serve downstream properties. Those irrigation facilities that serve only this property will be abandoned and they will have to do that properly and we will make that a requirement. Brylet: Excellent. That's good to hear. Borup: But I think where his concern is that the box is on his property, it's not on this property. Brylet: Right. That box is, actually, on my property. But there is, actually, a box and a manhole cover and they sit side by side. Borup: Okay. We will get an answer from the applicant. At the very least I mean they would need your permission to do that, of course. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 31 of 100 Brylet: Well, they are still going to have to access this through the field now, because there is no access through my yard anymore. There is a huge shed here and a swimming pool. Borup: Okay. Brylet: And so the only way to access that is through the field now. If they build the houses on there, there is no access to it. I guess the other complaint that some of us have as the neighbors, the size of these homes or lots in here and we are not quite sure as to why they can build a smaller lot, as compared to the existing subdivision that it backs up to. If that can be looked into as far as maybe increasing the size of these lots on the perimeter outside to match the lots that they back up to in the existing subdivisions. Centers: I'd like to address that. Brylet: Okay. Centers: They are going with this type of development and providing a lot more open space within it. If we took out the open space, then, they would provide the larger lots. They are not going to with any more lots per acre that you have, because they have the open space. Would that be correct, Mr. Chairman? Borup: Well, I think that was one of the reasons and probably the other is at some point the change needs to take place. You know, on the one side of their property they have apartments and mobile homes. If they went with those size lots, they would be much smaller somewhere there needs to be a transition. Brylet: Okay. Thank you. Borup: Otherwise, you know, a project that's up against a 40-acre lot, the whole area would be all -- Freckleton: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Yes. Freckleton: Can I address a question to the gentleman on irrigation? Borup: Yes. Freckleton: Sir, can I ask you a question? Just wondering, the pipe that you're referring to, is it north of the -- of this proposed subdivision's boundary? In other words, does it go across the back of the lots at Fothergill Point or is it in -- Centers: Mr. Brylet? It's a headgate, isn't it it's a headgate. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 32 of 100 Brylet: Yes, it's a headgate. It, actually, is piped underneath in the Fothergill Point Subdivision. Freckleton: Okay. If I understand you correctly, what happens is the box in your yard is a checkpoint where they turn the water south into -- into the proposed site. Brylet: That's correct. Borup: And does it continue on? Is that what you're wondering, Bruce? Brylet: The water does continue on downstream to the irrigation pump house for the irrigation of Fothergill Point Subdivision. Freckleton: Right. At the time they were irrigating this field where the subdivision is going to go, they would check the water out to run down to this field. Like you said, they'd have to put in a headgate on further downstream to check the water back and, then, I assume that the water would drain off into the drain ditch that crosses the property. Brylet: Exactly. Freckleton: Okay so, with this development, if they are not utilizing that water, it's probably going to be abandoned and they'll deal with the ditch. Borup: But that's just the headgate, isn't it? Now, if this ditch continues on, you can't -- you can't abandon that whole thing or you won't have water to your pump station. Centers: Well -- excuse me. The applicant said they are going to -- it's going to be piped where necessary to serve downstream properties. They know they have to do that. They are just going to abandon the headgate. Freckleton: Yes. Mr. Chairman, the water passes through onto the west now. The only time water would go through that is when they actually checked it back to water the field where Trailway Sub is going, which won't be necessary -- Borup: It doesn't go through the check station, through that check box? Freckleton: It does. It goes on through to the west to the pump station for Fothergill, but, historically, when they were going to water the field here where Trailway is, they would have to drop in a headgate and back the water up and push it out onto this property. Borup: Okay. Brylet: Yes. That's right. That's exactly how they have to do right now. Unfortunately, the John Ewing subdivision, when they put it in, then, as a developer, never put anything in there. He told Mr. Fothergill that all they would have to do is drop this in and they never capped it or anything. Everybody was informed that this was an open -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 33 of 100 open system, basically, and never worked as well as they had planned on it. What they did is they put a manhole cover next to it and when they put this manhole cover in as a checkpoint for this irrigation, they had to actually build up the manhole cover. There are three layers of cement concrete on top to bring up this water high enough so that it didn't flood or wash out my yard. Now I have a box and a manhole cover to feed the existing Fothergill property that's going to be part of the Trailway Park Subdivision there, so -- Freckleton: Okay. Brylet: Thank you. Centers: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else? Badger: My name is Ryan Badger. I live at 660 East Grouse Court, which is the cul-de- sac to the northeast to the proposed subdivision. I just have a couple of points that I want to bring up. First of all, we have talked a little bit about it today, it seems like the developer wants to decrease just about everything on the subdivision as far as the setbacks and lot sizes. As Chairman Centers has talked about, we understand that -- Centers: Chairman Borup is on the end there. Badger: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Are we working our way there? As mentioned earlier, they are putting in some nice green pathways we appreciate that from our subdivision in Fothergill. The one thing that, as Chairman Borup did bring up that we would like to see, in talking to many of my neighbors, we appreciate the -- as we move from the apartments we see some duplexes there, which brings in -- obviously, people that are going to want to purchase those. They are not going to want to build a big 400,000 home that will create a good tax base versus a 120,000-dollar home. We would like to see in the north and also on the west some comparable home sizes that that would -- a natural break would also be the road there. We are not asking that their setbacks or, I'm sorry, their lot sizes are 60-foot frontages on most of the subdivisions that surround them they are about an average of about 75 to 70 on some of those. I mean from our standpoint, we appreciate all the roads and the stuff, they are going to benefit a lot of people, but we just think that some of those things should be addressed and within a matter of losing one or two lots. We feel also that the smaller homes could have the potential in the distant future to bring -- to decrease property values within our own subdivision, because of our bigger lot sizes and so by creating somewhat of a buffer, we see some people on the back on the northeast corner there, I mean they back up to three houses, three total houses there, realizing that is a cul-de-sac lot, which is somewhat oddly shaped, but, nonetheless, it could decrease. I also have a comment, the gentleman that lived on Lark Street, when this subdivision takes place and general traffic is routed through the subdivision, what is the developer's plan -- you know, we see the billboards about the marvelous Trailway Subdivision that will go in, which will, obviously, fill in this area. How are they going to route that traffic? Is it through the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 34 of 100 existing neighborhoods or is it through the wide road at James Court, which is a relatively wide area, but, yet, going through apartments, which I doubt -- maybe the developer is really going to want to send his folks to buy a home through the apartments. I mean our fear is a little bit that they are going to send them on a round about way, increasing traffic in our own subdivision unduly by that. I guess those are just some questions that I guess I would like answered and -- Borup: We can discuss some of those. I don't know if we can necessarily answer all of them. I mean traffic is going to seek its own way. The one thing that is very unique about this site is it has six access points and so there is an opportunity for the traffic to disperse six different directions down six different streets, rather than being funneled in on one particular -- there may be some that get more use than others, but it looks like for once ACHD was very careful about planning for this to eventually be developed and we have good stub streets all the way around, so we are not funneled in on one location. Badger: And I agree with that, Mr. Chairman. I guess I just wondered what's going to be the main access point for the developer to shuffle that traffic through, are they going to want to push that through the apartments from a -- Borup: Yes. Badger: Or are they going to shuffle that way back through the subdivision and somewhere else. Borup: I have got a question on your -- and I definitely agree that it's good to have some break point between sizes. I can't remember how you -- you said that -- you know, between lot sizes and where would be a natural point. Would you think it's better to make that change on a street or a backyard? On street, you're looking at someone's house right across from you, whereas a backyard you really don't have much in common with the neighbors on the back as much. Badger: And I understand your point there, too. I happen to -- in my cul-de-sac, I live on two -- my backyard neighbors, have two backyard neighbors and every summer night their 15 year old kids are out there playing until 10:30 at night and I'm just saying, you know, it's nice to have one backyard neighbor, you know, you kind of funnel that noise through you. If you have three backyard neighbors, it just increases the ability to make friends, but also to have other things, -- you know, you just have to deal with in the neighborhood. I guess -- I'm not asking them to get rid of all their lots, but I think reducing it by a couple of lot sizes on both those sections on the east and north -- we are not asking for, you know -- you know, I don't think we are asking for that much, so -- Centers: I think you have to give the -- and I look at both sides, but I think you have to give the applicant an A for creativity with that parcel of land with that drainage ditch coming right through it and sitting next to -- and throw a rock to a meat packing plant. It sits right in the middle of the property surrounded by city-owned property -- I mean city property. I think you just have to give a lot of credit to the creativity there and Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 35 of 100 understand that with that developed, it will help everyone else's tax base in the long run, if you follow what I'm saying, that maybe it will allow your taxes not to go up, because we are able to collect some taxes in that area. Does that make sense? Badger: It makes sense from the standpoint that it was my understanding earlier that a 120,000-dollar home barely breaks even, from your comments. Centers: It does. It does. Badger: How would that help out our tax base? Centers: The first few years -- for the first few years. The other thing you have to give credit to is the 15 percent of open space, see, that you're not considering that's within there. If they didn't provide that, if they went with an R-8 subdivision, like you live in, you would have a lot more lots -- or not a lot more, but you would have as many lots, but they might be bigger. You'd have just as many homes. And I don't think I'm too far from wrong on that. Badger: Yes. Like I said, I'm not here to pitch a fit. I guess my standpoint just goes back to what I said before that I don't think it's too much to ask to lose a lot on either side of those boundaries. You go from 161 to 159 and if that is a big deal, if that's a deal breaker for the Commission, then, we will live with it. I mean we are going to have to live with it anyways. Our point is that we don't ask that -- we are not asking that much. I mean it's just a natural flow from the duplexes to some fairly crowded housing to, you know, maybe we lose a couple lots on those two borders. Centers: Well, let's have the applicant address that. Badger: Yes. Fair enough. Centers: Okay. Borup: Thank you. Anderson: Hi, my name is Leslie Anderson. I live at 1890 East Blue Heron. This proposed subdivision I'm directly adjacent to up here in the northeast corner. My lot's right there on the corner of Blue Heron and Lark. I don't object to this lot being developed. I think it's probably a good idea. I expected it for the nine years that I have been there that, eventually, we would see lots next to us. Homes. I just wanted to join in Mr. Badger's comments that I'm disappointed in the lot sizes that are going to be right next to my house. Lost my train of thought. Sorry. I think that adjusting the lot sizes -- it looks to me like on this map that the smallest lot sizes are abutting these two subdivisions, the Fothergill and my Meridian Place Subdivision and the larger lots in this development are, actually, going to be bordering the apartments and the mobile home park. While I'll give them an A for creativity, for, you know, the diagonal line and -- that runs right through the center of it and ponds that they have to deal with, I appreciate the parks that they are putting in. I feel that they could have been a little more creative in Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 36 of 100 protecting the surrounding homeowners and the lot sizes. I mean the lots that I'm looking at right next to mine look half the size of mine and of several others along that eastern and northern border and it looks like Mr. Badger is going to have, like he said, three backyards abutting his property. Borup: So, the lots in your subdivision are closer to 12,000 feet? Anderson: Pardon? Borup: 12,000-foot lots in your subdivision, then? Is that what you're saying? Anderson: Well, I don't know -- it looks like they are quite varied in my subdivision. However, my lot is approximately, I think, 100 by 80, or 100 by 60. I'm not very good at math, so I don't know what that works out to as far as -- Borup: 100 by 60 would be the same size as these lots. Anderson: Well, then, maybe I'm off. I know it's 80 feet wide. Borup: But you're on the corner? Anderson: I'm on a corner. Borup: Okay. Anderson: Yes. That's my concern and also the comments by Commissioner Centers on the other project where he was discussing 110 to 20,000-dollar homes, which these are going to have to be on this size lot, there is just no way around it. My home was recently appraised at 169,000. That is my concern is the effect on the surrounding property owners values and I think with a little tweaking and just increasing the lot sizes in this other -- this northeast corner where they have -- it looks to me like they have got the smallest lots. Just would make it flow better from -- like Mr. Badger said, the apartments on the west side, maybe move the density closer to the other side, to just protect us and the other property owners and I guess -- I guess there is -- the Comprehensive Plan calls for these in-fill projects. Like I said, I think it's a good idea, I just -- if the City of Meridian is advancing from this size of lots and this size homes, you know, and it's hurting the surrounding property owners, I don't understand, you know, why you wouldn't want to send it back to the drawing board. Centers: Let me address that. Anderson: Okay. Centers: The 110 or 120 is -- you could say it's a figure of speech, but with an in-fill like this and sewer and water and everything else there and fire protection and police protection, I would have to back up and, honestly, say that it probably will generate more than it's share of tax revenue and I think staff would agree with me on that. My Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 37 of 100 comment was reference to maybe a property that is being annexed that is barely touching the city and you have to run sewer to it, you have to run water to it, and provide services. Anderson: That project was more remote out in -- Centers: Right. There is there and it's ready. Anderson: Correct. Centers: But let me do a count for you. There is seven lots right there and there is nine down to there. I just counted them. Anderson: Okay. Centers: Okay? And your seven in Fothergill here includes this large cul-de-sac lot. The one individual that was up here earlier was talking about this large -- unusually large cul-de-sac lot where there are three lots back up to it. That's the only situation where you have that. Anderson: Right. Centers: And I can understand that, but, you know, as I said, we can have the applicant talk about widening a couple and losing a couple, but you don't have a lot of extra density, you have nine lots, compared to seven. These seven includes a very large cul- de-sac lot. You know, if you really do your count, it isn't that drastic. Anderson; It looks like to me if these lots were facing east -- west, you could probably fit two of them in -- Centers: But you're in an R-8 zone subdivision and the minimum square footage for a lot in an R-8 zone subdivision is, what, 65? Borup: Eight thousand. Centers: Eight thousand. Borup: What did you say? R-8? Centers: R-8. Borup: Sixty-five. Centers: Sixty-five. They are asking for 6,000 along your border. Anderson: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 38 of 100 Centers: So, they are 500 feet less -- Anderson: Right than a minimum. Centers: -- than what's required in an R-8 zone. Anderson: And my objection is the size of houses that are going to be built on those lots. Borup: But I agree with you that the houses probably will be smaller, but we have had another project come before us that's being built now that had 50 foot lots with -- or 40 foot lots with 180,000 dollar homes on it. The size of the lot doesn't necessarily mean the lot -- or the homes are going to be the lower price. Anderson: Right. I'm just assuming that this going to turn out to be a starter home subdivision, which I'm fine with, is -- you know, as long as, you know, the homes are at least in the same range as the ones that surround them, as far as the price and quality. The only other comment I would make is that the neighborhood school, which is Chief Joseph, which is just a few houses down from mine, as far as I understand, doesn't have the capacity to service the elementary school children that will be living in this subdivision. I just have a question and I don't even know if that comes under your consideration when you're approving, but I don't know where these kids are going to go to school. It's not going to be at Chief Joseph, as far as I understand. Borup: That would be my understanding, too. Anderson: So, anyway, I would like for you to take that into consideration when deciding whether to approve or amend the proposed plat. Centers: Thank you. Kirkpatrick: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I just wanted to make a brief comment. That while it's appropriate for us to talk about density and lot sizes and home sizes, it's not appropriate for us to address housing costs during this discussion, so we need to be careful about that. Thanks. Borup: That is true. Okay. Does that conclude the public testimony? Ms. McKay, do you have final -- Powell: Chairman Borup, before Ms. McKay gets back up -- Borup: Yes. Powell: -- can I interject a little bit. Regarding the sewage lagoon -- I was hoping the owner of that use would testify a little bit more about perhaps what was going on there, but as planners in the state of Idaho, we don't get an environmental impact report that says all of what's going on, on this property. Most of the time, quite frankly, we don't Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 39 of 100 need one. This is one case where there is a big unknown at the edge of this subdivision. Maybe it's harmless. Frankly, I don't know. Establishing that minimum buffer of 35 feet would at least address potentially some concerns as to what's going on there. When she says that bleach might be going into those ponds, along with blood and other things, it makes me very nervous. When that property comes to us for annexation, I would certainly want to see some documentation about how that would be reclaimed for use for some other use, since it has been a sewage lagoon for so long. I wanted to let Ms. McKay address that if she wanted to in her rebuttal. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Becky. McKay: Becky McKay. I'll just kind of touch on some of the issues that were brought forth. There was discussion about Willowbrook being utilized. Ada County Highway District did evaluate the access through this parcel and all the interconnections. It was determined by the traffic engineer at ACHD that there probably would be more cut- through traffic through this development than what you would find in the existing developments, just because of its central location and linkage to all these other developments and the outlets through James Court and Blue Heron. Their estimate was approximately 200 vehicle trips a day would be probably coming down Willowbrook, you know, to and fro, into and out of this development. There will be some impact on Willowbrook and I'm not going to stand here and tell them that there won't. However, with these stub street connections, we don't have any choices, as the Commission well knows. We are mandated to make these connections. The second issue was the pipe along the northern boundary. That's the Stokesberry Lateral that's piped and it's piped on -- north of our boundary. It does feed water to that pump station that services Fothergill. That pump station is owned and operated and maintained by Nampa- Meridian Irrigation District. It is their desire for us to go in and upgrade that station and make improvements and upgrades in that station and make it a regional station, so that it would serve not only Fothergill, but this development. The irrigation that's in the rear yard, the box, I don't want to comment on something that I, obviously, haven't seen, nor have I have had my engineer take a look at and evaluate as to how it functions. I would not even -- even begin to say we would take it out or modify it or -- I just don't know what that facility looks like. Mr. Fothergill that lives on part of this parcel that is included in our request this evening, I guess will be retaining that home there for a period of time. If he does utilize that to irrigate his yard, I would, obviously, be hesitant to say, oh, yes, we will just tear it out, because I guess he is going to live in that house for a period of time. As far as fencing the rest of that gentleman's yard, we are required under the ordinance fence our perimeter, so if there are gaps in the fence, then, that would be our responsibility. There was a discussion concerning signage and directing traffic towards our site. The applicant's indicated that they don't go out into these other subdivisions and put big signs trying to bring people through their developments. You would have to give them a road map if they were to wind their way through these local streets. Obviously, the quickest connection to this site would be James Court or Blue Heron. They typically use those little directional signs that are temporary that the little realtors put out, then, they also rely upon their realtors or advertising to put maps in the paper and so forth of the real estate section of the Statesman. We won't be going out and doing what he was concerned about. As far as construction traffic, obviously, James Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 40 of 100 Court is going to be the obvious, easy, convenient construction connection to this site while it's under construction. There was a discussion on lot sizes. You know, that's always a tough one and we are always -- we are always arguing how many lots are backing up to the existing development, but from a planning perspective we look at compatibility, we have single family, we have single family. We don't discriminate, obviously, between smaller lots where they are 500 square feet smaller or whatever, but we look at compatibility being there are two uses, single family, single family, and they are the same. We are not -- I think it's wrong to always say we have to make them identical and match up every lot line in order to make them compatible, because that's just not correct. Concerning the school, Mrs. Anderson testified that Chief Joseph is at capacity. That is correct. There is an elementary school that's under construction off of Locust Grove just short of Ustick. I'm working with the school district on another school site where we are getting improvements to that site within the next year, so that they can begin construction in 2004. The development community -- we are doing what we can to bring additional elementaries on line and working with the school district to identify sites. I worked with the district just yesterday on trying to identify a new middle school site up in the north Meridian area and get that void filled as soon as possible. We are doing what we can. Your Planning Director has indicated her concern about those ponds. If it is a concern of hers that there be some type of analysis with the application for annexation and Rezone, I think that should be dealt with at that time. As you can see from the photographs and based on the comments made by the property owner to your planning staff to myself, there are no toxic or hazardous things being discharged into these ponds, that they are primarily ground water. They were dug deep, it's mounded up around the side, and as you can see -- and from my observations they don't look like something I would mandate a 35 foot buffer from and I think 35 feet that I can't connect, you know, really anywhere else and make usable. When these ponds go away -- and that is the plan for that property owner to the west of us, then, we have a 35 feet buffer that will be the burden of these residents from now until eternity and the ponds won't even be there. I mean just I don't see -- I think it's a stretch to say that that is the processing plat. That is not the processing plant. It's one parcel over. These are just ponds that were dug there for doing some flushing. They want to connect to the city sewer. I just don't see that this is -- that that's applicable. I still think it is a stretch. Centers: I totally agree. It's got a separate owner of that property? McKay: The two parcels are owned by the same owner, sir. Centers: Are they the same -- McKay: But they are two separate parcel numbers, yes. Two separate zones. Centers: Where does Fothergill presently live, while I think of it? McKay: Right there. Centers: Down in here? That's fine. He just indicated where Mr. Fothergill lives, next door to himself, so for the record. Thanks. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 41 of 100 McKay: We have got a good project here and I think it's worth approving, because it will benefit this area. I need to submit these into the record. Zaremba: Let me throw an idea at you and ask whether you want to discuss it, if you don't like it or what. Next to whatever those ponds are, if there were a restriction on let's say the six closest lots -- one, two, three, four, five, six. McKay: It adjoins five, sir. Zaremba: Five. McKay: There are five lots that adjoin it and those are the duplex lots. Zaremba: If we said that conceptually or eventually that part of the plan was okay, but that those five lots could not actually be built on until those ponds were gone. Could you accept that as a phasing -- as opposed to having to put the 35-foot buffer now, just that you don't build on those until the ponds are gone? McKay: We would be required to fence the perimeter. Zaremba: That would have to be fenced now anyhow. McKay: Right. Borup: Becky, you said there has not been any kind of chemical analysis of the ponds or anything? McKay: No. Not to my knowledge. That's going to be my recommendation to that -- the property owner, obviously, since I'm preparing his application for submittal and that that's going to be a concern. Borup: Which property owner? McKay: The property owner to the west. Borup: Okay. McKay: That's retained me to submit application for annexation and rezoning to the city, so he can connect to city services. Borup: Okay. Right away? McKay: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. We are preparing the application. We have just been working on it and I have had a meeting with your planning staff to try to determine what zoning designation would be appropriate, because there are three uses on the property. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 42 of 100 There is a single-family dwelling, there is the beef and jerky facility and, then, there is like a shop in the back, like a -- Borup: Small engine repair. McKay: Yes. Zaremba: Well, I think Mrs. Powell makes a valid point, that there is going to have to be some environmental study done by this neighbor, who everybody's fortunate you're working for both parties in this. I agree with her, I don't think the city will approve something like houses going over an unknown -- maybe it's clean water and maybe it's not. There is going to have to be some proof that it's not dangerous before they let anything be built on it and it's like a place where an old gas station was, there has to be -- Centers: Well, let me interject. Zaremba: -- a study done there, too, so -- Centers: How is 35 feet going to help? Ten yards. Zaremba: I'm more in favor of not building on those five lots -- Centers: How is 35 feet going to help? Zaremba: -- until that, other problem has been solved. I'm only making it a suggestion, but I like my own suggestion. Borup: And, obviously, that pond is going to look different at different times of the year, but right now in those photographs, it's a very pleasing area. McKay: Those were taken last week. Borup: That's what I mean. Right now they are. In September they may not be quite the same, I don't know, but -- Centers: Your adjoining property owner that wants to be annexed, primarily to be hooked onto the sewer? McKay: Yes, sir. That's what he indicated to me. To hook onto city services. Centers: Then, there would be nothing dumped in those ponds correct? McKay: That's correct. That's -- Centers: So, in tying in with Mr. Zaremba's comments, when he's hooked up to the sewer, you can build on those six lots. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 43 of 100 Zaremba: Unless there is residual toxic. We are only taking it by looking at it that there is nothing toxic in it. You can stop adding toxin if there is a -- that's the unknown quantity, if it's already toxic. Borup: The ducks don't seem to mind. McKay: They are nesting there. Zaremba: That's true. McKay: I guess, Commissioner Borup and -- I mean Chairman Borup and Commissioner Zaremba, what about the existing apartments and existing single family dwellings that adjoin it now? I mean -- I guess, I don't know, did anybody testify that those are -- those are a nuisance, a hazard, that they have odors, that they -- Zaremba: And the point is we never heard of any those. Borup: Well, the apartments are -- Zaremba: I wasn't here when they were approved, so -- McKay: I think they have been there a long time. Centers: These houses up here, too. McKay: Yes. You have apartments just next to it. Do you see the -- that's the boundary right there, that slanted line, there is -- you can see the contouring at the edge of the pond and those are Aspen Hills Apartments. In fact, if you look at the photographs that we took, you can see how close those apartments are to them. They are separated by a fence and setbacks, which we would have a rear yard setback of 15 feet also. We would have at least a 15-foot setback minimum. Borup: Ms. McKay, I think you addressed the idea of increased lot sizes on the north, but you kind of passed over that quickly, I think. Would there be -- would that be a possibility to eliminate one of those lots and maybe spread that out? McKay: T hat would have to be a decision made by the applicant. I don't have the authority to make that call or, obviously -- Borup: Okay. Or the Commission. McKay: Or the Commission. Yes, sir if they deem that necessary. Borup: Was there anything else you wanted to cover? McKay: No, sir. Thank you. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 44 of 100 Borup: Any other questions from the Commission for Becky? Okay. Final comments from staff? Kirkpatrick: Okay. There are a couple points I want to address. We didn't really get through and talk about the gravel pathway, which will be going through the open space. I wanted to bring it up. We were going to have the applicant speak about that. Borup: Through the park? Kirkpatrick: Through the park. Borup: Gravel or -- Kirkpatrick: Correct. I wanted to check with the applicant if that was still a part of their proposal. When I talked to them last it was. Borup: Oh, you mean over the drain? Kirkpatrick: Over the drain. Correct. Becky, will that still be a part of the proposed project? McKay: Mr. Chairman, Wendy, it's -- we are going to have to provide Nampa-Meridian some type of access to -- like the manholes for future maintenance where we have piped the drain. Our intent is to take our pathway close enough to where ever we pipe the drain, so that doubles. We do not want to put gravel through -- diagonally through that, that would just ruin the esthetics of it. No, I mean it's -- the drawing didn't do justice. I'm sorry. Kirkpatrick: Okay. The plat -- it's depicted there will be -- McKay: Yes. I think what they were looking at is showing that there would be access next to the pipe, but, no, we are going to use the pathway for that. That's why we are going to 14 width. Borup: So, you're going to either move the drain or move the pathway? McKay: Yes, sir. Borup: One or the other. McKay: Yes, sir, because we will be piping it through that pocket park area and so we -- the pathway as shown is just kind of -- it was taken to the west to maximize that park area, but if we have to kind of meander it through there, it wouldn't be problematic or would deter from the usability of the park. Borup: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 45 of 100 Centers: One final question, Becky. Is it either/or on the pathway, if you don't get the pathway as presented, you're going to have the homeowners take care of it? McKay: Yes, sir. Centers: So, is it either/or? I mean are you okay with that? McKay: Yes. I think they indicated that they -- if -- Centers: That would be my preference. Why should the city take care of it? McKay: If the city doesn't want it because we can't meet the standard that Mr. Strong came up with, then, we will maintain privately, yes, sir. The pathway, either way, will be there. Centers: Yes. McKay: Yes, sir. Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, I wanted to point out that if the homeowners do maintain that pathway, we will need an access agreement, so the public can use that pathway. That will need to be a condition of approval. McKay: Oh, one other thing I did -- I forgot to mention. I will need the city's cooperation with Nampa-Meridian in the past, like on Five Mile Creek, I believe, the city was party to one of the -- to the agreement. If we are going to bring in the public in and using the pathway and so it's like -- I don't know, I think it -- correct me, but indemnify the district or something -- they come to some mutual agreed upon language. I may need the city to help me with Nampa-Meridian, because they may insist that the city be part of whatever agreement we have to sign also, Borup: That same thing was worked out on the Jackson Drain to the west of here already, wasn't it? I think -- McKay: It may cover the whole thing, sir, that -- you may be correct. Borup: Oh, well, I don't know if it covers the whole thing, but -- McKay: I don't know. I'm just -- Borup: But the existing pathway is maintained by -- McKay: Yes, sir. Borup: Do you have some other items? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 46 of 100 Kirkpatrick: And we could have legal counsel address that through the plat. Borup: On the pathway? Kirkpatrick: Correct. Borup: Okay. Kirkpatrick: Just to kind of re-address the pond issue, I want to go ahead and state that when I talked to -- I talked to Bill Nichols, who is our -- he was our counsel today. His determination was that these ponds are, indeed, a part of the meatpacking processing facility and because they are a part of that facility, we are required to have a 35-foot buffer. He doesn't think that there was any wiggle room on that. That was hard and fast that if it's a part of that processing facility, we need a 35-foot buffer. I, myself, toured the site and was, you know, impressed with the meat packing facility. It was, you know, much nicer than we anticipated, but I -- the owner did make the comment to me when we were talking about the ponds, like in the summer -- this was actually a phone call about a week ago, that they were pretty rank in the summer. I was concerned about that impact on those property owners. That could be a part of -- it's a pond, it's not being circulated, there is moss, algae, so it could be attributed to that, but it's definitely a concern I have for potential property owners in the subdivision. Just wanted you to know that. Zaremba: Well, then, I would address my question to you that I addressed to Becky before. If we could make a good assumption that at point in the near future those ponds are going to go away and, therefore, not be part of the meat processing plant, would just stipulating that those five or six lots not be built on until that pond is gone, is that a satisfactory solution? Kirkpatrick: It would be. If the applicant comes in with another commercial use, they would still be required to do at least a 20 foot buffer separating that residential use from a commercial use. They will need to take that into consideration. I think phasing the development would be, potentially, a good solution to this problem. Borup: Which property owner would need to do the 20-foot buffer? The new application coming in? Kirkpatrick: Generally, it's the new application that's required to provide the buffer. Borup: Right. Okay. That's what I thought. I wasn't sure if I understood what you had said there. Zaremba: Let's see. Maybe Ms. McKay can answer this or somebody else can. The current Jackson Drain as it leaves this property that we are talking about at its northwest end, is it piped beyond that or is it open beyond that? Borup: It's open. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 47 of 100 McKay: Commissioner Borup is correct, Commissioner Zaremba, it is open. It exits into our northwest boundary. You can see it run parallel with Blue Heron, crosses Blue Heron, and, then, it goes in a northwesterly direction and you can see in the other section a pathway over on that north side of Blue Heron that's existing. Zaremba: So, we are not talking about piping a great length of this? Several hundred feet? McKay: Yes, sir. Just through that mid section and, then, relocating it open, adjoining right there. We'd pipe -- we'd pipe right through there where you're going to encourage people to gather and play. Then, it would -- we are going to realign it and it will be open along our west boundary and, then, go up and link into where it historically is along south of James Court, that's its historic location, and that's where it stays. Zaremba: I see that. Thank you. Borup: Any other questions from the Commissioners? Okay. Do we have -- would we like some discussion first before we close the hearing or -- Centers: I think we could close the Public Hearing and I would move that we do so. Zaremba: I'll second it. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Zaremba: Just to clarify that, that's closing the Public Hearings on all three? Borup: Yes. That motion was for all three? Centers: Correct. Correct. For all three items. Borup: Well, do we want to take them one at a time and -- Zaremba: I can just express some opinions and maybe -- Borup: On the annexation and zoning or do you want to handle everything or do you want to hit them one at a time? Zaremba: Well, I would say this is an in-fill and annexation and zoning is a very good idea. I don't have any problems with the zoning that is being requested. As to having the Jackson Drain piped or tiled through that short distance, more than half of it through this property is being left open and I personally don't have too much -- I'm very much in favor of having it open, but I don't have any problem with piping it through the park. As for the drainage ponds next door, I would like to satisfy that by just saying that specified Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 48 of 100 Lots 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, of Block 9, I guess it was, can't be built on until those neighboring ponds are gone and, then, it would be up to the neighbor, if they do a commercial use, to do the 20 foot buffer and not this applicant. As for traffic through it -- and I think the stub streets are a given and they have been very creative in working themselves around not only the stub streets, but the drain that they have to work around. I tend to think that the benefit to the neighboring subdivisions and the pain to the neighboring subdivisions are going to be a wash. They will use this passage and they will be used. What other issues? The tot lot. I would -- I'm not so certain it needs to be a tot lot, but I would like to see some amenity, a gazebo or -- Borup: Something in the park other than just grass. Zaremba: Other than just grass. I'm not sure that's what's meant by amenity. The park is open space. An amenity is a thing that you put into the open space, to me. Personal definition. We hit most of the subjects. Borup: I think so. Comments from other Commissioners on that? Centers: I had just a couple. Of course, the annexation and zoning, that's a given. We want this in the city. It's an in-fill. I'm looking at the notes here. Now, the one restrict building on those lots next to the pond, do we have some report or a DEQ report that it's not suitable to live by? We don't have anything like that. All we have is conjecture that it might not be livable next to it. That's all we have. There is apartments south and north. If the staff feels that it's not suitable to build next to, a 35-foot buffer is not going to help. You'd have to get a lot further away than that. I totally agree with the applicant. Then, you enter into the marketability of those six lots. If they build on them and are able to sell them, God bless them. If they are liable because the built next to a pond, then, that's their problem, not mine because the pond may have been infected with whatever. There has been no report from anyone that that pond is not suitable to live next to. The people living in the manufacturing plant or the meat packing plant have survived for many years, I think. You know, I haven't heard of any deaths of the packing plant. No one's provided that evidence. Borup: It sounds like it may have some odors in the summer. Center: And that ties into the marketability of those lots. Borup: Right. Exactly. Centers: Totally. If they can't sell them because the odor is there, then, they have got a problem. The pathway, I think that's solved. Let the developer, within the homeowners association, and provide an access agreement for the general public. I think the parks department, with their five foot gravel pathway on each side, just so they can spray the weeds is -- well, whatever. Yes. Anyway, I think it's a good development. I can certainly understand where the homeowners are coming from on the north side in Fothergill and -- but I think it was Mrs. Anderson mentioned she knew for many years that this land was going to be built and here we go. Referring to sales prices, we didn't tie any sales Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 49 of 100 prices to anything. We were speaking in conjecture. We never require sales prices, minimum, on any project. We know that. We were speaking in general terms and we speak in general terms as we did on the project before this. End of speech. Borup: Did you -- I don't know if you completely elaborated on lot sizes or -- Centers: I don't have a problem. Borup: With the existing -- okay. Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I guess my only comment would be, then, if we are going to allow the development of the lots adjacent to the pond, should we not, then, have the 35 foot setback as requested by staff? Center: Well, my come back to that, Commissioner Rohm, that I look at the pond as a setback. You know, legal counsel has determined that that's part of the manufacturing plant and that we can require a 35-foot setback. I have seen many times, where Council and this Commission have backed away from a requirement by the city. I have seen one recently by the City Council. This is no exception. If we are going to make exception for one, then, we have to make them for the other. They started it we continue it down the road. Rohm: Well, it almost becomes a moot point when once they vacate the pond anyway, so we may be arguing over -- Centers: I'm not arguing. Borup: We are discussing. Rohm: Discussing. Mathes: How far is the pond from the property line? The edge of the pond. Borup: Pretty close. Centers: It depends on whether it's high water or -- Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, the property line is about eight feet from the ponds, scaled off of the plat that was submitted by the applicant. Centers: And with a 15 foot rear setback. Borup: Do you have any comments, Commissioner Mathes? Mathes: I think it all goes to the marketability of those lots. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 50 of 100 Borup: Any concerns or discussions on staff comments that we may need to address? You know, this is a minor thing, but there are not 25-foot cul-de-sac frontages. That could change to 30 foot and not affect the project. Those are still pretty tight. Other than they have a good taper to them, so that does allow homes to be built in there with not being restricted too much. Well, are we ready to move on? Centers: Yes. I'd like to make a motion, Mr. Chairman, recommending approval of Item Number 7 on our Agenda AZ 03-010, request for annexation and zoning of 39.15 acres from RUT to R-8 PD for proposed Trailway Park Subdivision by Hillview Development, Corp. East of North Meridian Road and south of East Blue Heron Lane, including all staff comments from their memo dated June 2nd . Zaremba: Second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Centers: Continuing on, I would like to recommend approval for Item 8 on our agenda, which his PP 03-011, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 161 building lots and 25 other lots on 39.15 acres in a proposed R-8 PD zone for proposed Trailway Park Subdivision by Hillview Development Corporation. East of the North Meridian Road and south of East Blue Heron Lane, including all staff comments from their memo dated June 2nd , starting on Page 8, all of staff comments on Page 8 are included, one through four, site-specific comments. Item Number 5 to be deleted, which requires a 35-foot landscape buffer. Item Number 6, the pathway to be the ownership of the developer and the homeowner association and shall provide an access agreement for general public. Item Number 9 on Page 9 is fine. No. Excuse me. Eliminate Item Number 9, the requirement for the micropath. Borup: There are two of them they are talking about. One of them is about -- on number nine is the connectivity, I think. Centers: Good catch. The one that we are talking about would be the last sentence, the micropath through Lots 11 and 19. The remaining part of paragraph Number 9 would remain. You would strike the last sentence in paragraph Number 9. End of motion. Rohm: I'll second that. Centers: I'd like to amend that briefly, that the applicant will work with Mr. Fothergill and the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation Association to remove the headgate on Mr. Fothergill's property when deemed necessary by Mr. Fothergill and Mr. Brylet. I hope I pronounced that name right. Close enough? Thank you. Rohm: I'll second that as well. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 51 of 100 Borup: Okay. Good. Motion and second. All in favor? Any discussion or -- MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Centers: Continuing on, I would like to recommend approval for CUP 03-012, that's a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for single family residential use with reduced setbacks, lot sizes, lot frontages, and house sizes in a proposed R-8 PD zone for proposed Trailway Park Subdivision by Hillview Development Corporation. East of North Meridian Road and south of East Blue Heron Lane, including all staff comments on Page 13, Item Number 4, applicant shall provide some park amenities, whether it be a jungle gym, at least -- Borup: Some physical -- Centers: Yes. Can we specify two? A jungle gym, a slide, and a swing. Borup: Well, I think their earlier testimony is they may want to provide a picnic area, rather than a playground or a gazebo or something like -- could we say some physical amenity? Centers: Yes. That's fine. Accept Chairman Borup's definition in the motion. Borup: A physical amenity, I think, is what -- Centers: Right. Zaremba: I'll second that. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? Rohm: I like the idea of the tot's playground, myself. That's just as a -- Centers: I think they were going to do it anyway. Borup: Well, but if they are planning on -- Kirkpatrick: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, could you go ahead and clarify that for staff, so it's more specific when we go to Council with your recommendation. Borup: On the amenity? Kirkpatrick: Correct. Centers: A jungle gym and a slide. Borup: Well -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 52 of 100 Kirkpatrick: Okay. Centers: Minimum of. Jungle gym and a slide. Then, the applicant is nodding their head and accept that. Rohm: I'll second that. Borup: So, what we are saying is item four, the tot lot is -- Centers: Well, I couldn't say tot lot. Borup: Is that a little tiny lot? Okay. Let's see. We have not voted. We have a motion. All in favor? Any opposed. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Thank you. Centers: May we -- Mr. Chairman. Borup: Would it be appropriate for a break, is that what you're -- Centers: Please. Borup: -- indicating? Okay. We will take a break at this time. (Recess.) Item 10. Public Hearing: AZ 03-008 Request for annexation and zoning of 34.52 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Birchstone Creek Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC – northwest corner of West Ustick Road and North Black Cat Road: Item 11. Public Hearing: PP 03-008 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 89 building lots and 7 other lots on 34.52 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Birchstone Creek Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC – northwest corner of West Ustick Road and North Black Cat Road: Borup: Okay. We'd like to reconvene our meeting this evening. Next item is Birchstone Creek Subdivision. Public Hearing AZ 03-008, request for annexation and zoning of 34.52 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Birchstone Creek Subdivision by Centennial Development, at the northwest corner of West Ustick and North Black Cat. Accompanying that is PP 03-008, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 89 building lots and seven other lots on 34.52 acres on the same property. We'd like to open both Public Hearings at this time and I will start with the staff report. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 53 of 100 Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. The property is located at the northwest corner of Black Cat and West Ustick Road. Tricia's Subdivision Phase Number 4 is immediately to the south. The annexation request is for an R-8 zone. It currently is RUT. This would -- this is, I should say, the first request for annexation within this entire section, which is, I believe, Section 33. The applicant, Centennial Development, is applying for a Preliminary Plat, 89 building lots, eight other lots. It is, as you can see, currently the dominant ground is in two separate tax parcels today. There are two out parcels on the north and south. The one on the north is owned by the Bain family and that is a part of the annexation request, because they are also the property owners of this 21-acre piece here on the western side. The parcel on -- the out parcel on the south is not similar ownership and they are not a part of the annexation or plat. Here is the aerial photograph of the general vicinity. The Eight Mile Lateral does begin here at this corner on the south. It courses to the west and, then, does cross underneath Ustick Road and continues west and, then, makes a 90 degree turn and goes northward. That Eight Mile Lateral is a separate ownership. It's not an easement, so it is under ownership by the U.S. government, the Bureau of Reclamation. Here is a copy of the plat that was submitted as a part of the application and we have addressed this plat with our staff report that was transmitted June 2nd , dated June 5th . The property has two -- about two and a half dwelling units per acre. That's gross -- gross land area. The net runs out to about three and a half. Just quickly a few highlights of the layout. They do have one point of ingress and egress off of Black Cat right about at the eight-mile mark and they have one point of ingress-egress on Ustick Road that lines up with a future road in Tricia's Subdivision. The applicant has been in discussions with the Meridian School District. That's about a future elementary school lot and that's what's shown here on the western side. All of the housing types are proposed to be single family detached. They have a range of housing from 6,500 square feet to 13,700. The applicant also did submit a variance application for block length and as I addressed in -- Bruce and I addressed in our staff report. The school, as you can see, is a single block and that does exceed a thousand feet in length. Since they have the Eight Mile Lateral that's here on the west boundary, that is a fairly sizable facility and would require a bridge to cross and, typically, as you know, the school district doesn't want to see public access, other than at their parking lot. We feel that a Variance probably would be supportable on that west boundary. There are a couple of items to point out for you in the staff report. Starting on Page 6, the annexation, we did request that that out parcel, as I mentioned before, here on the north, be included as a part of the annexation. We also did discuss tonight -- it was not a part of our Preliminary Plat conditions, but we are also asking that that be included as a lot within the subdivision as well. Whether they include them as part of the CC&Rs, I believe is a private matter, but in terms of the city's request, we think since they are taking access to that lot within -- from within the subdivision and they are proposing to hook up to city water and sewer and pressure irrigation, that they be included as part of the subdivision and the applicant can address that. I believe that we are in agreement on that, but I would ask that on the Preliminary Plat, Item Number 12, that if you, in your motion, choose to approve this, if you include that as a condition that that be added as a lot that's not currently there. Then, on Page 7 there are just four items that we had a couple of concerns about, all of which I think we are now in agreement with. The block length on the bottom of Page 7 and Page 8, I have already addressed. That talks about Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 54 of 100 the school property. I will point out that the micropath issue here at the end of the cul- de-sac where they come in off of Ustick straight in, that we have asked a micropath connection through here, so they can have better access to the open space that they are proposing here, as well as to break up this block length and they have submitted a - - prepared another plat that I think they are ready to submit to you tonight that shows that micropath, so I think that one is taken care of. The Ustick Road sidewalk was another of our concerns. As I mention at the beginning, the Eight Mile Lateral is separate ownership, so, technically, this first 400 feet or so, if you start from their west boundary and move east, about 400, 450 feet, they do not own adjacent to the Ustick right of way. Therefore, that highway district is not requiring them to put a sidewalk in. We had some concern about how that's going to happen in the future, is the highway district just going to -- to taper down Ustick there or are they going to have relocation of the Eight Mile or what? They have contacted the highway district and we received a memo that just said, basically, at this point the highway district doesn't know how they are going to handle that in there. They are -- but they are certainly not requiring a sidewalk in that section and we understand that the applicant has no control over that. That's not their property. I think that's really something that the highway district is going to work out. We will have to work carefully with them on insuring we get a continuous pedestrian sidewalk there. Then, the last two items on the Eight Mile Ustick landscaping and fencing, these five lots here are going to be required to have chain link or some other noncombustible fence, because of the burning of the ditch there. We had concerns, especially with Ustick being a future five-lane road, just the visibility into the backs of these lots. We have received a letter tonight from Shawn Nickels stating that they are going to put in the CC&Rs that those five lots will have some kind of consistent landscaping, you know, across the backs, consistent fencing. That it will have a more unified look from Ustick and it won't just be a hodge podge of fencing and different landscaping and things like that. I think it will help give a better appeal from Ustick Street. Then, the last main item to point out was the open space and there -- this lot that's shown here is -- most of their five percent required open space, that is going to need to be a part of the school property in the future, whenever the school district chooses to construct a school at this site. It would reduce the five percent open space to, you know, probably around two percent or something once the school -- once that exchange of land is made, so within the subdivision itself they would only have, like I say, two to three percent of their open space, but -- and right now there is not anything in the city code that says if you agree to provide a school lot, then, you can have that five percent required open space waived. We don't have anything in code that says that that's allowed. However, obviously, they are going to get a lot more open space in this subdivision with the school in it than without. Granted, they don't have access to that school open space all the time during the school hours and they are not going to be able to use it, but a majority they would, so I guess staff's opinion was that they would have to do a Variance in order to actually have that exchange made. Yes. I would also point out we -- the revised plat that you, I think, are going to receive tonight by the applicant, has this -- this lot that's immediately south of the Bain property that's currently there. They have shifted the open space up, so it's like 130 feet of frontage -- of open space frontage on the street, instead of 70 or 80, I think it is now. They have opened that up and in the future they would probably have about a half an acre of open space that would have a -- they have committed to provide a tot lot there that would be always Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 55 of 100 available to the subdivision, even during school hours. Then, this cul-de-sac that is shown here right now is just shown to be on private property. We have asked that that be a part of the public right of way, permanent cul-de-sac. The Ada County Highway District staff report also mentions the same thing and while not shown, the -- our request is that it be a public right of way and we understand they have agreed to that. Then, on the conditions themselves, I think the only one is Number 4 that would need to be omitted completely. That talks about the cul-de-sac on Elmstone Court and if you agree with their proposed revision of the micropath there, then, I think that condition would be taken care of and could be omitted. Then, Item 6 talks about the open space and after the applicant's presentation that would eventually need to be -- the first sentence of number six might need to be amended as well. Then Item 11 we just had an error there. It says that the detail Landscape Plan -- at this point it's just a conceptual, but we have asked that a detailed Landscape Plan be submitted for the subdivision at least 10 days prior to the next hearing, that should be prior to -- or with the Final Plat submittal. That is a correction so, I guess at this point that's all staff has. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Centers: Mr. Chairman, just one. Mr. Clark, this is all a proposed school site? Hawkins-Clark: That's correct. Centers: And it's just been offered to the school district, they haven't committed whether they will buy it or take it, there is no committal on their part? Hawkins-Clark: That is my understanding. There have been discussions, but I don't -- correct. Centers: Thank you. Borup: Anyone else? Zaremba: I have two. One of them is on the discussion of the sewer. I guess I'm not quite understanding. I think the applicant is proposing that they connect their sewer lines across Ashford Greens lift station and I can understand that part of it. Is there not eventually going to be a Black Cat sewer line and is the idea that they would eventually disconnect from Ashford Green and reconnect to the new sewer line? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, that's correct. The applicant is proposing to gravity the sewer from this subdivision down Black Cat Road to the Ashford Greens lift station. The line will come out -- the main sewer line will come out this entrance road, so that when the new -- when the Ashford Greens lift station is eliminated and the sewer goes on north, this line would hook into that new gravity line, new gravity trunk line. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 56 of 100 Zaremba: It's the last part of the subject that I didn't see in here anywhere. Should they be required to abandon their connection and reconnect? Abandon the Ashford Greens and reconnect? I didn't see any requirement for that. Freckleton: I guess I'm not following -- exactly tracking with you there. Zaremba: It seemed to me that connecting to Ashford Greens was the end of the subject. Freckleton: It's not the end of the subject. You will see in our comments that we have required that in lieu of them building a dry line sewer across this frontage right here, that they will be putting up 1,500 dollars per lot for that future Black Trunk extension. Those funds will be sitting there, so that when this becomes a city project and the city can draw from those funds, we will take care of disconnecting that line and hooking this new line in. Zaremba: Okay. Freckleton: That's what that 1,500 per lot are going to go for. Zaremba: Okay. The 1,500 per lot isn't for the connection to Ashford Greens. Freckleton: No. That's for the future -- Zaremba: Oh, they have to connect to Ashford Greens and the 1,500 -- Freckleton: Correct. Zaremba: -- covers the future connection to the new sewer. Freckleton: That's correct. Borup: Either that or install a 42 inch trunk line. Freckleton: Which we would rather not do the 42 inch trunk line. It's like -- Borup: Is it even engineered yet? Freckleton: No. That's the problem. I mean it's hard to set elevations and everything at this point in time. I mean that's not to say it can't be done, but the safest thing to do is what we have proposed. Borup: Okay. Anything else? Zaremba: Yes. I'd probably bring this up, but it's just to get it said and, then, we will discuss it later. On page three of the staff report, the paragraph that's at the actual top of the page mentions that according to the parks department and I guess the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 57 of 100 Comprehensive Plan, somewhere in this neighborhood there is proposed to be a community park of the size 25 to 30 acres. In having this development participate in that is kind of dismissed, because this is only 40 acres. What comes to mind is Lochsa Falls, which only provided part of a park and, then, the next project south of them provided the rest of the park and I would imagine it's going to be difficult for any project to be big enough to set aside a whole 25 or 30 acres and I guess my question is shouldn't we be talking about somehow acquiring or providing 12 and a half acres of park from this project, expecting the next project north to be the other 12 and a half or something in that neighborhood, not necessarily -- Borup: We still have a whole square mile here. Zaremba: Yes, but all of the projects are going to be too small to have any single project come up with a whole park, I would assume. Centers: Well, I think you have to go back to Lochsa Falls and the other project you refer to. They did not -- Zaremba: That's two. Centers: Yes, but they did not -- if I recall correctly -- and staff correct me if I'm wrong - - those developers did not donate that park land, the city bought it. Zaremba: That's correct. Centers: And I guess, you know, we can't require -- Zaremba: Well -- and I'm assuming the same here, that it would be a donation. Centers: Yes. But -- Zaremba: Somehow they'd get money back for the land. Centers: I don't -- Borup: You're saying a park site and a school site? Is that the direction you're thinking? Zaremba: Possible. If they are being paid for the park site, it's not much of a loss. Borup: Depends on how much they are being paid. Centers: Well, my point is we haven't heard from anyone that the city wants to buy it. Zaremba: And that's true, too. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 58 of 100 Centers: And I didn't see anything from the parks department, other than the fact that the 20 acre park, there is a dot on the Comp Plan for that 20 acre park and those dots can move. Zaremba: They are flexible. Centers: Right. Right. Zaremba: But I'm just saying the logic here could be through, you know, the whole rest of the square mile. Just throwing it out there. Hawkins-Clark: I guess the only piece I would add to that, Chairman Borup, I mean they are -- that whole issue of public services and a concurrency of when you get services to when you annex is certainly a big question in planning. Paramount, as you may recall, had the 12-acre elementary school site and a 55-acre high school site. The Comp Plan showed a 30 acre park in that square mile and the decision there, of course, was that the amount of open space that the schools provided, you know, would kind of help to, you know, provide that open space without doing the public park as well. I think the distribution of land, as well as a financing issue, but, yes, I did not receive any comments and I know you didn't either, I don't think, from the Parks Department about acquisition. Centers: And I have a question for you, Mr. Clark, again. On the last -- or Page 13 of your staff report, your recommendation, of course, you know what you wrote there. Are you saying that Items 1 and, then, Items 2, 3, 4 and 5 you have worked those out? Is that what you're saying tonight? Or are you still -- Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, Commissioner Centers, that's correct. Yes. We are - - we feel that -- I had a two-hour meeting with the applicant yesterday and I feel like these have all been addressed. As I mentioned, the one item that we are asking to add is 21, a new Condition 21, under pre-plat. That requires the out parcel on the north to be a lot in the subdivision. Centers: Would that be the same as Condition 3 under annexation and zoning? Hawkins-Clark: No. Centers: It would be a separate legal description for the out parcel referred to? Hawkins-Clark: No. It would be a lot -- it would be assigned a lot, block number within the plat. Centers; Okay. Got you. Borup: Anything else? Is the applicant here and would like to make their presentation? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 59 of 100 Amar: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Kevin Amar, Centennial Development, address 114 East Idaho, Number 230. I promised staff I'd keep it to five minutes and I'll do my best. We did meet with staff yesterday and there was a list of concerns or questions. One moment, I'm going to pass out a packet. There were a number of items that staff did want to discuss. We were able to address those items with staff and are in full agreement with them at this point. We have no -- we have no contention with the staff report. I would like to go over the new Site Plan and, then, answer some of the questions that were brought up by this body this evening. On the last page of that packet is the new Preliminary Plat and I'll refer to this larger one, just for ease of the members of the audience. I'll try to do it where everybody can see it. In the new Site Plan, there were a number of changes that we did make. We have added this pathway at the location of Elmstone -- connecting Oldstone with Elmstone. Also, an additional pathway was added up to the school site, so there are two additional pathways from what you had on the initial Preliminary Plat that was presented. Those were both added based on recommendations of staff. We also moved the park further to the north bordering the -- what I'm going to call the Bain household, the property would be annexed and also included as a part of the Preliminary Plat. If we moved it further to the north we could increase the width of that, we could also utilize some of those trees in this area that have grown and utilize those into the park, rather than in a backyard. Within that park we will also be providing a playground structure. That playground structure will be able to be used for the residents within the subdivision even while the kids are going to school. There will be a permanent park area -- there will be a permanent park even when the school is developed. This area back here will be developed in currently five percent open space into grass and park and, then, when the school develops, a portion of that grass area will revert back to the school playground. The thought of putting the park in this location would provide the ability for the parents, when the school opens, the older kids will be playing soccer or whatever they may be playing, the younger kids are going to be playing in the tot lot, that will allow the parents to be at one location and watch all their children, also allowing a larger functional open space and have two separated parks. We are providing on this boundary of Block 5 adjacent to Eight Mile Creek, as brought up by staff, how are we going to -- how are we going to provide for some sort of barrier from Ustick Road. We do have to provide a noncombustible chain link fence in that location. We are also going to require within the CC&Rs that each house will have to provide arbo vitae or ivy, something that will screen that -- screen the backyards and that if people do want to put up a fence, we have a consistent design based on the approval of the architectural control committee. Really, other than that, we -- the other minor changes that we made, we are expecting to add a little more open space up front. This will be in the discussion tonight, this lot -- although it was always being annexed, will now be a lot within the subdivision. We have agreed with staff on that. I don't know if there is anything with staff that we haven't agreed on. With respect to the sewer, we are providing 1,500-dollar hookup, as Bruce said. It will be at our cost and we will go back down and hook into the Ashford lift station, but in the future when they build that sewer trunk line they will be able to tie that in at whatever location they deem I guess the easiest. I took some other notes, so I guess I should read those. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 60 of 100 Centers: Let me ask you while you're there. All of this -- all this area is Block 6, including the park, including the school. Amar: Yes. Centers: Could you read the lot numbers on the park area and, then, the school site? Amar: The lot numbers on the park area is Lot 7 -- or on the park, area is Lot 6, on the school site is part 7. That was done to differentiate the five percent that we will be improving upon development. Centers: And you have two Lot 7s. Amar: There are two Lot 7's. Centers: That one there and that one there. Amar: That is actually Lot 8 or -- whatever it is. We made these changes, but it will be fixed when -- Centers: My bifocals didn't deceive me. Amar: No. No. Centers: Okay so, you will have to change that. Amar: That will be correct. The lot numbering will change, because this portion that says it's not a part will also be a lot. Centers: Right. Right. Amar: So, that lot numbering will change. Instead of 23 lots in Block 6, there will be 25 now. With respect to the school site, I did speak with their attorney Mark Freeman today. There has not been a -- there has not been a contract entered into and that was because Mark said he was, quote, swamped and he will have that done next week. We have come to terms and conditions and have reached that, so there is a commitment both on our side and on the school's side to do that. We'd hope have an actual agreement -- written agreement met by this time, but their attorney was unable to accomplish that and he apologized and said I could blame him, though, I don't know that there is a lot of blame to place. I'm sure he's busy. Borup: So, Mr. Amar, you're saying there is an agreement -- Amar: Yes. Borup: -- at this point, not just in concept or -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 61 of 100 Amar: No. It is an agreement. All we are waiting for is the paperwork to be finalized. Everybody is agreed upon the terms and conditions. Borup: And price. Amar: And price. Yes, sir. We will be -- we will be applying for a Variance for that park space. We would like to use the future school site as part of our park space currently, so when that school site does develop, we will be able to have a larger functional open space. I think with that said, I just really didn't see that there was other issues that we did not come to agreement with staff on. We agree with all the staff comments. We appreciate them being able to meet with us yesterday and we were able to reach those agreements. With that, I will stand for any questions. Oh, actually, one item -- and I don't -- it's probably more of a legal item. We were requesting 89 lots, but with the addition of the one lot we have to read that in as 90 residential lots at this point. Centers: Good catch. There is an opening on the staff. Amar: I'm sorry? Centers: Good catch. There is an opening on the staff. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman? Amar: I don't think I'm qualified. Freckleton: Just a clarification on that. I don't think that it will -- it will still be 89, because on the pre-plat they had a small -- very small, it was the access to the main parcel. What I would propose is that you just basically absorb that small lot into the main lot, so your lot count's going to be the same. Amar: Okay. Centers: Even with the lot to the north? Freckleton: Yes. Centers: Okay. Borup: Oh, that was Lot 4. Right. Amar: Yes. Zaremba: So, the Bains will become Lot 1. Borup: But haven't you eliminated one lot when you made the park bigger? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 62 of 100 Amar: No, we did not. We were able to make those larger against the school and we included that area into the park space. We had those lots along the school at about 70 -- Borup: I was having trouble reading your small -- you have increased those lot sizes. Amar: Yes, sir, we did. Borup: Any other questions, Commissioners? Commissioner Zaremba, do you have questions? Zaremba: Yes. The turnaround at the end of Albertson is -- at the moment appears to go on what will be school property. You're going to make that a public road? Amar: That will be a public road. Whether it be on the north side of the road or the south side of the road, that's something I want to coordinate with the school, but it will be public. Turnaround. Cul-de-sac. Borup: Okay. Any other questions? Amar: Just for reference, we did have a neighborhood meeting out here. The people that showed up were the Langley’s, the Quenzers, and the Bains and they all supported it. I believe some of them are here tonight, but we did want to have a meeting with them before to try to come up with any potential conflicts. I appreciate your time. Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? If so, now is the time to come forward. All right. Thank you. Centers: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for staff. Have you read Mr. Nickel’s memo, dated June 5th ? Today. Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Borup, Chairman -- Commissioner Centers. Sorry. The other C. Yes, we have. Centers: So, a motion could include your comments and their memo, dated June 5th , agreeing to all your comments and comments therein, with the addition of Item Number 21. Hawkins-Clark: Twenty-one. Centers: Correct. Especially, since we didn't see anyone here tonight protesting to this development. Good. That would eliminate a lot of tweaking. Thank you. Zaremba: Do we have an opinion about this making the southern out parcel an enclave? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 63 of 100 Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, Commissioner Zaremba, our opinion has always been they're bad. However, we have no control, frankly. Borup: This has been a separate ownership for a number of years, hasn't it? It's not something that was split off just recently. Zaremba: No. I know that. We have been told that we aren't supposed to create enclaves. Centers: Well, what slipped by us a few months ago was this exact example and the Council caught it and required that lot on the north -- Borup: The one on the north. Right. Centers: Same example, to be in the annexation and part of the plat. Zaremba: The one to the north is the same ownership, but the one to the south, the out parcel, is not. It will become an enclave. Centers: Yes. I know. I'm saying that that example got by us and we missed it and staff caught it in time. Borup: And that -- I think we'd rather see that parcel, but I don't know that there is anything that this developer could do or anyone can do to avoid that. That's something that's going to have to come along in the future. Okay. We still have a Public Hearing open. Centers: Yes. I'd move we close it. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor. Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Any discussion? Centers: I think the applicant has agreed to everything the staff wants, so -- Borup: I think they have, yes, which makes it -- does make it easy. One thing I was glad to hear and that was one of the notes I had. That was on the school district -- I mean on the lot for the school district and -- because we have had a previous application that testified that -- I think we gave them credit for it -- testified that they were going to be selling property to the school. As time went on that agreement got fuzzier and fuzzier and at this date, they still don't have an agreement with the school district and I, for one, would have felt different. I mean I went ahead with that project, feeling that there was some credit there for doing that, but I just -- and the thought I had Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 64 of 100 on that, that for me, anyway, in the future, to give credit -- I mean they are asking for open space credit, essentially. For me to give credit at this point there needs to be a definite agreement with the school district and it appears that there is. Centers: Yes and this project -- Borup: And that may be -- and it looks like it probably will be by the time it gets to City Council. Centers: And even if they don't, though, Mr. Chairman, they are dedicating a lot for a park, which means open space. Borup: Right. That wouldn't stay that way. Right. Centers: And if they don't sell it to the school district, I'm sure we will see them back here and we can -- Borup: Well, sometimes -- I mean I would not like to see somebody hold the school district hostage. Centers: Oh, I'm not saying that. If the school district changes their mind -- Borup: Right. Centers: -- I don't want to -- Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Since the area to the north of this is not being developed, do we have it on the Preliminary Plat about the Right To Farm Act? Centers: The applicant is shaking his head, yes, but -- Zaremba: Okay. Centers: -- I don't know. Zaremba: Very fine print. Okay. All right. Are we ready for a motion? Borup: Yes. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would recommend that we forward to the City Council recommending -- I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 10 on our agenda, AZ 03-008, request for annexation and zoning of 34.52 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Birchstone Creek Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC. Northwest corner of West Ustick Road and North Black Cat Road, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 65 of 100 to include all staff comments of their memo dated June 5th , received by the City Clerk June 2nd . Rohm: Second. Borup: We have a motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 11 on our agenda, PP 03-008, request for a Preliminary Plat approval of 89 building lots and seven other lots on 34.52 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Birchstone Creek Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC. Northwest corner of west Ustick Road and North Black Cat Road, to include all staff comments of the memo June 5th , received by the City Clerk June 2nd , with the following exceptions. That on Page 12, the current item 20 be renumbered to 21 and would add a 20 that says the Bain out parcel will be platted as a lot within the subdivision. Centers: And they wanted, in Item 20, to simply read -- I thought they said, anyway, that on the Final Plat -- where was that note? Page 11. Yes Page 11. A detailed landscape -- in compliance with the landscape ordinance submitted for the subdivision with the Final Plat. They wanted to cross out at least ten days prior. Zaremba: Paragraph 11 to read -- and this is page 11 -- paragraph 11: Detail landscape in compliance with the landscape ordinance shall be submitted for the subdivision with the Final Plat. Centers: And, then, if you don't mind, Commissioner Zaremba, they need to renumber that park area and the school site area. I read it with my bifocals as Lot 8 and Lot 7 and they have -- it's a duplication number, so they are going to have to change that. They admitted that. I would like to include -- I would like to include their memo, dated June 5th , that they are in concurrence with all the staff comments and provide the comments within that June 5th memo, if you don't mind. Zaremba: Add that to the motion. Centers: I second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Okay. Item Number 12 is -- as mentioned earlier, the applicant has requested this hearing to be continued to June 19th . Any discussion? If not, open for a motion. Centers: So moved. Move Item 12 on our agenda to the meeting of June 19th . Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 66 of 100 Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 13. Public Hearing: PFP 03-002 Request for Preliminary / Final Plat approval of 3 building lots on 1.55 acres in an L-O zone for Gaudry Seegmiller Subdivision by Gordon N. Anderson – southeast corner of East Gala Street and South Millennium: Borup: Item Number 13, Public Hearing PFP 03-002, request for Preliminary/Final Plat of three building lots on 1.55 acres in an L-O zone for Gaudry Seegmiller Subdivision by Gordon Anderson. This is at the southeast of East Gala and South Millennium, part of a project that we have seen several times. I'd like to open the Public Hearing at this time and start with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is an existing lot in Resolution Business Park Subdivision and they are proposing to split the existing single lot into three lots. It is a preliminary Final Plat combination and is going through applying together, through this process to City Council. You can see the aerial photo with the vacant property. The property to the south has since been developed as Mountain View High School. This is Overland Road along the north. Locust Grove Road is to the west and Eagle Road is just off the photo to the right. This is a copy of the proposed Preliminary Plat. It's more difficult to see the lines on the Final Plat, so I'll just skip to that. You can see that they are proposing three lots, Lot 1, Lot 2, Lot 3. Each one does have frontage and meets the minimum lot sizes for the L-O zone. They did submit a proposed site layout, although that's not specifically up for discussion, but it was shown on the Landscape Plan and this is the Landscape Plan that was shown. You should have a staff report with a transmittal date of May 29th for today's P&Z hearing date. I don't know that there is any real outstanding issues that need to be discussed. We have submitted the site-specific comments, one through eight, as shown. I would like to add a ninth, which would be to submit ten copies of a revised plat and Landscape Plan in compliance with this staff report ten days prior to the hearing with Council. The only other issue I know of is related to item four in the staff report on page three, which talks about a copy of a recorded cross-access and cross- parking easement for the subdivision prior to signature on the Final Plat. As written it was intended to have that recorded specifically for this layout as shown. Then, approached by Becky Bowcutt, who represented the owner of the lot to the south and she's also concerned that they get a cross-access agreement to the south to allow for interconnectivity. I do believe that the original Site Plan submitted with the Resolution Park Conditional Use Permit had interconnectivity through all those parcels. With that, I will stand for any questions. Borup: Questions from any Commissioners? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 67 of 100 Zaremba: I had only one. On, let's see, Paragraph 8, which has a number of numbered items underneath it, should we add another one -- I guess -- well, I guess the question is do we know if there is going to be a subdivision signage plan or whether each individual lot is going to have their own signs after this is split? Should there be a signage plan? Siddoway: Like a planned sign program? Zaremba: Yes. Siddoway: You could require a planned sign program be done. Certainly, if a development is done in conjunction with one another, you have that option, especially, for multi-tenant projects. I think these are going to be individual tenants, each one having frontage, so you could separate signage in conformance with the L-O signage standards without a planned signed program, as long as the individual buildings are on separate lots and single tenants, which I believe is their intent. We can have the applicant address that. Centers: Well, each lot has to come for a CUP, don't they? Siddoway: Each lot does require a separate CUP, so I would probably wait and put the conditions related to signage when you see it again at the Conditional Use Permit. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Anderson: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Gordon Anderson with Anderson David Associates, 1401 Shoreline Drive in Boise, representing the owners Gaudry and Seegmiller on their subdivision. With respect to the staff's comments about submitting 10 copies, revised copies, 10 days prior to the final -- or the City Council hearing, that's fine. I notice also on site-specific conditions that I think there is a misprint. Bruce and I talked about it. Item Number 8. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I can address that. Borup: Go ahead. Siddoway: The -- Item Number 8 -- sub Item Number 8 is what it's referring to, with a -- where it says a 20 foot wide permanent landscape public utilities, drains, and irrigation easement. There is an existing 12-foot easement in that location along Gala Street. We were trying -- it's not in this print, we were trying to get the plat to show the 20-foot easement that is shown on the Landscape Plan. If you see the Landscape Plan that they submitted with their plat, this note calls it out, a 20 foot landscape easement and if we approve this tonight. I wanted to make sure that -- if this is the approved Landscape Plan, that they are helped in this and 20 feet is what the easement becomes, so that it's developed in this manner. If we approve this Landscape Plan tonight with the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 68 of 100 preliminary and Final Plats and, then, only record a 12-foot landscape easement over the top of it, it could get messy. Borup: Comments on that, Mr. Anderson? Anderson: Yes. I don't think we have a problem making that a full landscape actual easement adjacent to and coincident with the right-of-way line. My only concern is that when we -- along the east property line, generally that would be a boundary utility corridor and that would only be ten feet wide that we would have to be concerned with there and -- Borup: I think this is saying just on public right of ways. Oh and exterior subdivision boundaries. You're right. Anderson: Correct. You would want it clarified generally; it's a 10-foot easement along boundary lines. Borup: Okay. That was your intention, it would be just on a public right of way would be the 20 and -- Anderson: That's, really, all that I was talking about, yes. Borup: And a 10 foot on the other -- Anderson: That would be just fine. Borup: I think -- so, it sounds like everyone was in agreement, but it needs clarification. Anderson: Correct. I wasn't prepared to comment on other accesses between this lot and adjoining lots, other than the access that is on Millennium. Can you switch to the Preliminary Plat? Currently, this curb cut here is going to have to be shared and ACHD will require it to be shared with this lot adjacent and I know connectivity is important for the development, but that plan that you saw may not be the one that they come in with for the CU, so between these owners I think it's going to happen, maybe enforced through the CUs or some other method. Hadn't anticipated that being finalized between the owners at this point in my conversations a week ago with David Seegmiller, so -- Borup: Are you saying you have no problem with that being a condition, that there is interconnectivity and an access agreement? Anderson: I don't know if I'm prepared to answer that until I talk to my client. Borup: Okay. If this Commission required that, then, that would be worked out later? Anderson: I think it -- Borup: Or your client can decide how they want to react to that, then. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 69 of 100 Anderson: Well, I think it's premature to make that a condition of this Preliminary Plat until they -- they have a Site Plan as well and I can't anticipate what the development would be to the south that may be they need that connectivity. I mean -- I know Becky mentioned it, but does it really make it something that's been solidified between the owners? So -- Borup: Okay. Anything else? Anderson: That's all I -- Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else that would like to testify? McKay: I'll take about one minute. Becky McKay, 150 East Aikens. I represent G.L. Voigt Development. They own the flag lot you see to the south. When I originally designed this and we got Resolution Park approved, we had, I believe, almost all lots interconnected. That's so that we, obviously, minimize the number of trips on Millennium Way and, secondly, for secondary access for fire. With that flag lot, if there is no interconnection between any of the parking facilities, then, that may cause some problems with the Fire Department as far as a second means of access to the rear of the building. We just want to make sure that that interconnectivity is preserved as these lots do develop and that there are some provisions made for that interconnection. Thank you. Borup: At this time there is not design or conceptual layout of that lot; is that correct? McKay: Of that lot? Okay. Borup: Is that correct? McKay: For that lot? It's my understanding -- yes. Borup: For your lot. McKay: Yes, sir. Borup: Okay. Thank you. I, for one, feel very strongly about interconnectivity. I don't think that's a lot of discussion that needs to take place there. Do we have anyone else? Thank you. Commissioners? Centers: Well, let's move to close the Public Hearing. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 70 of 100 Centers: So, then, the way I understand it, Mr. Chairman, Item 4 on Page 3, the cross- access agreement, the way it's worded in the staff report it's really worded for just this subdivision. Borup: Right. Centers: But we want to assure cross-access with any adjoining lots. Borup: That's the way I would -- Centers: Period. Right? Borup: Yes. That's the way I would -- Centers: So, we should add to the signature for the cross-access and cross-parking easement for this subdivision and adjoining lots. Right? Borup: Yes. Siddoway: Yes and the adjoining lot to the south and the one to the east also. Centers: Just adjoining lots would cover it. Borup: Cover it. Yes. Centers: Yes any adjoining lots. Okay. Because I'm with the Chairman, the connectivity is important, just like stub streets in a residential subdivision. Borup: I think the only other item was 8-8, page four. Centers: Yes but item -- sub item eight, that the 20 feet is referring to the right of ways only and ten feet would be applicable to subdivision boundaries. And ten copies of the Final Plat. While that's fresh, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we recommend approval to City Council for Item Number 13 on our agenda. PFP 03-002, request for Preliminary/Final Plat approval of three building lots on 1.55 acres in an L-O zone for Gaudry Seegmiller Subdivision by Gordon N. Anderson, at the southwest corner of East Gala Street and South Millennium. Including all staff comments from their memo dated June 5th , on Page 3, Item 4, amend the last sentence to read: B. Subdivision and any adjoining lots prior to signature on the Final Plat. Item 9 at the bottom would be applicant to submit ten copies of the Final Plat prior to the City Council hearing. Page 4, sub Item 8, to read. All lot lines common to public right of ways and the exterior subdivision and -- all lot lines common to the public right of way shall have a 20 foot wide boundary and 10 foot wide applicable to all exterior subdivisions boundary lines. All other items -- Borup: For the landscaping? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 71 of 100 Centers: Correct. For the permanent landscaping. End of motion. Rohm: I'll second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: I probably need to back up a little bit here, back to Item 12. I don't believe I ever opened that hearing. Can we continue a hearing that hasn't been opened? Zaremba: I believe we tabled it. Borup: Did we defer it, table it, or continue it? Zaremba: I think we tabled it without opening it, so -- Borup: Well, we didn't open it. Does anybody remember? I thought we continued and that's why I brought that up again. Which would have, I believe, been incorrect. Powell: Chairman Borup, I'm not sure on the regulations for referrals -- or the code versus referrals on continuing it. The safest thing to do would be to open it up and just go ahead and continue it. Borup: Or make a new motion and table. Either one. Powell: Well, that would -- Borup: Usually, in the past I have opened and we have continued it, so let's back up and do that. Zaremba: Well, actually, because of the noticing requirements that probably would be true. Borup: Yes. Table it. Zaremba: That way we have to re-notice it. Borup: I'd like to open Public Hearing PP 03-007 at this time. Open for a motion from the Commission. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 72 of 100 Zaremba: I move we continue the Public Hearing on PP 03-007, to our meeting on June 19th . Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 14. Public Hearing: AZ 03-011 Request for annexation and zoning of 11.5 +/- acres from RUT to R-8 and R-15 zones for proposed Blooming Meadows Estates Subdivision by The Cutting Edge, LC – 4379 North Locust Grove Road: Item 15. Public Hearing: PP 03-012 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 62 building lots and 8 other lots on 11.3 acres in proposed R-8 and R-15 zones for proposed Blooming Meadows Estates Subdivision by The Cutting Edge, LC – 4379 North Locust Grove Road: Item 16. Public Hearing: CUP 03-022 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for townhouses and single-family homes in proposed R-8 and R-15 zones for proposed Blooming Meadows Estates Subdivision by The Cutting Edge, LC – 4379 North Locust Grove Road: Borup: Okay. Our last item, last project, Item Number 14, 15 and 16, Public Hearing AZ 03-011, request for annexation and zoning of 11.5 acres from RUT to R-8 and R-15 zones for proposed Blooming Meadows Estates Subdivision by Cutting Edge, LC, 4379 North Locust Grove Road. Accompanying that is PP 03-012, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 62 building lots and CUP 03-022, request for Conditional User Permit for a planned development for Townhouses and single family homes in both R-8 and R- 15 zones for the proposed Blooming Meadows Estates Subdivision. I'd like to open all three Public Hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The proposed Blooming Meadows Estates Subdivision on the west side of Locust Grove abutting the south boundary of Havasu Creek Subdivision, also abutting up to its east side. It is north of the Heritage Commons Subdivision by about four lots to the north and across the street from Locust Grove to Heritage Subdivision that's in Ada County. The property annexed to the south, which you can just see in the corner, is the school district facility where the charter high school and recently approved elementary school are located. This is an aerial photo. You can see the existing county sub across Locust Grove to the right, the existing pasture farmland, soon to be developed as Havasu Creek surrounding here, and Heritage Commons to the south. The project, basically, has two separate areas. In the front along Locust Grove they are proposing annexing that as an R-15 zone with a proposed attached townhouse project in it. This Site Plan to the south actually connects onto the matched line right behind the top line and continues to the west with a proposed reduced lot size, single family, and detached housing project. It Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 73 of 100 would be proposed to be zoned R-8. I would point out that these densities that are proposed are in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The front area is in the corner of the neighborhood center on the Comprehensive Plan and by the Comprehensive Plan requires a density of at least eight dwelling units per acre. The density that they are proposing is right at nine dwelling units per acre and meets that requirement. The density of the single family project to the west of the townhouses is just over six dwelling units per acre and it is in an area of the Comprehensive Plan that is shown as medium density residential, which is defined as three to eight dwelling units per acre and fits right into that category as well. You should have a staff report with the transmittal date of May 29th and a hearing date of today. It does layout some detail the findings associated with the project. I'm going to skip to those items, which I think are those that need discussion and resolution tonight. They start on Page 12 under special considerations for the project. The first is just pointing out that the applicant does request several reductions to the standards through the planned development. This has been submitted as a planned development. They can request alterations to the standard ordinance through the planned development process. Those requested modifications are detailed on the second page of this report and also on the face of their submitted plat. I have asked the applicant to verify that I have captured all their requested modifications and also would just point out to the Commission that they do need to act on those reduced standards as part of this project. Staff is in support of the proposed reduced standards. That said, we do have some concerns about the build ability of some of the lots. I have in Number 2 requested that the applicant come tonight with some sample layouts for a few lots. I picked Lots 5 and 6 of Block 4, which are in the small cul-de-sac of the single-family area, as well as the Lot 12, Block 2, which is the funny triangular-shaped lot here just to make sure that they were buildable with the product types that they were planning to use in the subdivision. Item Number 3 has to do with fences in the townhouse area. Given the small lots and the connected nature of those townhouses, we are recommending that no internal fences be allowed on these lots lines, nor on the lot lines here, that they only allow for perimeter fencing to give the project itself a more open feel and allow for pedestrians to move in and out through those backyard areas without feeling too boxed in. I believe the applicant is in agreement with that. Item Number 4 talks about trees along the south and I'll address that for just a second. There is -- this is the proposed Landscape Plan. Again, this is the proposed townhouse section of the project. This is the single-family area. The letter that the -- the existing lot to the south is currently a single-family residence on a large lot. That residence does sit back a long ways from Locust Grove, actually, south of the single family portion about in this area. Nonetheless, we consider the lot as a whole and we do require a buffer between land uses, between multi-family and single family projects. The proposed Landscape Plan does provide that buffer. The issue is that in that exact same area there is an easement to the Settler's Irrigation District that would preclude planting of any of those trees. The applicant points out that the area south of the townhouses today is simply pasture and there is no residence currently built there and it is also in the neighborhood center designation on the Comp Plan also and when developed will have a similar density. Their proposal, which was very generous, in my estimation, was to provide the trees and put them in pots, large pots, in that easement. I questioned whether they really intended to pot all 24 of those trees that are shown and I have asked them to address that tonight and that the Commission should consider this Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 74 of 100 area for some form of alternative compliance. Whether they should pot all the trees shown, some of the trees shown, or whether any trees at all would be required by the Commission through that alternative compliance. The alternative compliance section of the code in the landscape ordinance says that if one governmental agency having jurisdiction over an area would -- conflicts with the requirements of the landscape ordinance. The determination can be made, you know, separate from the letter of the law that meets the intent of the ordinance and -- meets the intent of the ordinance and makes the Commission and staff happy, so -- enough said on that one, unless you have any questions on that one before I move on. Item Number 5 on Page 13 has to do with the open space and removal of a lot. The open space -- first, the proposed open space for the townhouse area does sit on this flag portion between Locust Grove and the townhouse development. It does sit quite hidden behind this row of townhouses and staff is recommending that this end townhouse lot be eliminated and made part of the open space. That would give a direct view into the open space from the driveway and it would bring the open space out into the project more and make it feel more like an amenity for the entire subdivision and not just sitting in the backyard of those couple of lots. Item Number 6 is the Settler's easement, which I just mentioned with the landscaping and trees along the south. That easement does continue through here along the south side of the residential portion. The applicant is proposing to have -- to keep easement in the rear lots and not on a separate common lot. Staff is fine with that, as long as they can obtain the encroachment agreement with the Settler's Irrigation District and we added a condition that they get one. Number 7 is pedestrian access. You will notice that there is no road connection out through to Locust Grove. Their only connection currently would be through Havasu Creek to the north, the road that sits right on this match line between the two portions of the project connects to a stub street in Havasu Creek and would go out to Locust Grove. They did try and try with several meetings through -- with ACHD and others to get a road alignment here on the south side of their property, but the offset distance is too great with the existing road into Heritage Subdivision. They were unsuccessful in working out an agreement with the property owner to the south to share that road along the property line. ACHD has approved the proposed arrangement. The intent -- they have also stubbed the same street to the south and the intent would be that when the property to the south develops they would get another access out onto Locust Grove there. That said, staff would like to see in Item Number 7 a pedestrian access provided through this open space lot and connected to the sidewalk along Locust Grove. That the -- any pedestrians going to the school or other areas that are nearby are not forced to go through the adjacent subdivision, since they do have a more direct access out onto Locust Grove. Item Number 8 is the open space, simply pointing out that the applicant does meet the open space requirements of the ordinance outright. They do provide over 10 percent open space in the townhouse portion and just over five percent open space in the single- family portion. They have over -- just over seven percent for the project as a whole. They are required to have two amenities as a planned development. Those amenities are not shown on the Landscape Plans, but are mentioned in their letter. Staff would like to see those actually shown on the plans, so we can see how they are to be integrated, but their proposal is to provide a sand volleyball court in the bottom of the retention pond in the open space here in the single family area and a gazebo/picnic area in the open space adjacent to the townhouses. Item number ten, which is the last Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 75 of 100 one, is the issue of providing sidewalks within the townhouse development. Staff feels that there should be sidewalks through this. They are proposing it simply as a private drive. It's not a public street. ACHD has not commented directly on the drives in the townhouse area. Staff would like to see sidewalks added, which are not currently proposed along the fronts of the townhouses and around the interior of this internal block. That can be done without a major modification to this layout, because the Site Plan does provide for 25 feet from the face of the buildings out to the drive aisle. Adding a five-foot attached sidewalk still allows for a 20-foot deep driveway in front of those garages. Those are staff's recommendations on those items that need to be resolved. Our recommendation on Page 15 states that we do support the project and the higher density townhouse use, because it is in compliance with the neighborhood center designation on the Comprehensive Plan. We also submit -- support a mix of housing types, which this is attempting to provide in the area. However, we do have these outstanding issues, so we do -- unless they are resolved tonight, we do recommend continuing this hearing such that the Site Plans can be tweaked and revised to show the items that are mentioned in the conditions of approval and come back to this body before moving on to City Council. With that, I'll stand for any questions. Centers: Mr. Chairman. Yes, in your recommendation, Mr. Siddoway, if you could clarify staff supports the higher density townhouse use in compliance with the neighborhood center designation. I know you said that that touched on the corner of the neighborhood center. Of course, I have seen those. A neighborhood center couldn't be built there. Siddoway: Not in commercial, if that's what you're talking about. Centers: Yes. Semi-commercial and that was the full intent of a neighborhood center at the half-mile mark right? Siddoway: Yes and no. Let me back up and explain that a little bit. Centers: Yes. Siddoway: The neighborhood center is shown as a -- kind of a half circle that comes down right around this way. The center of that neighborhood center is intended to be -- have a core commercial area, but not the entire neighborhood center. Centers: Oh, I know. Yes. Siddoway: The remainder of the neighborhood center is required to have a higher density-housing product in it in order support those core commercial areas on the half- mile. The neighborhood center designation does cut through this project at almost the exact location that they are proposing to shift in their uses. Centers: But all the discussion in the Comp Plan hearings and the neighborhood centers and whether they would be there or not, there is no -- absolutely no guarantee you're going to have commercial in a neighborhood center right there. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 76 of 100 Siddoway: We are getting commercial already at the half mile right here as part of Heritage Commons. Centers: That's L-O. Is it commercial or L-O? Offices. Dentist office. Siddoway: I don't remember the zoning, but it is -- has several buildings. I think most of them would be -- do you remember the zoning? It is L-O? We think it is L-O. Centers: That's a concept of the neighborhood centers was people could walk to shop. Siddoway: Yes. Centers: Drycleaners. You know, small commercial. Siddoway: Yes. Centers: So, we have no -- but I think, you know, you haven't answered whether we have no guarantee that the property owner here is going to build or provide some walk to shop. Siddoway: He's going to have to provide something in compliance with the neighborhood center designation with higher densities and the commercial probably wouldn't extend all the way up to this parcel. The commercial would probably end up in here, the smaller core area, and surrounded by higher density housing and there should be smaller blocks and walkable. Centers: And the present zoning of this? It's just RUT right now? Siddoway: Yes. Centers: Yes. Dumb question. The other question I had on the same paragraph, in compliance with the neighborhood center designation along Locust Grove and the transition to larger lots adjacent to Havasu Creek. I don't understand that. Siddoway: Okay. They have -- they are proposing very small type lots in the townhouse area and getting a density just over nine. Centers: Right. Siddoway: At that match line they do transition to larger single-family lots adjacent to Havasu Creek, which wraps around it on the north and west. Centers: Okay. Which are adjacent to Havasu Creek. Okay. I got you. Thank you. Borup: Any other questions? Okay. Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 77 of 100 Pack: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Lloyd Pack I'm with Project Engineering Consultants at 1307 North 39th Street, Suite 101, Nampa. I have recently adopted this project. You will probably note on the application that it was originally started by David Irish of URS Corporation and due to some problems that he's had, he's been transferred out of the area and so he and I had worked together on this in some of the initial stages and I ended up adopting it after he had to leave. I received staff comments on this project Monday and we started going through and looking at them. The clients and I had a meeting on Tuesday to discuss a lot of these and, in general, we agree with the majority of the staff comments. The townhouse fences, for instance, Item 3, we have no problem with eliminating that. One of the items I would like to address is Item Number 4 on Page 12. With the trees along that south edge, we have a 20-foot easement with Settler's and, then, there is the 20-foot buffer zone requirement due to the dissimilar use of the land to the south. Currently, as Commissioner Centers asked about what it's currently zoned at, it's RUT, but being consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, it should be developed as an R-15 or something like that. The use will be fairly similar to what we are proposing in that area. As such, and given the fact that Settler's does not allow trees to be planted -- anything over two foot is not allowed to be planted within their easement. Actually, we would like to see the requirement for the trees disappear, because we understand that the owner of the property to the south is interested in developing that property, just recently has contacted my clients to investigate the opportunity to do something in conjunction that way, so we anticipate the development to take place in the relatively near future. Once it is developed, then, there will not be dissimilar use and the buffer would no longer be required. Now, originally, this plan shows no potted trees. That just -- that came about with discussion between David Irish and staff, was my understanding, and did not ever get conveyed to the landscape designer prior to submittal. I don't know the timing of how that worked out, but on this plan there is no designation for those trees to be potted. When I discussed with the landscape designer that issue, he was somewhat incredulous that we were actually considering potted trees, because he said, one, it's going to be very difficult to deal with to move these if ever Settler's needs to come and work on the pipe, if they need to be moved, a fork lift, tractor, and somehow manipulation those around getting them out of the way. The other problem is he has had experience with many trees in pots like this having difficulty surviving and so he's concerned about the issue of making the trees actually last longer than the approval process, basically. When we are considering this area, we'd really like it to be considered as the full build out and the requirement of that buffer not being applied to this condition, since it will be the same use, both sides of that property line at build out. Moving on and looking at Number 5 on Page 13, the open space and lot removal item, we definitely do not want to remove a lot there. In discussion with the landscape architect, the ability to landscape and present it as an attractive entrance and access point to the open space, he felt that that would not be a difficult thing to do. In discussing that with my clients, we also discussed other options. One of the options that we would like the Commission to consider is reduction of all of the lots in that one section, so that the width of those lots would be reduced from 30 to 28 feet and at the top end we have 23 foot distance between the north property line and that line of lots. We could slide those lots up an additional three feet. That would, then, allow for a total Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 78 of 100 of 21 foot extra space in that area to open that up and given the fact that these lots are for joint townhouses, the distance of 28 feet for the lot works out still for the planned two car garage and the entrances that are going to be in there. We can still get the area that we need to get. If this were going to be a regular detached lot that would be more of a problem, just because of the reciprocal nature of detached housing and the assignment. Where we are talking about combining some townhouses, that might be a very reasonable way to generate the open space of staff recommendations would like to see and yet still allow us to maintain the lots that we would like to maintain. In terms of the path that's -- the pedestrian access of Item Number 7, we would like to loop a path through that open space behind the townhouses, between the townhouses and Locust Grove, so that there is a continuous loop. Then, we intend to come in, kind of jumping ahead or combining two items here with the fencing plan, we would like to put a vinyl fence along the front end at Locust Grove with an access point in the middle of that fence to the sidewalk that will be developed on Locust Grove. That way we have a continuous loop of the open space we have access back to the parking -- the common lot around the townhouses. Then, still have the access to Locust Grove that staff recommends basically to provide access for children to get from the schools and for people get to the future built -- to be built commercial core community center. In terms of the path, we also feel we'd like to include a path going into a retention basin in the single family dwellings, just to be -- to have continuity with the general feel of the subdivision on both ends and to eliminate any possible problems with slippery grass slopes for people accessing down into the bottom to get to that volleyball court. I think almost every issue that staff has brought up that we have had any concerns with I have addressed. The issues of amenities will be drawn up on a new Landscape Plans and submitted. The recommendation was that we extend to the next meeting a plan of preparing that item, along with the sample layout, which is item number two. In the short notice I have I did not develop the sample layout as requested. I apologize for that. That will be prepared for the next meeting or will be worked out with staff prior to the next meeting, so that they can -- if they are comfortable with what we are planning on doing, they can just recommend to you that that item has been satisfied. At this point I'll stand for any further questions. Mathes: Are you planning on just two houses hooked together or do you have three? Pack: Where? Mathes: On the townhouse lots. Pack: The townhouses are all connected. Mathes: Nine in a row? Pack: Yes. Mathes: Okay. Pack: Yes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 79 of 100 Centers: You mentioned a pathway to the drainage pond. Pack: Yes. Centers: Are you going to do that in back of Lots 4, 5, and 6 or -- Pack: Yes. Access back from the street -- Centers: Okay. Yes. You move it up and you got the -- okay. Pack: And we have the access points to Havasu Creek at the match lines on this drawing and, then, right there by the retention basin, which is on our plat, I believe, shows North Heritage and, then, we have North Mooney on the south, both -- all three of which are going into Havasu Creek and, then, we are stubbing -- I believe it's called North Heritage or -- the match line we are stubbing that to the property to the south, so that as that does get developed into future residential use, it will have connectivity between all three subdivisions. Centers: Excuse me. How long ago did you submit your application to ACHD? I see in their notes a tech review for this item was held with the applicant on May 9th . Pack: That may have been. I did not take up the application until after that, so I'm not sure what had happened. Centers: Of course, they noted no direct lot access to Locust Grove Road. Pack: Right. Centers: Of course, you weren't handling it at that time? Pack: No, I was not. Centers: And I take it they were really pushing for the access from Locust Grove? Pack: There was -- they did push for that. My clients had worked for the property owner to the south. It's my understanding that would have been tried to come up with an agreement. They were willing to develop the entire road, if the client to the south would give them half of the easement for doing so. At the time the owner of the property to the south was not interested in pursuing that and so this was developed to deal with an issue, basically, and so our recommendation on this was not to access Locust Grove directly, but to do so through Havasu Creek or through future development of the property to the south. Centers: But when you got the findings from the ACHD on May 29th, then, you revised it and you created open space at the front on Locust Grove; correct? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 80 of 100 Pack: If that's -- that may have been what happened, yes. I didn't -- I was not -- Centers: You had to hurry and make the open space there. Pack: Okay. Centers: And ACHD allows the access through Havasu Creek. Pack: Okay. Yes. Centers: Thank you. Zaremba: Well, I'd like to explore your earlier remark that the neighbor to the south may now be ready to work on this, which would open up the possibility, again, that you could connect to Star Lane. I'm not sure ACHD's issue was wholly within the property that you're presenting. There was no way to align with Star, which is the street on the other side of the property. If the property owner to the south is now approaching you and looking for a way to work together, can that idea be resurrected? The reason I bring that up is one of the things that Meridian has is that they like to see higher densities near to transportation corridors and as the crow flies this higher density is near the transportation corridor. By road, it has to go through Havasu Creek, which is circuitous for the residents here and probably not very tasteful to them, Havasu Creek and -- to have that many people. I guess my question is can it be explored with a newly willing neighbor to the south to resurrect the connection to Star Lane. Pack: And the biggest concern with that is the additional cost to rework the Preliminary Plat, resubmit, the lost time involved in redoing the process. We are basically starting over with the application. That will change the nature of the layout change the nature of the conditional use. Zaremba: If I'm wrong, the only thing you'd really be changing is -- there is already an easement there, the 20 feet wide on your side of the property where those trees aren't going to be and that easement could be your half of the road Pack: It is Settler's Irrigation easement, so the utility would need to be managed, dealt with -- they probably wouldn't like the idea of -- maybe they would let us pave right over it, but -- you know, with access points, but -- you know, with access points. That is potential, okay, and the grounds maintained without being substantial. Again, just the biggest concern is the reworking of the plan to make that fit the time and money that my clients would either have to pay or that the property owner to the south would have to pay in order to rework that and make it work. Zaremba: I guess maybe I'm wrong, but I'm not seeing much reworking needing to be done, because -- Pack: Well, the only problem -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 81 of 100 Zaremba: Pave the easements and leave everything else the way it is. Pack: Well, you'd have to move the house, townhouses. At least the one that we are talking about removing would have to be moved -- the proposal I'm making would reduce the lot size width. Zaremba: And I read that suggestion. Pack: Just to allow for that roadway to exist and not have the house on the curb or I mean on the curb that close. Access to the open space could be accomplished through the road at that point and, yet, something that we definitely -- I can talk with my clients about, so we could consider pursuing and looking at what the cost would be. There is a potential that just -- I guess it depends, too, on what this Commission is ready to accept that way and how much they want to see in reworking. If you're ready and happy with us revising that for say the next meeting or something and ready to approve that kind of thing, then, it wouldn't take as much time in reworking. I don't know if an agreement can be reached with the property owner to the south that quickly. One of the requirements is that the submittal happen 10 days prior to the meeting. That would pose a potential problem in terms of time crunch with that coordination. I wouldn't mind if you would allow me seven days prior to finish the items that we have got on here to already revise at least -- Centers: Let me ask you did you have a neighborhood meeting, you and the developer? Pack: I have not, no, and discussing it with the developer David Irish, talked about the possibility of doing that and at that time they had decided -- my understanding they decided that it was not going to be beneficial to conduct a neighborhood meeting. Centers: Appreciate your honesty. Borup: Not beneficial to who? Pack: Everybody involved. The general consensus that they had was that there wasn't going to be the vast turn out that we have. From discussing things with some of the property owners and maybe it was Grasmick, I'm not sure. There was just a general feeling that this project would be a good project that complies with the Comprehensive Plan and it would be one that would be desirable as such. Zaremba: I personally can agree with 90 percent of that, except for the access. Borup: Any other questions from the Commission? One thing I don't think has been addressed is the out parcel. I don't think staff brought that up in their report. Pack: Are you referring to the large square in the upper right-hand corner? Borup: Right. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 82 of 100 Pack: That is a residential lot owned Grasmicks. Borup: Right. Pack: And it would be retained as such and it is not even any -- not a part of this project. Borup: But didn't he own this whole -- this whole parcel? Pack: My understanding was that he subdivided the parcel prior to selling it off, but -- Borup: Subdivided it? Pack: Yes. Borup: Do we have a copy of that subdivision when it was created? Was that done in the county, then? Pack: I have a copy of the deeds. Borup: No. I mean the legal lot split or subdivision -- Pack: I don't know. Borup: So, if it was done, it was maybe done illegally? Pack: I don't know. Borup: Okay. Was there a staff comment? Powell: Yes. I can give you a short primer on Ada county legal lots versus lot splits. On any two parcels, meaning unplatted property -- and this is not platted. I'm fairly sure this is not platted property. So any unplatted -- Borup: What's the definition of plat? I believe it was -- Powell: In a subdivision. Oh, it was one -- okay. Steve's telling me it's one lot in a platted subdivision right now. To split that they'd have to re-subdivide that or be eligible for a one-time division. The county has had varying requirements as to minimum lot size in -- throughout the whole county. It varies usually from one acre to five acres. Right now they are in one that would suggest it's five acres. Because it's less than five acres, there is a question, as you pointed out, as to whether this was legally split. Just because it has a different parcel number does not mean it's a legal split. You can go and record a survey and ask to have a new number assigned, but that does not make it a legal split necessarily. A lot of times people do that because they are buying five acres, but the bank only wants to lend money on the house, so they want to see that it's on a smaller piece of property. They don't like holding liens on farmland, so they will Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 83 of 100 often ask people to get a new assessor's parcel number on a smaller piece of property, and, then, they hold their liens on that. That's often why you see a lot of assessor parcel numbers, but that doesn't mean that they are eligible to be sold, necessarily. The county does have a system whereby they can -- it's relatively inexpensive, it's actually dirt cheap to -- or you can go in and say is this a legal lot and I think, again, it's around 50, 60 dollars, something like that and they do all the research and they write you a letter saying whether or not this is a legal parcel for the purposes of development. If, in fact, it is not a legal parcel, the remedy in the county from their attorneys has been that the only remedy for an illegal subdivision is to recombine those properties so you get around the original parent parcel and provide that as, you know, go in and subdivide that. In Ada county they -- well, they would be coming to you, basically, to do that subdivision. Borup: Thank you. A bit of an unanswered question there. Pack: Yes. I gather at that point we might be looking at adopting that parcel as one lot in the block. Obviously, you know, retaining ownership to Grasmick, but that would be a -- Zaremba: The issue is to have it annexed at the same time. Pack: Yes. Zaremba: And applied as a lot. Pack: Right. Centers: The same owner; right? Pack: Grasmick owns that one and the Reitermans own the rest. Centers: Looks to be right at exactly an acre. Pack: It may be. Borup: Okay. Pack: Thank you. Borup: Any other questions? Okay. We are anxious to get to hear public testimony. When we have this size of a group, sometimes it makes it a little more difficult with time constraints. I don't know if there is anybody that has been designated as a neighborhood spokesman. It looks like no. The reason I ask, if we do have an organized neighborhood with a spokesman, we can allow additional time for that spokesman. Otherwise, depending on the time available, oftentimes we need to -- we do need to, for the most part, limit the remarks -- we do have a three-minute limit. Sometimes, if there is redundant information over and over, the Commission is probably Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 84 of 100 not quite as interested in that, other times if there is new information, additional comments are warranted and interested in, so saying that, I'd like to open -- I mean invite anyone to come forward at this time. Failing: Good morning, Commissioners, or good afternoon or evening, whatever we are now. Norm Failing, 1785 Star Lane. I live in the Heritage Subdivision. Could you put this back up, please, this here. I'd just like to draw a little picture here of what we are looking at. One, we have got a lot of R-4, we have got a lot of high acreage, one acre parcels, so this -- and, granted, we didn't get to vote on all this nice stuff that we have been talking about, the high density stuff. I don't mind the light industrial down here at the Heritage Commons. It looks like it's going to be a great subdivision. Havasu Creek looks like that's going to be a great subdivision. Borup: Just for clarification on terms a little bit. I don't believe it's light industrial. Failing: Well, light office, whatever they are going to -- it will change eventually. But I mean that's okay. I don't have an issue with that, because a dentist office and that's a good deal. When we are talking about putting a high-density area out here and we are talking about putting a little pathway out to Locust Grove to the sidewalk. Well, unfortunately, there are no sidewalks. We have a little bit up here in Havasu Creek, we have a little bit down here in Heritage, and we have a little bit over here by the school, but between there and McMillan there is really nothing. We have a 50 mile an hour road that when I come out of my street on Locust Grove right now, I can sit there for ten minutes. We have got 50 mile an hour traffic. My kids can't walk there. This is a higher density area -- Borup: What's the speed limit there? Failing: Fifty miles an hour. It goes from 35 right here where this yellow piece is, where the school would be, to 50 miles an hour and I guarantee you they run a lot harder than 50 miles an hour and we are going to start having more accidents with higher density. When you come south on Locust Grove and you're going to turn west on Ustick, because of the concrete barriers when they redid that nice light intersection, when you make that right turn, you turn out and you're facing head-on traffic. That actually turns out into the left turn lane coming -- going eastbound. They are going to put out this huge amount of traffic on streets that won't even handle it you go at 8:00 in the morning on McMillan to go to Eagle, because that's that nice roadway you were talking about. Where we are doing this, well, you stop right -- oh, at Locust Grove and it takes you 20 or 30 minutes to get to Eagle Road. That's the same on Ustick. You know, the roads just are not capable of handling this kind of density. My other problem with it is I bought this nice one-acre where I have a good value, we are putting in all these gorgeous R-4s and now we want to put this in, so all of these property values go down? Why not put in 200,000 houses, 300,000-dollar houses? Let's get our -- let's have our areas where we are going to get a good tax base. We already saw earlier a subdivision that was an in- fill that was a great idea for an in-fill, I mean it worked out perfect. I think we should look at doing more in-fill in these higher densities and keeping these type of areas that are more common. I mean it's like putting this type of a section right in the middle of Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 85 of 100 Banbury. You know, that's the way I look at it. You have high dollar housing and you go and you say, well, you got to put one of these right in the middle of Banbury. They haven't done it. You know, I have got some real concerns, one, about the traffic, the safety of the children, and, then, the value of my house. I don't want to take all your time, but thank you very much. I appreciate the time. Borup: Thank you. Who's next? Centers: Staff, what's the zone in Havasu Creek? R-8? R-4? R-4. R-8? Siddoway: I believe it's R-8. Sherer: No, it's R-4. Do you have a copy of your vicinity map? It is R-4. It was published by your Planning and Zoning Division. Siddoway: It's R-8. Borup: It's R-8. Sherer: It's R-4. Siddoway: It is R-8. Sherer: Well -- Borup: That may be a typo. Sherer: That's R-4. Siddoway: It is R-8, though. Borup: Wait a minute. Sherer: There is no point in arguing about it. Borup: No, there isn't, because it is what it is, if it is R-8, but any comments need to be addressed up here. It's not a free for all. Sherer: Thank you, Madam and Gentlemen Commissioners and city attorney and city clerk and planners, my name is Steve Sherer I live on Star Lane at 29 East Star Lane. I did receive a fax from the Meridian Planning and Zoning Department that shows a vicinity map. This shows that Havasu Creek is R-4. Now, if it's R-8, then, I'm mistaken, but I will tell you that I have lived there for 17 years. Traffic -- the traffic study that was done by ACHD was done in June of 2001 and I assume that most of you -- or all of you have received my letter dated June 5th that was submitted. I won't belabor the points that I made in that letter, because they are fairly clear. You can read them. I appreciate - - Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 86 of 100 Borup: Yes. Excuse me, Steve. Just for clarification. Was that letter intended as you personally? Sherer: Personally, yes. Borup: Okay. Not -- Sherer: But since I'm also a principal in the firm, I used law firm letterhead. My partner does not -- does not concur and has, in fact, no interest in this -- in this argument one way or another. Borup: Thank you. Sherer: Him being an Ada County Highway District commissioner. I appreciate Mr. Pack's honesty about the potted trees. I was going to make good hay with that, because that's a ridiculous idea and by removing the trees -- and we can have another Hope Arms out there, because that's what I envision without any trees or without any buffer zone. Planning to put nine townhouses together reminds me of a project that I was familiar with when I went to Northwest University in Chicago called Tabrini Greens. Notorious for the crime that it engendered and for the problems that it had when you tried to pack people in a dense housing project. The easements require a 20 foot buffer and Settler's does have a 20-foot easement. I think those requirements are clear. They are obvious. I have a question for Mr. Pack. I don't have a right to ask him, but I want you Commissioners to consider this. Mr. Pack could not get an agreement with this southern neighbor to run a street across from Star Lane, so that they could have no offset, so they could have a street, but now all of a sudden comes and represents to you that the southern neighbor is willing to deal with him. Something does not add up there. I don't know what it is. I'm not privy to those conversations. That doesn't make sense to me. I hope that you Commissioners will evaluate that and it doesn't make sense to you either. Mr. Pack got up and said he's in general agreement with the recommendations, then, he tries to diminish the lot sizes even more. He tries to make them smaller so that he can maintain the high density that he has in this rural area. Now, you're looking at a subdivision that is going to be very cramped. You can see the size of the lots across the street where we live. They're R-4 lots. You know, I don't particularly care for them, but that's progress and that's future, we are going to have them. Locust Grove is a minor arterial, it's not a five lane arterial, it's not planned to be a five lane arterial, it's not even -- it's not even in the construction plans to be a three lane arterial and my letter addresses the concerns that I have with that. The development cannot occur without some other things happening first. Havasu Creek is going to have to develop first. Heritage Commons is going to have to develop first. You're going to have 600 more residential building lots in this area before those two things are developed. Then, you're going to have the school development to the south, you're going to have two technical high schools, two charter schools, and an elementary school and the Meridian School District office. Ada County Highway District noted that when they looked at these developments one at a time they all made sense, but when added together there could be some serious problems and there will be serious Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 87 of 100 problems. Our other neighbor testified about the traffic issues. They are only going to get worse. They can't even consider this development until Havasu Creek and Heritage Commons put in their roads. They can't -- they can't consider this an implementation of the Comprehensive Plan until there is a commercial center for these people to use. Otherwise, they are going to be pulling out onto Locust Grove at 50 miles an hour or whatever Ada County Highway District decides to make it. They talk about a pathway to cross Locust Grove to get to the schools. Centers: Who are they? Sherer: The developer -- Centers: Okay. Sherer: -- has talked about an access -- that sidewalk access to Locust Grove to cross the street. It's not practical. It's not reasonable. That street is going to be way too busy. The traffic has probably increased 30 to 40 percent in the past two years from the development north of McMillan called Vienna Woods. That's not fully built out yet. Summerfield is not fully built out yet. We don't even -- we haven't even dealt with the traffic issues that we have now. They are only going to get worse. Reducing the lot size is not an answer. This area is all R-4, to my understanding. It's all platted to R-4. This development should be the same. What they are attempting to do is take 11 and a half acres in the middle of the country and maximize their profits at everybody else's cost and expense around there. Until there is a commercial center, this project is premature. Until the roads are build out in Havasu Creek and Heritage Commons, this subdivision is premature. I ask for you to at least table this long enough to see these other roads develop, to see these other things developed, so that we don't have these people trying to drive on platted, but undeveloped roads. I mean it only makes sense. Further, I think it's way too dense for the area and for what they are able to carry, especially considering what's going to be going on in the school district's 39 acres. That's going to be a heavy, intense use. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Yes. Rohm: Before we continue with public testimony, I'd like to just make a little comment related to the staff's comments versus the, obvious, consensus of the public here. It appears as if there is a number of issues that are at stake here, the number of townhouses, the communication with the property owner to the south, the density of the development, and things along that line, that could have been resolved in a community meeting. One of the things that we have been trying to promote all along is that you have community meetings prior to submittal to this Commission. If, in fact, we are going to end up right back at that point, maybe it would be best to just say before you're going to move forward, you're going to have to have this community meeting and all these Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 88 of 100 issues can be discussed at that level. They can come back with something that would meet the community's concerns, as well as the Comprehensive Plan and it doesn't -- I don't think we are going to resolve any of these issues tonight based upon the diametric opposition to the existing proposal. All we would hear is continued testimony that would mirror the same thing and I think that's pretty accurate. Borup: Anybody disagree with that? Because I think, the first two did a good job. We are -- we do have -- I mean I believe we added the wording in that last ordinance that at our option we can require a neighborhood meeting. This Commission can do that. Rohm: Right. Borup: It is not -- it is a highly recommended suggestion and if we deem it appropriate, we can require it. So, is that what you're leading up to? Rohm: Well -- and that's exactly what I'm leading up to and, you know, in defense of the developers, you know, there is a Comprehensive Plan out there that states the things that they need to address as they put their development together, of which they did, but the thing that that doesn't do is it doesn't address the concerns of the neighboring public. Well, the only way that you can address their concerns and at the same time address the Comprehensive Plan is to have that community meeting, so it seems before this project could move forward it would be logical to have the community meeting and, then, from that you move forward and it seems like that would address their issues and we can take it from there. Borup: Comments from other Commissioners? Centers: Well, I guess I'd like to know if the neighborhood wants to have a neighborhood meeting. Failing: When we talk about the neighborhood, would that just be the subdivision that most of us are from or is that the whole area? Because, see, we have got -- we have got Heritage Commons -- they seem to send out notices to everybody, they didn't do this 300 foot thing. They didn't try and just -- it seems like they wanted to just, you know, push it through and the same, I think, with Havasu, I think we got some stuff in the mail about that one. These are undeveloped areas -- Borup: You got something from Heritage? Failing: Yes. I got something -- I mean I got something similar and they were kind of telling -- and they showed everything laid out and so, you know, they were pretty -- seemed to be pretty up about it and I kind of like the way they did their -- they did their whole project there. If this is undeveloped and Havasu Creek is still undeveloped, we are talking about, you know, potential community members that aren't going to end with a say and we are literally a small group. Borup: Right. You mean a small group within 300 feet. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 89 of 100 Failing: Well, that's why my son goes to Eagle High School, because -- he don't get to go to Centennial, because we didn't get enough people for the boundary. Borup: Well, I think you have done a good job on what the intent is. You know, the number of people notified has to be cut off somewhere. Failing: Right. Borup: And the expectation is that those receiving notice would notify their neighbors and I think you have done a good job of doing that and you are to be commended for that. But -- so anyone that -- it would be my understanding -- my feeling that anybody in the subdivision is, of course, invited to that meeting, because -- Failing: Or in the vicinity around the school area and so we -- I'm just trying to get some kind of consensus whether it's just, you know, the first people off of Locust Grove -- Borup: Anyone is invited to come, I guess. This Commission and City Council would have to take a look on what they feel -- how that person is affected. Oftentimes we have people coming from Boise to testify and I don't know if that means a lot to me. Failing: No, I'm not going to get all my friends from Boise to come over here and -- okay. Thank you. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to just add one last thing. My comments were not to preclude testimony from anybody. That wasn't the intent. It's just that it seems like that might be the best solution based upon where they're at currently is to go back and discuss amongst yourselves and see if you can come to some resolution, as opposed to taking continued testimony and not coming to any resolution anyway, so that being said -- Borup: Okay. If someone has -- do you have something new that you wanted to contribute? Rambo: My name is Chris Rambo and I live at 1760 Star Lane in Meridian. I just would like to briefly touch on an issue that has been discussed. It doesn't relate to neighborhood meetings, it relates to this Commission addressing issues with ACHD and Meridian and through the Planning and Zoning and developing a safe environment from these committees together. As has been mentioned, the roadways, the sidewalks, the schools, everything is going in there in a backwards order. We got the cart before the horse here. You know, it's important that you go in, you get the safety taken care of first and, then, you deal with putting in houses and subdivisions. That's all I have. Borup: That is -- I don't think there is anybody that disagrees with that, other than -- that that's the ideal way to do it. The trouble is no one wants to pay for it and I don't know how many of you are willing to double your taxes to be able to do that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 90 of 100 Rambo: I think the developers needs to be taking an active role in that. They are the ones that are selling the property and looking for the profits and somebody -- you're right, somebody needs to take care of that and it has to be dumped on shoulders somewhere, it has to be dumped before we get to the point where we have hazards, not after we get to the point that we have hazards and that's their responsibility, then, those house prices need to go up and those consumers that buy those properties need to be paying for those, not people paying for them ahead of time, not the developers going out there and have the opportunity of making his profit and run down the road and leave the rest of us on the hook to make sure that his stuff turns out to be safe for our children and their children as well that move into those homes. Borup: Okay. Well, Commissioners, are we -- maybe let me get a feel for which direction we are leaning here. Are we leaning to require -- are we leaning to require a neighborhood meeting or that direction? Rohm: I think it would be in order. Zaremba: Well, I mean part of that is that the developer has to deal with the -- Montony: My name is John Montony I live in Heritage Subdivision across the street from this thing, this Blooming development. Our whole quality of life and atmosphere over here, which I have lived there for 30 years, has been under siege with the growth that's developed out towards that area. Like most of you, I suppose, where you live, but it makes us particularly sensitive to the security of our future and our children and pets and the financial security of our property in the future. Centers: You need to talk right into the microphone. The note taker is having a difficult time hearing, which it's late for him. Montony: It's late for me, too. I'm afraid this discussion of a community meeting, some area of the various residences, is rather fruitless, on the basis that my understanding from talking to all of the neighbors, without exception, renders a unanimous disapproval of the density of this proposed development. I don't know of anyone who supports it. I think it's to the detriment of all of us around here to continue with it on the basis of the density that is proposed. We have an excellent opportunity right now to nip this thing and try to get things back on the straight and narrow, because it's an open area, it's always been an open atmosphere, a rural atmosphere that we can all have pride in. If you dump this thing in the middle of it, that will send the whole area into the wrong course, in my opinion, encouraging other developments of high density and less quality than we'd like to see. I hope that we can rely upon the support of this Commission to try to encourage some different insight as to the basis of this development, because, again, with the unanimous disapproval of the density and the apparent needs of the developer to maintain the density, it looks like we have a situation where greed trumps quality of life. I think that's very unfortunate. With that, we need your support to do anything with it. Thank you kindly. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 91 of 100 Borup: Thank you. I would be interested, Commission, in a little bit of input on what direction -- and maybe a little bit of discussion would probably be appropriate also. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, as I stated at the start of my little speech, the proposed development falls within the guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan and I'm not suggesting that you ignore public testimony or comments, but that has to be the starting point for a developer when they are taking a look at a piece of property and seeing what they can do with it, so there needs to be some discussion back and forth. If you have -- if the developer just has to stop based upon this testimony, they can't develop period and the Comprehensive Plan is without merit and so it seems to me that that Comprehensive Plan was put together with a lot of thought and should at least be given an opportunity to come to some sort of resolution via discussion between developer and surrounding neighborhood -- neighbors, it just seems logical to me. Borup: Well, we, as a Commission, are pretty much bound by the Comprehensive Plan and that's -- City Council has a little more discretion there, but we need to follow that and existing ordinances and I apologize to the neighbors, I -- at least the first two or three phases of Havasu Creek are R-8, so I am not sure they -- there is R-4. Siddoway: Let me just clarify. Heritage Commons is R-8. Borup: Right. Siddoway: Havasu Creek is R-4. Borup: With a -- but how did we get the smaller lots in there? Siddoway: Planned development. Borup: That's what I was just going to add. So, it was an R-4 with a planned development that had reduced lot sizes. Sherer: No, it's R-8. Borup: Pardon? Oh, Havasu. Did I say Heritage? I meant Havasu. Havasu was R-4 with a planned development, so that had the reduced lot sizes. Is that correct? Okay. Siddoway: That's correct. Heritage Commons is R-8 with a planned development. Borup: Okay. Siddoway: And if I could just interject one thing, I'd like -- really like to separate the issue of density and quality, because high density is not necessarily bad quality. There certainly is bad quality high density out there and there is plenty of examples of bad high density. Heritage Commons, which everyone seems to like, is actually denser in the area closest to Locust Grove than what's being proposed. Heritage Commons has 25-foot wide lots. Even in the townhouses of this Blooming Meadows, they are Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 92 of 100 proposing 30 foot. They are, actually, larger lots than are even in Heritage Commons. You have got to separate quality from density, because just because it's more dense doesn't necessarily make it bad quality. You have to look at the quality, too. Borup: Well, I think that the direction I could see is R-8 zoning may be appropriate for this site, but they have gone beyond that and asking for a large reduction in that and I think that's where the Commission would have some discretion, if we so felt. Using Heritage Commons as an example, that is an R-8 and it's got some very narrow lots, but they also have some large lots. They have a nice variation of lot sizes also, which I don't see a lot of that here. Centers: Well, I go back to the neighborhood center, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Siddoway. The higher density was on the premise that a neighborhood center would go in there, so those high density people could walk to their services and we don't have any guarantee that the center is going to go in there. You want to put the high density first and, then, hope that that opens. You have to do that. But it may never -- because you may never find some commercial developer that wants to develop to the south right here. That's the only place he can go, based on the half moon that we have on the map and the applicant just stood up there earlier and said that this is identical to what he's going to do. He didn't use those words, but a similar development. So, that's going to take up another half of that portion. But you can't disagree with me, Mr. Siddoway, that that -- you have no guarantees that you're going to have a commercial light office developer come to you and want to put in a project there. Borup: Mr. Centers, the center of that half moon is right there at that point. Centers: Okay. So, you got some light office here. Borup: So, it just barely catches this property. Centers: Right. Borup: So, I mean -- Centers: Right. Borup: Like what happens is going to have to be down south from there. Centers: Yes. And that's my point. The reason -- you know, correct me if I'm wrong, the Comp Plan allows for the higher density due to the neighborhood centers, the next use around it. Siddoway: It requires it. Yes. Centers: Right. We are putting in the mixed-use high density first and, then, a hope that someone comes and, if not, it's going to remain just like it is. So, you're saying that if someone else comes and they want to put R-8, R-8, R-8, you're going to deny it? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 93 of 100 Siddoway: No. We would, actually, require at least R-8 and R-8 and R-8 and there already is proposed the -- at least half of that commercial node in Heritage Commons. The Final Plat has been submitted, it shows four commercial lots and it's going to Council within the next weeks. Centers: Down in this area? Siddoway: Right up on the north -- northeast corner. Centers: And you have dentist offices right? You're going to have some more dentist offices I think is what you're saying; correct? Siddoway: What's that? Centers: You're going to have some more dentist offices. Siddoway: I don't know what they are going to be at this point. Centers: I don't think you're going to have -- what the intent was -- and I heard it many times, so people could walk and shop. Siddoway: Yes. Centers: You don't have any of that coming, though. Siddoway: I don't understand your point, because -- Centers: My point is that you don't have any businesses coming that can keep you in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Borup: There is zoning for businesses. Centers: Yes. Yes. I agree with that. I know there is. Powell: Chairman Borup, may I interject? Commission Centers, the -- I know you know the purpose of that Comprehensive Plan and that purpose is to take a long range vision of what the community wants to be to establish that vision, so that when you're faced with these incremental decisions you have a long range document that you can guide that by. Now, the -- and I know this testimony came up in the general plan hearings, because all the developers were not particularly in favor of the neighborhood commercial concept, because they kept on saying if you don't have the roof tops, you won't get the commercial. You have to have the residences there before it creates the demand for the commercial development. Centers: I would agree with that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 94 of 100 Powell: So, if you abide by this vision that you have adopted for the city, then, you will get commercial there. It may be a little time, but you will have it in time. Centers: Well, I go back to my comment. Are you going to turn down an R-8, an R-8, and an R-8? I don't think so. Powell: Sir, I don't have the authority to turn down, but you do, and I would hope that you would look at the -- how that relates to the Comprehensive Plan and, yes, say that R-8 is not appropriate here, we want to see a mix of commercial and high density residential. Centers: I guess I would say if an applicant came in, then, you would tell them that, hey, this isn't fitting our Comp Plan, we need some light commercial here. Powell: Exactly. Centers: Yes. I'm sorry. Well, I guess to continue on, what I don't like about the project is the access and requiring all the people that access this property to go through other subdivisions. Borup: Why is it any different if it was a bigger subdivision? What if this was part of Havasu Creek to start with? Centers: That's true. But they were there first. I can't think of another subdivision that we have seen where they weren't allowed access off the main arterial. I cannot think of one. Can you help me? Borup: I can't. Centers: I can't either. Siddoway: You're about to see another one. I'm trying to think of one that has come through -- Borup: Well, yes, we just saw one earlier. Zaremba: There is the one on Ten Mile where it does have the access, but they have made it clear that the neighboring properties won't, because they have to access it through -- Berkeley Square? Siddoway: Berkeley Square. Borup: How about Trailway, the one we did earlier. Is it much different? Centers: It didn't access through the neighboring subdivisions, did it? Borup: At five locations it did. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 95 of 100 Centers: Oh, yes. Right. At five locations. Right. Anyway. Johnson: I'm the guy that owns the property to the south. Borup: Oh, good. We'd like to hear from you. You need to state your name and address. Johnson: I'm Lonnie Johnson, 4205 North Locust Grove. I was contacted earlier on about the road that would have bordered me on the property to the north and from the start I said it was fine. They talked about coming a couple hundred feet and, then, veering into their property and I said that I didn't see a problem with that at all. Later they came back and -- came back and said he'd like to go maybe 800 feet and I said, well, I'm not sure I want to go 800 feet. I don't know what that would do if I wanted to do something, to a certain width for so long a distance and I'd rather talk to a developer first to see if that would make it -- make my property too narrow or something. So, that's the only discussion I have had as far as -- I have never had a problem with entering Locust Grove across from Star Lane and I was always willing to do that. So, that's never been a problem. So, I guess the change of horses here maybe confused some things and -- Centers: You own both these parcels? Johnson: Yes. I own those two. So, the access part, really, I mean I was kind of surprised a week or two when I called someone and they said, no, we are not going to use that now, because they never had come and walked it with me or anything. So, there is a little confusion there. And we will probably do something as far as development at some point. We are just beginning to kick that around right now. Most of mine is in the circle -- the circle goes almost to my house, which is in the very back. I probably have two acres in the back of my house. We had mentioned at -- at planning about some type of commercial there and they felt it should be more towards the center, that we would need to be more houses. But we are open to whatever the Comprehensive Plan would call for and what makes a good neighborhood. So, we are just looking at things right now of we want to do in the future. Borup: Okay. Any questions for Mr. Johnson? Are we making any progress? Centers: Well, I think we have to at least require a neighborhood meeting. I do feel this way that the neighbors would agree to the neighborhood meeting if they feel that by doing so they are going to postpone it, at least. I mean that's just telling it like it is and I think most of them will agree with me on that. But I think -- I think we have to at least require a neighborhood meeting and, then, the staff has some issues they want covered. The other option that -- you know, and I don't need to give the Commission the option, the other option is to deny the application and they can have their neighborhood meeting prior to the City Council and do their thing, because the Council seems to -- whatever. Borup: That may not -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 96 of 100 Centers: But I'm not going to make any motion. I think my feelings are clear. Borup: You say you're not going to do a motion? Centers: I might support one. Failing: Could I make a little comment? Borup: Quickly. Failing: Commissioner Centers -- no. And I was listening to you and I understood your point a hundred percent and I want to make a statement. Ten years ago I moved here and fell in love with this love area and I moved here from California and, I'll tell you what, all you need to do is go and look and San Jose, Milpitas, and Cupertino and this is exactly what happened. They all sat there and said we got to get all this high density and, then, the industry comes and it's all good. Well, I'll tell you right now, almost every one of those projects turned into low income housing and go to the east side of San Jose and none of you all would want to live there, guaranteed, because you couldn't live there, you couldn't survive there. You know, so when you were making your comment, I understood exactly where you were coming from, but nobody else seemed to be catching it, you know. So, really, you want to think about that. If the developer wants to do this, make him go get somebody to put in all that stuff that you want there. Have him go out and promote that and get the industry or whatever you're going to put there, have it built, then, do this. Don't -- just like Mr. Centers said, don't start there and, then, hope they come, because they isn’t going to come. It isn’t going to happen on that street. Thank you. Borup: We do have a few options. Mr. Centers, I think, probably mentioned what they are. Any other feelings? Are we going to accomplish -- does the Commission feel if we continue it, have a neighborhood meeting, come back another public meeting, that it's going to be any different? Rohm: My only comment to that, Mr. Chairman, is I'm reluctant to recommend denial of something that falls within the Comprehensive Plan without first requiring a public meeting -- or a community meeting. I don't think that it's fair to either side of the equation to not make that a requirement, if, in fact, the proposal falls within the Comprehensive Plan and that's not saying that I don't understand where your folks are coming from, but if we have got a Comprehensive Plan that we, as a Commission, are supposed to support, then, if we turn around and deny an application based upon public testimony here, then, we haven't -- we have not supported our Comprehensive Plan as we are directed and that's just my position. Centers: Boy, I've got to address that. I totally disagree. That Comprehensive Plan is a road map, something that we look to as a guide, it's not a law, and I think our first obligation -- and this is not a political speech -- our first obligation is to hear the testimony and we have that in our notes from staff almost every time. I looked back I Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 97 of 100 didn't see it this time. I hope it's there. But part of our obligation -- or the main part of our obligation is to hear the public testimony and how they feel about neighboring projects that are submitted to us. It's obvious this audience feels very objectionable to this project. So, we are not in violation of our duties, Commissioner Rohm, if we listen to the public. Rohm: And I don't disagree with that a bit. Then, maybe the option is to make a motion to deny and, then, it's a done deal. Zaremba: Well, clearly, there are elements of this that comply with the Comprehensive Plan, which has been pointed out is a guideline, but it's a guideline for the future. Regardless of that, to me not having access -- for this kind of density not to have access directly to Locust Grove and have to go through Havasu Creek, that's a showstopper for me, when I learned tonight that there is a cooperative neighbor that could help that happen. So, whether I'm for this density or not, whatever goes there, I think the access could be worked out with the neighbor opposite Star and that would be the show stopper for me. Centers: Well -- and to sort of continue on, but my comment about a project being located on a -- having frontage on a main arterial, I can't remember a project where they didn't have access from that main arterial. You refer to Trail -- Borup: But that didn't have frontage. Centers: Exactly. On a main arterial and that's my point. This is the only one I have seen where we sit on a main arterial with no access and the ACHD, boy, they pointedly said no access from Locust Grove to any lots. Zaremba: Well, that's because it had to -- it was disqualified because of their offset requirements. It either has to align or offset farther than this property can do, so I understand why their answer was absolutely no, but we learned tonight that there is a possibility to fix it. Centers: Yes. And we may see it back because of that and if the applicant wants to negotiate and spend a little money with the southerly property owner for a little piece of land there for access, you know. Rohm: Mr. Chairman -- well, first, I suppose we better -- is the Public Hearing closed? Borup: It's not closed. Centers: And if we close it, then, it's closed and we either have to approve or deny. Borup: Yes. If we are talking about -- right. If we are going to close it, it will need to be approved or denied. Sherer: Could I make one more point? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 98 of 100 Borup: Hopefully you're not going to hurt your cause. Sherer: No. I appreciate what Mrs. Powell said, that this may be an illegal lot split. I don't think the Commissioners want to be in the position of approving an illegal lot split and having to, then, go back and turn things around. I think that might be the first step in the process. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing. Centers: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Zaremba: I assume that means all three items? Borup: All three. Rohm: Yes. All three items. Centers: Second. Borup: Okay. All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we deny approval -- recommendation to the City Council to move this project forward Public Hearing AZ 03-011 and Public Hearing PP 03-012, and Public Hearing CUP 03-022. Centers: What's your motion? Rohm: To deny of all three. Centers: I second that. Borup: Second? Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Okay. Powell: Chairman Borup, before you dismiss. Borup: Please. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 99 of 100 Powell: You might want to ask legal counsel do they need to give reasons for this denial or how they can get approval or is that just at the City Council level? Borup: It would be appropriate. Holinka: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, that is in the ordinance that you can -- that you have to give possible ways to bring the application back, so that it would be approved. Zaremba: I would mention a couple things. There needs to be a neighborhood meeting and there needs to be access to Locust Grove. Borup: How about having a legal parcel. Zaremba: And prove that it's a legal lot split. And, actually, to get the owners cooperation to annex along with it, whether it's split or not. Centers: So included. Borup: I guess I'm -- well, I've got a little concern on the percentages of variance from the -- from the zoning. I mean something like lot frontages are less than 50 percent of the requirement. Centers: I would agree with that. Zaremba: I would assume that subject's going to come up in the neighborhood meeting and there may be a whole different proposal. Centers: And I can see the point of that, you know, we give the reasons, so that the developer or applicant can go to the neighborhood -- or come back to the staff or go back to Council and say I have cured this or -- so here we are. Borup: So, did we give you enough? Holinka: Yes. Borup: Okay. The staff and this is -- this Commission just recommended denial and it will still go forward to City Council. With that, there will be another Public Hearing at City Council where this process will start all over again and do we know approximately - - there will be -- again, there will be notification sent out to the same ones that received it this time. It will be posted on the site and it will be printed in the newspaper. So, we do have three methods of notification. That's always helpful to -- but those living there should be able to see the -- watch for the sign there posted. Do we know approximately -- would that be in July sometime or is that about -- okay? Probably sometime the beginning of July you'd need to watch for that. Thank you, everybody, for coming. Centers: And hope you don't get on the last of the agenda. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 100 of 100 Borup: Commissioners, we do have -- we have continued one item, we have one other, so -- or two other items for next time, so it shouldn't be a long meeting, but -- the 19th. Zaremba: We don't have a very lengthy meeting for July 3rd. Centers: I saw that. Borup: I apologize I'm going to be out of town that night. Do we want to go ahead and adjourn and -- Rohm: Yes. I move we adjourn. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second to adjourn. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Meeting adjourned at 12:28 p.m. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:28 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: / / KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN DATE ATTESTED: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK