Loading...
2004 02-19Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting February 19, 2004. The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman Keith Borup. Members Present: Chairman Keith Borup, Commissioner Michael Rohm, Commissioner Leslie Mathes, Commissioner David Zaremba, and Commissioner David Moe. Others Present: Jill Holinka, Jolene Robles, Tara Green, Bruce Freckleton, Anna Powell, Wendy Kirkpatrick, Brad Hawkins-Clark, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call ___X___ David Zaremba ___X___ David Moe ___X___ Leslie Mathes ___X___ Michael Rohm ___X___Chairman Keith Borup Borup: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We'd like to begin our regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for February 19th. We'll start with roll call of the Commissioners. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Approve minutes of January 8, 2004 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting: Borup: The first item would be the minutes. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I have one comment on the minutes of January 8th and that is on page 51, starting about ten lines down in that first paragraph, I am speaking and there is a sentence that starts: The agreement received by the City Clerk January 8th, 2004, and second park -- that word park should part with a T, not a K. The second part to that same. I know I mumble sometimes, but that's my only comment. Borup: Anything else from anyone? Rohm: I don't have anything. Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move we approve the minutes of the meeting of January 8th, 2004, as amended. Rohm: Second that. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 2 of 105 Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from February 5, 2004: AZ 03-037 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 46.40 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for proposed Chesterfield Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC – east of North Black Cat Road and north of West Franklin Road: Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from February 5, 2004: PP 03-046 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 215 residential building lots and 34 common lots on 46.40 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Chesterfield Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC – east of North Black Cat Road and north of West Franklin Road: Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from February 5, 2004: CUP 03-070 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development with request for reduction to the minimum requirements for lot size, street frontage and front yard setbacks for patio homes for proposed Chesterfield Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC – east of North Black Cat Road and north of West Franklin Road: Borup: Okay. Our first hearing concerning Chesterfield Subdivision. We'd like to begin with continued Public Hearing AZ 03-037, request for annexation and zoning of 46.4 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for proposed Chesterfield Subdivision by Centennial Development, and Public Hearing PP 03-046, request for preliminary plat approval of 215 residential building lots on the same 46.4 acres, and CUP 03-070, request for Conditional Use Permit for a planned development and I'd like to open all three hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Kirkpatrick: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, and residents of El Gato Lane, this project is located on Pine Street. It's approximately a half mile north of West Franklin Road and a half mile west of Ten Mile. This project is directly south of the previously approved subdivisions Castlebrook No. 1 and I'll go ahead and put up -- I have a better map. That was the best one. Castlebrook No. 1 and Castlebrook No. 2. Castlebrook No. 2 lies directly to the north of the proposed subdivision and Castlebrook No. 1 is to the northwest of the proposed subdivision. Borup: What we are looking at is outlined in black. Kirkpatrick: Okay. The applicant is here this evening with three applications. The first one is for the annexation and zoning of 46.4 acres from RUT, which is a county zoning, it stands for rural urban transition zone, and they are requesting a rezone to R-8. There is an application for a preliminary plat for 215 building lots and an application for a Conditional Use Permit, which will be a planned development to allow reduced lot sizes, Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 3 of 105 permission to exceed the maximum block length of 1,000 feet, reduced frontage for subdivision lots and reduced setbacks. Staff is recommending approval of this subdivision. First, I'm going to go through a couple of Comprehensive Plan issues associated with this subdivision. Let's see. This is a section of our Comprehensive Plan's land use map, which, essentially, is sort of -- it's Meridian's vision plan for how Meridian should develop. Basically, when you come in and ask for -- to be annexed into the city or for a rezone, you need to comply with this Comprehensive Plan map. This area is designated as medium density residential. The zoning that they are asking for of R-8 units per acre complies with the medium density residential zoning on the Comprehensive Plan. I'm going to point out some of the surrounding Comprehensive Plan designations of this subject property. The subject property is shaded in the black there towards the southern part of this map, right below the number ten. Kind of south of the canal. That's the subject property. But to the east of the subject property we have a Comprehensive Plan designation of mixed use community. To the west of the subject property we have a Comprehensive Plan designation of medium density residential. To the south of the subject property on the south side of the railroad tracks we have Comprehensive Plan designations of industrial and high density residential. To the north we have the previously approved Castlebrook Subdivisions. The one directly to the north has zoning of R-8 and the one to the northwest has zoning of R-4. And I went through the exercise of explaining all that, because I know for a lot of folks when they first saw this plat and saw the density that was proposed in what is, essentially, now what looks like a rural area, they were really kind of taken aback by it, so I wanted to go through and explain the Comprehensive Plan designation and how this really fits in with the designations for this area. The applicant's proposing patio lots to the south, which feature a shared driveway, and staff is supportive of this, it's helping to provide a variety of housing types in the Meridian area and that's one of our Comprehensive Plan goals. And I'm going to go through some of the zoning issues associated with this project. A couple things I wanted to point out, because these are new things that I don't think have come to this planning commission previously. The applicant on the patio home lots is asking for an eight foot front setback from the edge of the pavement of the shared driveway and this is different from a traditional lot, because it is a shared driveway, but I just wanted to point out that that eight foot setback is definitely a smaller setback than I have seen working here before at the City of Meridian and, additionally, on some of the street side setbacks, some of the lots that are located off of -- if I can get the street name. I wanted to make sure I had my street names correct. Okay. The side yard setbacks for several of the lots on the south side of the Meadow Pine and on the south side of Kaspell Street, the applicant's proposed a five foot landscape buffer and, then, a five foot side setback. So, essentially, that's a ten foot side setback, where normally they would be required to have a 20 foot side setback. So, I just wanted to point out that the applicant asked for these things. Staff is supporting this project and the diversity that this project brings to Meridian and I wanted to point out that this is something different and I want to address -- initially I think we have a lot of neighbors here this evening to discuss the extension of Pine Street. I'll go back to our area map. So, our subject property is, again, outlined there in black. Through the approval of Castlebrook No. 1 and Castlebrook No. 2, the developer was required to extend Pine Street to El Gato to provide access to the subdivisions. Castlebrook No. 2 was Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 4 of 105 approved in May 2003 by Council and Castlebrook No. 1 was approved in October 2002. So, essentially, this extension of Pine Street to El Gato has already been approved as part of those two previously approved subdivisions. So, I just wanted to point that out. I know that's an issue and why a lot of folks are here this evening. The completion of the extension of Pine Street actually will be a condition of approval before this plat can be signed. Essentially, it's landlocked today. Before this plat can be signed Pine Street needs to be constructed, so that there is access to the subdivision. I went through the ACHD comments prior to the meeting and, essentially, they have no concerns over this extension other than that, it needs to be constructed to provide access for the subdivision. Are there any questions of staff? Borup: Questions from the Commission? Zaremba: I have two, actually. Kirkpatrick: Okay. Zaremba: Thank you for your presentation. On page four of your comments, the top paragraph, the last sentence, you say the applicant has indicated they will construct a five foot asphalt multi-use parkway -- pathway, I'm sorry, along the west side of Ten Mile Creek. Kirkpatrick: Uh-huh. Zaremba: Doesn't the parks department usually require that the multi-use pathways are ten feet wide and, then, plus a little buffer zone on each side? Kirkpatrick: Yeah. Actually, I talked to Doug Strong, the Parks Director, and in this location the regional pathway will be on the other side of the canal. This is just a pathway for the residents of the subdivision and it will, eventually, connect to a micropath in Castlebook. Zaremba: Okay. Kirkpatrick: But this is not the regional pathway, that's why it's five feet in width. Zaremba: Thank you. Then, on page seven, your additional considerations, park drainage area, you discuss whether or not some of the drainage areas will be countable as open space. If they are being counted as open space, do we have a requirement specifying maximum slope and should we add that? Kirkpatrick: I know we have done to where you cannot exceed the three-to-one slope ratio. We could add that here. Zaremba: I would add that here. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 5 of 105 Kirkpatrick: And I think we probably would add that. Borup: I think that's in the ordinance. Zaremba: Oh, is it in the ordinance? Okay. So, that's automatically enforced. All right. Never mind. Those were my questions. Borup: Okay. Mathes: I have a question. On Pine and El Gato, Pine goes from Black Cat this way east and, then, it stops at the edge of the subdivision and, then, El Gato starts there and goes to Ten Mile or how does that work? Kirkpatrick: Let's see. Let me get my map out. Zaremba: Pine currently ends at Ten Mile. Kirkpatrick: And, actually, there is still -- Zaremba: And extended west. I guess there is still a question about what the name will be, because -- Mathes: Are they going the whole mile? Zaremba: Eventually, yes. Kirkpatrick: Eventually there will -- Pine Street will continue to El Gato Street. Mathes: Is it like Emerald, Executive, Presidential going on here? Zaremba: Uh-huh. And they will eventually connect to those. Exactly. Mathes: Oh. Okay. Zaremba: Everything you named, plus Pine and El Gato, will eventually be one street. Mathes: Okay. Borup: And, Wendy, you -- you had mentioned about the construction of Pine Street in conjunction with the other subdivision. Who is responsible for that construction? Was each developer to do half or has that been -- Kirkpatrick: Actually, probably fortunately for the project, the same developer is working on Chesterfield and Castlebrook One and Two. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 6 of 105 Borup: Okay. So, it doesn't really matter if each one is half or what they are doing. But wasn't -- but that was the requirement for the previous subdivision. Kirkpatrick: Correct. And, then, as a condition of approval this final plat cannot be signed and lots cannot be sold until that road has been constructed. Mathes: From what point to what point? Kirkpatrick: It needs to extended from -- Borup: The whole border of the subdivision. Kirkpatrick: Yeah. Basically, the whole border of the subdivision. Mathes: But not the whole mile? Rohm: From here to here. Zaremba: Northern border. That's the railroad track you're marking. Rohm: Oh. Excuse me. Here. Borup: No. Mathes: I don't think so. Borup: Just the border of the subdivision. That's all they own. Rohm: The road would have to extend from Ten Mile, though, would it not? Mathes: I don't think so. Kirkpatrick: And, Chairman, members of the Commission, we also have the developer here who wanted -- when he gives his testimony can explain all that of when that will be extended. Borup: Okay. We will do that. Zaremba: I think Castlebrook had to do this part and I would assume that this group needs to continue it to there. It will eventually connect here, but that property is not in question at the moment. Borup: Okay. Rohm: It's, actually, coming from the west, then, and feeding back to the east. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 7 of 105 Mathes: Right. Rohm: Okay. Right. Zaremba: That's my assumption. Borup: Any other questions from any of the Commissioners? Is the developer ready for their presentation? Amar: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Kevin Amar, address 114 East Idaho, Suite 230, here in Meridian. I'm here on behalf of Chesterfield Subdivision, which we are in complete agreement with the staff report, so I really won't go over much of the staff report this evening, unless you have questions and which I'll answer. But we have met with staff on numerous occasions and this is the second rendition of this project. The one wasn't quite, I guess, what everybody wanted to see. So, we are moving forward with this project trying to provide something of a little more variety and not the same style in Meridian. I will start off by presenting the subdivision and telling you a little bit about the project, how we arrived at where we are at, and, then, try to answer some of the questions that you have. We also have our land planner here tonight, Shawn Nickel, who can ask any questions that I'm sure your staff can answer them better than we can, but -- and we have our engineer here that can answer some of the engineering related questions, sewer and water or storm drainage, if you have any of those questions. Could I get -- Wendy, could you put up that map? Actually, could you put that map up first? Thanks. This project is located in this location. It looks like mine is dying now. It is east -- or, I'm sorry, it is south of what will be Pine Gato, because I'm not sure if it's going to be Pine or El Gato yet, but it will be east of what will be Pine or El Gato. If you look at the project, this square has been approved as Castlebrook Subdivision No.1. This square is Castlebrook Subdivision No. 2. And we are here tonight on Chesterfield Subdivision. It is a -- it is a continual flow back in towards the city, so we are not trying to go away from the city, but more -- I don't know if you can call it an in-fill, because it hasn't been developed around it, but we are not pushing further to the west. We are trying to come back to the east. So, I think it will help the city in that regard. We have the railroad tracks bordering our southern boundary, which some day maybe a light rail system or other type transit area. So, it is an area that a little more density is requested, so it will support that style of transportation. If you look at the rest of the area, you can see most of Meridian really has developed up to this point. Black Cat being the dividing line, if you will, of anything going further west. So, as the city wants to have orderly growth, we are filling in the city before we go out further from the boundaries. Wendy, now if I can get the other map. Thank you. The project itself has 215 residential lots. We are requesting preliminary plat approval, annexation to R-8, a variance, and I don't know all the other terms that we are asking for. One question that came up -- and you may have the other map. The Fire Department code requires that the distance from the two accesses be half the diagonal distance of the site, so we did move this road from this original location further to the west in order to accommodate that. So, the variance we are requesting is in this location. It does exceed the thousand foot block length, but that was done in Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 8 of 105 cooperation with the city trying meet all the codes and I guess picking the -- which one we needed to meet more. Some of the -- we have ten percent park space in this project or open space. I'm trying to intersperse these parks -- the larger parks throughout the subdivision, so all residents will have easier access to the project. If you will look along this southern boundary -- if you look along the southern boundary where we have the patio homes, we also tried to incorporate between the patio homes some open space, so the patio homes will either have access -- close access to this open space or they will have direct access to a park space nearby. So, we are trying -- we understand we are asking for smaller lots, but we are trying to provide a larger area for people to go to that really will provide an area to play in and those parks will have some playground equipment, tot lot style -- in fact, we have a picture here if you'd like to see that, we can put on the overhead. We are going to have some picnic areas. We are going to have a volleyball court. So, there is functionality in these open spaces, not just grass and open space, but something for people to go and do. Along our western boundary this is a pathway that we are constructing. It will be through an agreement with Nampa- Meridian Irrigation District, they own that property, but we will put a pathway along the edge of that canal. We have spoken with them and, in fact, they are in the process right now of getting the license agreement signed in Castlebrook No. 1. This pathway -- can you put up that vicinity map? Powell: No. Amar: Okay. Sorry, I can't show you that. Kirkpatrick: We are going to show you the tot lot first. Amar: Okay. The pathway will be a continuation of what we included in Castlebrook No. 2. So, we are trying -- hopefully, some day it will all connect back to Fuller Park. The city pathway, I think you asked, will be on the other side of the canal. The Ten Mile Creek, actually. Oh. Thank you. So, this is the property -- we have on this portion of Castlebrook along the Ten Mile Creek provided a five foot pathway and, then, it has a bridge connecting over to Fuller Park. That Fuller Park pathway I think is ten feet wide and is the city pathway, but we didn't have the ability to get from Castlebrook No. 2 without putting a bridge to Fuller Park and with the school being in this location and also having a park space there, we wanted the residents in here to be able to get to that community park. So, in Castlebrook -- or in Chesterfield we will be constructing a pathway along here and we hope -- although we do not control this property -- some day if this develops, whoever the developer may be, would put a pathway along there to connect those. We don't control that, we can't say that that will or will not happen, but we are trying to set I guess precedent up front to do that. And as I mentioned before, this pathway agreement has gone through the process now with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District and their attorney is finalizing the documents and that signature will be forthcoming. So, it is something we have spoken about. With respect to Pine Street, this project will complete the section of Pine from Ten Mile Creek to this subdivision's western boundary. So, it will add the full right of way, which is an additional eight feet of right of way to make the full width right of way for that entire section. So, we will -- Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 9 of 105 before we can build any of this, we will have to have the street constructed with Castlebrook Phase 2 to this point. And, then, at that point when -- should we start to build this one next, we will have to continue that -- that Pine Street all the way to our first phase. It will be built in phases and eventually up to the Ten Mile Creek. With the approvals of Castlebrook No. 2, this neighborhood requested because Pine from Ten Mile to the east is a private road and those neighbors and those residents do not want public traveling across their private road and so -- and in the approval of Castlebrook No. 2 we had told the neighbor that -- and as part of the conditions of approval that we will barricade that road off with concrete barricades or something. We have to make sure the Fire Department is okay with that, but they have already indicated they are, because they have access from the other direction. So, we will continue that barricade, even though we will have to improve the right of way on front of his house, not on his property, it will be for him, I guess. It's not going to be used for the residents within this subdivision, within Chesterfield. And we have located our second access, obviously, on the other side of that line, so people can get in and out of that. But we wanted to be aware and put on the record that that is -- we know that that was a condition of approval in Castlebrook No. 2 and we will continue that through, even though we have to improve some of the right of way with this project, it will not be used at this time until either this piece develops or some day if that road goes through, but it will be there in the future when it does need to be used. Borup: So, at this point there is going to be a permanent barricade to stay? There will be a permanent barricade at that point? Amar: Yes. Borup: So, no vehicle traffic -- Amar: To the east. Borup: -- can go to the east. Amar: Correct. Zaremba: While we are on the subject of the roadway, though, I do remember that requirement for Castlebrook. What I don't remember, did Castlebrook need to build half the road plus 12 feet and you're building the other eight feet? Is that what you meant? Amar: Correct. Zaremba: So -- and you're just agreeing that the barrier will cross the new eight feet as well? Amar: Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 10 of 105 Zaremba: Okay. Amar: It will be over the full width, so the gentleman's property line is approximately in this location. So, that barricade will be right here across the full width of the roadway, so people cannot travel to the east until that develops to the east. People have to come out and go back to the west, which is something we understand and was already a condition of approval. So, we are trying to carry that through with Chesterfield also. Some of the -- we did have a neighborhood meeting on this project and some of the neighbors to our west -- originally we had these lots backed up to those neighbors and that was a concern of theirs, so we relocated those to the other side. Fronts of houses will be facing their pasture and their yard and, then, there will, actually, be landscaping and park space between the houses and their property. And, then, another neighbor that lives in this area gains access to his irrigation water down here. So, we are fencing the boundaries of the project, but we will have to be providing gates for those fences to get -- to get in and out of the irrigation rights for the gentleman that lives here. Another of the concerns that came up that night, along with Ten Mile Creek -- and this was also a condition of approval in Castlebrook No. 2, these lots are a little larger and these will be required to be 1,600 square foot homes, the same as was required in Castlebrook No. 2, trying to be consistent, again, with what approvals we have already received. Again, I think it's a good project, it's a project that we really did try to think out and we understand this area is for medium density residential, which is from four to eight units to the acre. Our density is 4.63 units to the acre. Well, we are really on the low side of what the city envisions for this area and trying to be as harmonious with what the city envisions and what the neighbors have living there and trying to put that all in one bundle and put it together before this body and get approval. With that, I believe I will stand for any questions. Engineering, I'm going to defer those storm drain questions to my engineer, because -- Zaremba: I think I got my drainage question answered, so -- Amar: Okay. Zaremba: -- the ordinance will cover that and I'm sure your engineer is complying with it. Amar: He certainly will. Zaremba: You mentioned the fences and making access to the irrigation canal -- irrigation ditch. Would you remember if the people that you're doing that for, is that the Caseys? Amar: I can point them out. Zaremba: Okay. I was going to put in the record that we have a letter from them asking just on that subject, so I wanted to make sure -- Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 11 of 105 Amar: Yes. Zaremba: -- you are taking care of them. Sir, you will need to wait and testify with the microphone. At any rate -- Amar: We will make access to anybody -- we can't cut water or access to the water off. Zaremba: Right. Amar: So, we have to fence it as a condition of approval, but that doesn't mean -- and what I told them is we will put the lock -- if they want to lock it on their side, so they can control access to who is getting to their water and who is getting to their property. Zaremba: Okay. I just wanted to make sure the Casey's concerns were brought up. While we are on the subject of fencing, around the patio homes do you envision any fencing? Let me preface that by saying my concern when we reduce setbacks is Fire Department access, should something happen. I notice the Fire Department didn't say anything about that, but when we reduce access I get concerned about having fences go along property lines, which doesn't give the fire department enough room to move. Do you envision fences between them? Amar: We will have fences and I think one of the conditions of approval was the fences would be four feet in height and be see through. Zaremba: I saw that along the public pathway. That's for visual safety -- Amar: We will put that on -- correct. So, around all the -- if you look here, around, obviously, these common areas, but also in this area and, then, on the lot lines, not along the southern boundary, because that will be a six foot fence, but along all the lot lines it will be a four foot high -- what's the proper term? Zaremba: Site obscuring? Amar: Well, no, it's open -- Kirkpatrick: Call it semi solid. Amar: Bridgetower, are you familiar with the fencing on there? You can kind of see through it, but it's not solid either. I don't know how to explain it. Rohm: Transparent. Amar: Okay. Transparent. That will be the fencing. But it will be four feet in height, so -- and we did talk to the Fire Department. One of the reasons that -- this is the second rendition. The first one had -- these accesses were too long. We tried to keep those Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 12 of 105 down as little as possible, so the Fire Department can gain access to all the houses there. Zaremba: Okay. If they have considered all the issues, I won't add that. Amar: We have tried. Zaremba: Okay. Let me ask one other. This area here -- you identified several of them between the patio homes as being open space. Is this a walkable pathway connecting those two streets? Amar: Yes, sir. Zaremba: Okay. Great. Amar: Yes. If I might bring up one comment on the front yard of these lots, we are asking for an eight foot setback to those garages. Scott, could you put up the overhead with the -- there is a subdivision in -- it's, actually, in Boise, but it's similar in nature to this. They did a 20 foot setback and I'll show you on this picture why we are asking for eight feet. The vision is we don't want people parking in front of their garage, we want them to park in their garage, because you get cars and it just looks a little more clustered. So, if you can see here, this is a 20 foot setback to the front of the houses. Well, it leaves enough room for people to park there. If we push the houses in tighter, first of all, it gives more open space in their backyard. Second of all, it forces them to park in their garage. The eight feet is enough room to get cars turned in and out of there. So, that, again, was done with some, I guess, forethought. With respect to the driveway itself, there will be a ribbon curb around this asphalt. That's something that we have to install as a developer, but we are trying to keep that from breaking down. Asphalt always breaks down on the edges, so there will be a curb that goes all the way around that. And, then, if you have the other landscape -- that's the one. This is what we envision the -- so, all of the patio homes you have got these driveways here, but you have one driveway that accesses four houses every 200 feet or greater, instead of a driveway every 30 or 40 feet. So, this really becomes more of a streetscape than a sea of asphalt or concrete and driveway. So, although the lots are the same size whether we would have turned them the other way, this creates more of an esthetically pleasing look. But that was just some information in pictures that you can actually see what it would look like, rather than -- I wish it would have been sunny. It was sunny, but I wish it would have been green, it would look even better, but -- at least it was sunny today. I think with that I'll stand for any questions. Borup: Any other questions from any of the Commissioners? Rohm: I have got a couple of questions. You mentioned your neighborhood meetings. At those neighborhood meetings did you keep minutes or notes of the concerns of the neighborhood and try and provide response to specific concerns as you went through Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 13 of 105 your neighborhood meeting or is this just an assumption that the proposal that's before us incorporates those concerns into the final proposal? Amar: I guess I can -- did we respond, I guess we returned phone calls back to -- Rohm: I'm more interested in when you have a neighborhood meeting individuals will speak to their concerns about a specific portion of your development and if, in fact, it's just to take their input, but no response, there is no value in the neighborhood meeting. And so from my perspective it makes it easier for us to be able to know that you have gone through that process, if, in fact, there is a list of concerns on one side and a list of responses on the other, so we can say, okay, here is the concern, say it was on fencing, and you said, okay, I understand what you're saying and, then, this is what our response to that would be. And in this type of development when there is a number of people in the audience to speak to it, it's very important for us to at least be able to know that you have an opportunity to incorporate those concerns as you move forward, otherwise, it puts us in a -- a pretty tough spot. So, I'd like you to speak to some concerns that came up. Maybe you will be able to solve some problems before individuals have to speak. I just -- I think that might be in good keeping. Amar: Thank you. At the neighborhood meeting -- I don't remember how many fliers went out, but there were probably 15 to 20 people there. Fewer people, obviously, than are here tonight. Some of the concerns that came up are some that we did address. Along this Ten Mile Creek the neighbor to our east was worried about the number of houses and the size of houses and what he was going to see from his house and so we did eliminate from our initial proposal a lot in this area, making those lots a little larger and, then, requiring the homes on those lots also to be larger. So, these homes will be 1,600 feet minimum home size, excluding the garage on these lots. Providing him, I guess, some answers to his questions. And, then, we had neighbors on the west side who were concerned with two things, one, this road at one point stubbed through to a property that really was -- it was ineffective to have a stub road there and so we eliminated that stub road by putting lots in there. We also pushed the lots -- instead of bordering the west boundary, we pushed those back to the east bordering the Kennedy Lateral in order to have the fronts of the houses looking onto his property, rather than the backs of the houses looking onto his property. That is also where the fencing issue came up and the gates with respect to the access to the irrigation. So, I guess to answer your question, yes, we did take notes and we do try to respond to the items that we hear at those meetings and, in fact, in this case we did change the plat to reflect that meeting. I think a lot of the neighbors here tonight are for the extension of -- and maybe I'm speaking on their behalf or out of turn, but it's for the extension of Pine and that really isn't -- the extension of Pine, as Wendy has suggested or stated, has already been approved and it will go through. ACHD also approved this subdivision. This subdivision does not extend Pine any further. Well, I guess it extends Pine from this point to here. It, really, just completes the width on Pine for the majority of the project, so you have full width street, instead of, as was stated, half plus 12 feet. So, I don't know if I've answered your -- Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 14 of 105 Rohm: No. That's exactly where I wanted to go, because there will be people that will want to speak to some of the differences between your proposal and what they'd like to see and I just -- it's important to us that you have addressed those as you put your proposal together and it just gives -- it gives us more information. Thank you. Amar: Thank you. Borup: Is there anything else concerning ACHD's comments that would be pertinent to mention? Amar: No. The other comments from ACHD were really standard comments with respect to road width, interior road width. We have got an island in this area, on either side of the island, but with respect to the subdivision itself and how Pine will be extended, I think it's really just the completion of that right of way that would be pertinent to Pine itself. ACHD did hear this probably two weeks ago and did approve the plan as presented. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Amar: Thank you. Borup: Unless there is anybody else -- all right. Thank you. Was there -- was there anybody who wanted to hear from the engineer on anything? I think we are covered on that, aren't we? Okay. Well, we'd like to open up for public testimony at this time. I had someone who mentioned there may be a neighborhood representative. Is that true? Okay. What we are able to do in that situation with a neighborhood representative is allow extra time, so we are not -- don't need to limit that to the three minutes. Noll: I appreciate that, because we have sat 40 minutes or so talking about it up until now, so -- Borup: Well, a lot of times it's a lot longer. I mean there is no relationship between the two. The purpose of the developer is to present their projects so everyone can have an understanding of what we are talking about. Noll: I appreciate that. Zaremba: I'd like to add, though, that the spokesman is using the other people's time. Noll: I am. Borup: Right. And that's what I wanted to find out. How many people here is he representing? Okay. Do we have -- do we have a neighborhood on -- one on the east and one on the west? Is that how we are divided? Are you representing which neighborhood, then? Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 15 of 105 Noll: I'm representing the people that live on El Gato Lane. Borup: East and west. Noll: There is not El Gato east of this subdivision. Borup: Okay. But isn't there a road there, though? Noll: No, sir, there is not. Zaremba: Just private access. Powell: Sir, can you state your name for the -- Borup: Yeah. Noll: I'm waiting. Powell: I know. Noll: I'm waiting to be que'd to start. Borup: This is your que. Noll: Are you going to que me to start? Borup: Yes. Noll: Okay. Borup: Let's go ahead. Noll: Okay. My name is Tom Noll. That's N-o-l-l. I'm a Ph.D. economist. I live on El Gato Lane and I'm representing some of my friends and neighbors here who live on El Gato Lane as well. I'm going to talk a little bit tonight -- I'm going to -- I have introduced myself and I want to talk a little bit about the El Gato neighborhood. I'm going to present the issues, our position on those issues, and I'm going to close and give you a handout and tell you a little story about the neighborhood. It's a little bit different testimony than you hear on the dry engineering stuff, but I'll get into some of that, too, because I have that ability. Borup: Maybe at the beginning could we establish the neighborhood that you're talking about. Could we get the other map up? Noll: If you have got a pointer. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 16 of 105 Borup: There should be a pointer right there at your -- Noll: Yeah. This will -- okay. Okay. This is the proposed subdivision. I think we need to go back to the map that has the sections on it, Section 10 and Section -- this is the proposed subdivision here. As the developer has explained, this is Chesterfield, these are the Castlebrook Subdivisions. This is El Gato Lane here that runs for one mile, plus this little -- it runs for one mile here between -- this is McDermott Road and this is Black Cat Road and the road runs here. There is about -- you can count them up, but I would say about 25 or so residents on that lot -- on that street, a one mile street. Then, there is a private road there that's Pine that parallels El Gato for a few hundred feet and, then, angles down here and serves these people. I'm representing the folks that live on El Gato Lane, this paved road that runs here for this -- Borup: This is all west of Ten Mile? West of Black Cat I mean. Noll: West of Black Cat, too. Borup: That's what I mean to say, west of Black Cat. Noll: It is. Yes, sir. Borup: So, that the whole neighborhood you're talking about is all west of Black Cat? Noll: Yes, sir. Borup: Okay. Noll: That neighborhood was developed in and plat -- you know, platted in about 1974, so it's a 30-year-old neighborhood. As I said, I'm speaking for the residents on El Gato. I visited every resident on El Gato, except for one. You can't always get to all the people. And I'd just like the El Gato residents to raise their hand, the ones that are represented -- that are here tonight. I think that's important. I think it's important, too, just to let you know, we have two irrigation circuits that feed out of the Kennedy Lateral and that's how many of our neighbors know each other. Of the 25 people, I would say most people on that street know most of the other people. That's unusual. I challenge other folks in this audience to name everybody that lives on their street. It would be a tough task. Anyway -- and I read the paper, I read the paper -- read it this morning about Meridian and the connections and the goals of Meridian and trying to develop more of a character, less of a bedroom community, and I think what Meridian is trying to develop is what exists today on El Gato Lane. I'll talk more about that. I would also like to say that El Gato is not just a residential street, there is some businesses on there and there is contract farming. These are five acre parcels and there is seed crops grown on a couple of those parcels at least. There is also a day care center on the street and I would say that, you know, most of the people are very concerned about this development and that's why we are here tonight. We also have a long history of working with the government with developers. You know that McDermott is the county Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 17 of 105 line road and the neighborhood has worked extensively with what's off your map, uncharted territory to the west, which is in Canyon County. We have quite a long working relationship with Canyon County and a developer that built a five acre development just to the west of McDermott off of El Gato Lane. So, we want to emphasize that we have a history of working with folks and that's important to realize. We'd like to extend that history and work with the Castlebrook and Chesterfield developers, as well as the City of Meridian. I'm going get into the issues and one issue that comes up that I think is really important and the developer talked about this, is that -- the public meetings. I think it's important to know that not a single family on El Gato Lane was notified or invited to a public meeting. Now, I'm sure that the letter of law was met on the public meetings, but the intent of law is to notify the impacted parties and I will state that, again, not a single family on El Gato Lane was notified or invited to any of the public meetings. Borup: Did any of you attend? Noll: We didn't know about it. Powell: Chairman Borup, we need to have this woman come up to the podium and give her name, please. Ferrera: This will just take a second. My name is Kathy Ferrera and I live on El Gato Lane also and a couple of us attended -- we heard about it on very short notice the same day. When that Pine Street extension was approved we didn't know. Nobody on El Gato Lane is within 300 feet of Black Cat Road and we got no notice and we found out -- Rohm: I was just curious. I -- Ferrera: That's why there is so many here tonight. Noll: This is our -- this is our chance, so that's why we are here tonight. So, as I said, none of us were invited to the developer's meetings. We have got some issues and they are engineers and civil engineers and such in our neighborhood and we have worked with them and I'm going to outline the key issues here that we have. Okay. The present subdivision plans for Castlebrook and Chesterfield do not include a residential connector -- a connector connection's at Ten Mile Road. I think you folks have pointed that out earlier in the meeting today. So, what that means is all subdivision traffic from over 400 residences is going to enter and exit on Black Cat Road. I should say that not one of the three proposed subdivisions -- this is according to ACHD documents. Not one of the three proposed subdivisions have completed final platting in the decision process. There is no iron in the ground for these. So, what that means is that layout -- design and layout changes are still appropriate at this time. I think that's an important fact to remember. It also -- another issue is that it appears that ACHD and Meridian Planning and Zoning have assumed that there will be no traffic impacts to the existing El Gato neighborhood from the proposed subdivisions. Now, remember, the only Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 18 of 105 entrance and exit from the subdivision is directly opposite El Gato Lane as proposed here tonight and that's 400 residences. We question the assumption that there will be no traffic impacts. Borup: Whose assumption is that? Noll: We heard it from ACHD and we've heard it from you and we have seen no traffic - - Borup: What have you heard from us? Noll: We have seen no traffic studies of El Gato Lane. Of traffic impacts on El Gato Lane. El Gato is not even listed. Borup: Okay. Noll: So, we have -- Borup: You're assuming that they are going to travel west down El Gato to go to their destination. Noll: We assume that out of 400 residences some will travel west. Zaremba: Can you tell what would attract them to go that direction? Noll: Well, Horace Greeley said go west, but that's not enough of an attraction. There is the Nampa Center, which is becoming, you know, much more of a commercial location. There is, you know, Caldwell. There is the new -- what, Costco is building something out in Nampa now. I think there is plenty of attractions for people to go west. And, as I said, you know, I think -- Zaremba: But the only thing they would gain by going across El Gato is getting to McDermott instead of Black Cat. They can't go any farther than that and they still have to go somewhere else. Noll: Well, I think that's -- that's a good point. Let's -- we may come back to that. I want to -- let's talk about some of the other things, because I think there is a way we can solve all these problems and that's what we are going to get at here. Under the -- another issue that we have is under the proposed subdivision layout, El Gato Lane will become a de facto residential collector, because it will have a straight line connection into the Pine Street corridor here. Existing El Gato Lane was not designed or built to the ACHD residential collector specifications and cannot meet the design criteria. It cannot meet it because of the 25 residences, the right of way width, as well as high water table, because this is -- it's bounded on both sides by irrigation ditches, by drain ditches. So, during much of the summer the water table is within a foot or so of the road surface. I'd like to say that an in-line connection from a residential collector to a Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 19 of 105 mile long residential street doesn't pass today's design criteria and I think had the situation been reversed, had Castlebrook and Chesterfield been 30 year subdivisions and I was here tonight proposing the El Gato Subdivision, you folks would not approve it, because El Gato Lane would not meet residential collector standards. However, the 30 year history is different than that. We were out there for 30 years and now the in-fill is being developed. My point is that El Gato Lane does not meet residential collector standards. We think that an in-line connection from a residential collector to a mile long residential street will create traffic and safety problems. And I'm going to say we think that allowing that connection, Meridian Planning and Zoning and ACHD would be remiss in that situation. But we are not -- we are going to propose a solution and we believe it's better to prevent the problem at the design stage, rather than to try and deal with them later on after 400 plus houses get built. As we talked earlier, you know, the developer and as your planners talked, the El Gato neighborhood is zoned RT or RUT and services as a transition between rural farmland and urban land. We think -- even though it meets the requirements, we think that the appropriate transition from RT or RUT to high density subdivisions proposed here is inappropriate and we'd support lower housing density in these subdivisions. I realize that some of these have already passed through the preliminary approval, so that may be a negotiation point for Chesterfield, but it may not be something that we have leeway on with Castlebrook. I want to say I did talk to every family on the El Gato Street, except for one that I haven't been able to get ahold of and not one family supports this subdivision as proposed. It's unanimous. So, our recommendations are that we -- we recommend two things. We recommend that the entrance to the proposed subdivision -- we recommend that that be moved north on Black Cat Road to just north of the Kennedy Lateral. I think I can show where that would be on this. Here is -- oh, we've got dueling lights. But, yeah, Gene's got it just correct. Here is the subdivision. This is El Gato and we are recommend that this entrance be -- the entrance moved north and to follow the Kennedy Lateral up to here. Now, there is a couple of reasons why we think that's a good idea. One is that -- Borup: Let me interrupt you a little bit there. We are only talking about one the subdivision tonight. We can't address anything on the other subdivisions. You realize that? Noll: I do. Borup: Okay. And this subdivision only has access to the Pine Street extension that the other subdivision is building. Noll: I understand that. As I mentioned earlier, these subdivisions, our understanding and the developer pointed out here tonight, it's the same developer building all of the subdivisions and as the ACHD documents point out, none of his subdivisions, not one, have been approved -- have done the final platting. So, that's an important consideration here. Rohm: Well, Tom, but the final plat, albeit hasn't been completed, but the number of lots and the layout won't change in any of them. That's more of a formality than it is a Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 20 of 105 cast in concrete and just because the stakes aren't there, the number of lots more than likely won't change in any one of these developments. Noll: Well, maybe in the first two, in the Castlebrook ones, but I think we are here at the preliminary stage for Chesterfield, aren't we, Mike? Borup: Yes, we are. Rohm: We are. Borup: And that was the point I'm trying to make, you're talking about this Commission addressing stuff in Castlebrook, which that is not something that we have the authority to do, for one thing. Zaremba: Well, there is actually two ways that we don't have the authority. We are here only to consider this application. We cannot bring in previous applications and the roadway is decided by ACHD. If you have a challenge to them, you need to make it to them. We don't have the power to change what ACHD does. Noll: Here is our -- we have a proposal and I would like to work through it. Those are valid questions and -- Borup: No. These are accurate statements and I appreciate your proposal, but if it's something that we have no power or authority to do, it's not good use of the time here tonight. Noll: We have the -- Borup: And changing Chesterfield's access to Ten Mile or anything else is really a mute point. As was stated, this is a landlocked piece of property. The only access they have is right there at that point. Noll: That's correct. I'd like to finish my testimony, if I may. Borup: Well, yes, but -- I mean you do have extra time, but we don't have all night. Noll: I understand. Borup: Is what I'm trying to say, so -- Noll: I understand. Borup: -- that's why I'd like you to maybe move on to the other points that maybe we can talk about and accomplish something. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 21 of 105 Noll: I'll get to those. I appreciate your concerns, Mr. Commissioner. What we have proposed -- and I'm going to go over it one more time, even though it's very contentious, is that the entrance to the proposed subdivisions be moved north on Black Cat Road to just north of the Kennedy Lateral. This placement is at the top of a small rise which improves the visibility and safety, should reduce the traffic on El Gato Lane and meets the residential collector specifications by not having an in-line connection from a residential street to a residential collector. Our second recommendation is to lower the housing density in the proposed subdivisions to improve the transition from rural farmland to urban development. What the El Gato neighborhood's position is -- and I think this is why we are here tonight, because we have the Planning and Zoning Commission, we have the developer, and we have the El Gato residence, and I think we can all work together. Our position is we will oppose the Chesterfield Subdivision as long as there is a direct in-line connection from El Gato Lane to the propose Castlebrook and Chesterfield Subdivisions. But we will support those subdivisions, all three of them, with some design changes if that road alignment can be changed. And I think that's an important key. So, what we are talking about here is how we will work with the neighborhood. I said I'd finish this up with just a quick story and I'm going to do that, I'm going to take a few more minutes of your time, because this is our -- this is our chance at the public -- this is the first public meeting we have been invited to. Borup: It's the first public meeting that's been held. Noll: What I'd like to -- Borup: It's the fist one that's been held, too. Noll: Yeah. And we weren't invited to any from the developer. What I'd like to say -- I'm going to close with a little story about El Gato neighborhood and I'm going to close with a Christmas story. El Gato is a quiet street and Christmas this year -- you know, some of you have children, some of you don't, but you remember what it was like. Well, on Christmas Eve El Gato is a quiet street and we know where the children live on El Gato, so about 10:30 Christmas Eve I saddled up my pony, threw the sleigh bells on, him, and rode up and down the street and delivered candy canes to the houses on the street with the children. I don't think you can do that on a residential collector street and I'm pretty sure you can't do it on Black Cat Lane, even on Christmas Eve. When Meridian talks about developing character, you have a neighborhood here that has it, and I think there is some things that are worth preserving and some things that are worth considering. When you make a decision on these subdivisions, when you make a decision on Planning and Zoning, you have to think about things with your head and you have to address the issues with your heart, because you all know that the best decisions are made when you make them with your head and when you make them with your heart. So, what I want to do, I'm going to hand out the sheets to summarize our statements and I'll give one to the clerk -- to the court recorder here, but I want you -- when I hand them out and look you in the eye and I want you to think about that, think about the decisions you make and think about making them with your head and making them with your heart and that includes my testimony. I may not have covered everything for some Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 22 of 105 of these people, I tried to cover most of the topics, and I appreciate you taking the time to listen to me tonight. Borup: Any questions, Commissioners? Zaremba: While he's passing that out, I would comment that we also have received a letter from Leslie Sargeant, who touched on the realignment and mentioned the peak in Black Cat Road. I travel Black Cat Road and, frankly, I personally agree with you that that would be a better location for an entrance. But I do have to repeat that this is not the forum. We are unable to consider roadways or anything outside of this development and I would recommend that you hustle over to ACHD before they get the Castlebrook plat recorded and make your case to them. Noll: That's a very good point. What I have talked to -- I have tried to get ahold of ACHD commissioners, I have had limited luck in the call back from the commissioners, but that's been going -- ongoing for about a week and a half now, because I want to make the same -- you know, the same appeal to those folks as well. And, you know, it would help me out if the Meridian Planning and Zoning would call the commissioners and say this person has a valid point and we appreciate you listening to them, because I'm not having a lot of luck as calling up as Tom Noll from the El Gato neighborhood. So, I would be willing to work with you on that and that would be my request. Zaremba: Thank you. Powell: Chairman Borup? Borup: Yes. Powell: Might I -- if I might take a moment just to explain preliminary plat vesting and state law -- Borup: Please. Powell: -- because it's very important to this discussion. Borup: Yes. We'd appreciate that. Powell: For all of you, on the Castlebrook, when Castlebrook was approved at the preliminary stage, the state courts have said that that preliminary plat is the instrument that vests that developer with certain rights and that means that that is -- that's where we really have the opportunity to ask for things or to require things or negotiate things at that time. But the court has said that's a vesting document and that's a very important legal term for them and it means that even though they haven't done all their final plats, if those final plats are consistent with the approved preliminary plat, then, they, basically, have the right to do that final plat. So, the city, as much as it may want to think now and say, you know, this is a valid point, maybe we should have had this north Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 23 of 105 of the Kennedy, we cannot require that. They would -- I mean I think we have stated that from just a city standpoint, but also so you all know, I mean the state would look at that and just, you know, toss us on our ear. I mean it's just we can't go back and say we have changed our mind, you can't do that. So, even if we wanted to look at that as part of an off-site improvement or something, we could not require that in any way, and I know it's confusing, because you have the same developer, but it isn't something we can do with this one. So, you may want to really try and think about something you could do that's not something involved with Castlebrook, because as much as they may want to, we can't go back to Castlebrook, it's -- if it's consistent with their approved preliminary plat, then, we need to approve those final plats and you need to focus on the project that's at hand and try to come up with some solutions for that. Noll: I appreciate those concerns and that's a valid point. If it came to contention over this, you know, if you made that requirement, what you're saying is that you would have a very weak legal standing to make that requirement. Powell: Absolutely no legal standing. Noll: And so what we have -- but what we are proposing here -- I appreciate that. That's -- that means zero, not almost zero. That's -- we are talking zero. What we have here, though, is we have all three parties and some other parties as well that are concerned about this in the same room and I think it would -- without requiring people to do something, it seems that in the spirit of cooperation, we should -- if we all mutually agree to do it, there would be no issue. As I said, I wanted to present the case. There is -- it appears that it's not an outlandish claim. In fact, it might actually be a preferred alignment and perhaps we should -- if we could all agree to do it, perhaps we could achieve a better development here. But, as I say, there is no -- you know, we can't hold anybody's feet to the fire is what you're saying with the legal issues, we can only hold people's feet to the fire now with can we do something better than what we thought we had in the first place. That's my point and I guess my point is, too, even though, you know, the design has been approved, there are no -- there is no steel in the ground and it's not -- this is a better time to change than later and I don't think it's too late, but it would entail cooperation from all of us. Does that clarify things a little bit? Borup: Thank you. Okay. Do we have anyone else that would like to come forward? I think we do from what we saw earlier. Wilder: Commissioners, my name is Lora Wilder, 3401 West Pine, and I live on the portion of Pine that is the private road between the development and Ten Mile Road. Now, our property is this parcel right here. It's a 12 acre parcel that's in agricultural use right now. I would like to address some concerns that my family has and some of the other residents on this lane and, then, some others may have some other points they want to mention. First of all, Wendy did a good job explaining that this is the adopted city's Comprehensive Plan. It's a vision plan for what the city would like to see. However, when we look at new developments, also need to look at the reality of what's there right now and how it impacts the residents who are already there. Now, the Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 24 of 105 property where we are right here, the vision plan is for mixed use. Right now those of us served by the private road, those parcels right here, those are acreages that are all in agricultural use right now. We are long time property owners. I think all of us would like to stay there for awhile and enjoy the privacy that we have. We have large lots, we have large homes, which are quite a bit different than the small homes that are being proposed in this development. So, my concerns are, number one, even though in the vision plan this is medium density and this is mixed use, right now you have the city building around a pocket of agricultural land that's not going to change any time soon. So, you have 215 homes on this right here and you have about eight homes right here. So, it's a dramatic change. I think the lot sizes are too small. I'd like to see less density. I think the home sizes are too small and it detracts from the property value of those of us that have larger, more highly valued homes on the other property. My second concern is the concrete barricades right here. The developer mentioned that they would be putting some concrete barriers there to keep the residents of the development off of the private road. First of all, the private road -- I guess it is private, it's owned by all of us residents who live there, and concrete barricades -- it's a little vague to me exactly what those are going to look like. I'd like to know how long they are, how high they are, exactly what they are going to look like and I attended the neighborhood meeting, I wasn't invited, because we are not within 300 feet, I found out about it and I went, and addressed I'd like to see something better than just a concrete barricade, because human nature being what it is with kids and people, we have a nice private road with no traffic and there are no sidewalks and, you know, no access to Fuller Park right now. Where do you think all those kids are going to want to go and ride their bikes and people want to walk their dogs, take a shortcut if they are going to walk down there to Albertson's, which is less than a mile and a half away, they are going to want to walk down this private road. No trespassing. I would -- can I have just about 30 more seconds? Borup: Go ahead. Wilder: I would like to ask the developer to install a sign at the concrete barricade that says private road, no trespassing. I would like it in the covenants and on the plat that that is a private road and no trespassing is allowed. I would also like it stated in the covenants and on the plat that this is adjacent to agricultural land and those people need to be aware that there is agricultural noise, agricultural smells, and that they need to not complain. So, I guess my time is up and those are the things that I would like to see addressed. Borup: Okay. We need to see if there is any questions. Wilder: Are there any questions? Zaremba: I can give you some comfort on the agriculture. There is a Right To Farm Act and we will make sure that's on the plat. Wilder: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 25 of 105 Borup: I do have a question. You mentioned on the barricade. Wilder: Yes. Borup: What would you like to see there? Wilder: I would like to see a chain link gate that was locked. I don't know what fire codes will allow, but knowing the ability of people to jump over a concrete barrier, it needs to be tall and it needs to be locked and there needs to be no access, because they will find a way around it if there is and we have livestock, we have sheep, we have lambs right now, we do not need dogs down on that road, we don't need kids harassing them, we want our privacy maintained. Borup: Okay. Wilder: Anything else? Borup: Thank you. Come on up, sir. Haneke: Thank you. My name is George Haneke. I live at 4600 Quarterhorse Lane. I own -- my wife and own the eight acres just directly to the west of the property here and we own two acres right here on Black Cat. We have looked at the development that's been going on here and we are quite pleased with the quality of the homes and the lot sizes. We think the developer's done an excellent job and didn't have any particular problems when the plot plan was provided for this area right in here. However, if you look at this and look at the 400 homes -- and I'm not going to guess how many drivers are going to come out of there, but they are going to drive right in back of my home and I have a fairly significant home -- not only do I have a fairly significant home, my wife and I raise Alpacas and I don't know whether you know what an Alpaca is or how much they cost, but female Alpacas are pretty expensive animals and I, frankly, don't really relish the idea of a number of neighborhood dogs running through the fields and such. Now, we fenced the area here pretty strongly and knew when we bought the property there was going to be development over here. I don't have an opposition to development and I think the proposal that's before the board is here is pretty nice, but it's, from my opinion, way too dense and the exceptions that the builder is asking for in terms of the lot sizes and the setbacks, I think is going to have an overall detrimental effect to the value of the homes in the area and to the value of the homes that are going to be built in here in this subdivision. I'm very concerned about the amount of traffic that's coming. I'm very concerned about the educational facilities. In the neighborhood meeting we asked about the capacity of the local schools to handle the additional homes that are going to be put there and the response we got back was that there was no capacity to handle the additional residents that were going to be there, that they were going to have to be bused someplace else. I think it's a very large disservice to a community to go forward and approve the density you're proposing -- that's being proposed here without some adequate address to the issue of the education of the kids Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 26 of 105 that are going to be in these new subdivisions and I think that you should give consideration to the size of lots in the subdivision going forward. The developer was very responsive in taking our input at the neighborhood meeting. Made some changes. We did express our concerns, all of us, at that meeting to the lot sizes and the size of the homes that were going to be there. It appears that there has been no consideration given to reducing the lot size -- or increasing the lot sizes and reducing the number of homes. So, thanks for listening. I hope you will consider my input in your decision. Borup: Any questions? Yeah. Why don't you come up right after this gentleman. Schweiger: Hello. I'm Gary Schweiger, I live at 3515 West Pine and I border the property -- the proposal -- the proposed development on the east side. And I, too, am concerned about the density of this project. And I'm the person that asked the developer to make those lots larger on that end, which he has stated twice here tonight that they would be 1,600 square foot homes, but he did not say whether they would be single or two story and we have asked him to make them single story. I agree with -- Borup: Where was your property, sir? Schweiger: It's right -- all of this. Borup: Okay. Schweiger: I agree with what my neighbors have said here tonight and we are very concerned about the density, we think it's going to be a problem, because we raise cattle and we move a lot of cattle in and out, it's not a -- it's a business, okay, it's not a two or three cow operation, and we spread manure and we have flies and now we are going to have to deal with -- we are going to have to deal with people later on, like DEQ and the Fire Department and the sheriff -- I mean we burn our ditches, which we need to do every year, and we have -- we are concerned just like our neighbors with the density of this project and feel that it's too -- its too -- it's too dense and have -- my experience in the past has been that subdivision people don't get along with farming or farmers. They don't understand it. And as soon as they have odors to deal with, you know, that's going to come down on us. We would like to see this -- we would like to see this density -- and I would like to know from the developer is those are single story or two story. Borup: Okay. We will find that out. Schweiger: Okay. That's all I have to say. Is there any questions? Borup: I take it your house is on the west side of your property? Schweiger: Well, my house sits -- Borup: This is your lot here? Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 27 of 105 Schweiger: All of this. Borup: Okay. This little parcel here, too? Schweiger: Yep. Borup: Okay. Schweiger: My house sits about right here. Borup: About in the middle? Schweiger: Yeah. Well, it's right on that corner there. Zaremba: I would ask one question. Schweiger: Yes, sir. Zaremba: Would you share -- Borup: Your house isn't on this total, then? Schweiger: No. It's up above. Borup: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm looking in the wrong area. Right in here. Schweiger: Yeah. Borup: Excuse me, Commissioner. Go ahead. Zaremba: I'm sorry, I didn't realize you weren't done. Would you share your neighbor's preference for having the barrier across the roadway be a chain link fence with locked gate in it? Schweiger: Yes, I would. You know, there is one other thing I failed to mention here. The developer talked about putting in a walking path along the ditch and that -- it sounds like that would be outside of the fenced subdivision, which would put them right at us. We would like to see that -- if they want to put a walking path in there, we would like to see it fenced, so that the fence is the last -- is the first thing that we see and the walking path on the other side. We'd like to see a six foot berm with a six foot fence on it. I mean everything -- everything we do these people are going to be looking down on us. It invades our privacy. Also, I want to mention that I have another neighbor that couldn't make it tonight and they wrote a statement, they wanted me to deliver it and I'd like to give that to you. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 28 of 105 Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Give it to the clerk first. Schweiger: Right here? Borup: Yes, sir. Gray: Yes. My name is Jayden Gray and I live at 5654 El Gato. Have been there for 17 years now. I share Dr. Noll's thoughts. One thing I'm a little confused about and that is that when we look at this -- Zaremba: Sir, you need to stay closer to the microphone, please. Thank you. Gray: When we look at this particular section right here, when we went down and got the preliminary plats or any information we could and there was no information on this particular area right here or where the road was going to go or any sort of neighborhood access roads or anything. So, apparently, this is not -- Borup: Now, where did you go to try to find that information? Gray: This was -- Kathy, where did you get the maps? And so in our bundle of stuff we have everything, except we have no plat -- so there is a preliminary plat on that? Borup: Yes. There has been for a couple years. Gray: Oh. Okay. Well, I was a little confused, because -- Borup: It's not recorded yet, so it won't be at the county recorder's office and on the county mapping. Gray: So, it's cast in concrete, even though it's not recorded? Borup: Well, it's been approved by the city. Gray: Well, I just want to give the Commissioners one -- a little piece of ammunition relative to this intersection here between the proposed Pine and El Gato and that is there is a visual problem here, because as you go north, you cannot see the cars that are right in this area and so I have had -- made this corner thousands of times in the last 17 years you have to be very careful turning left here, because right at that intersection you cannot see cars from about 150 yards to about 250 yards to the north. You -- and I sit high in my vehicle. I drive a van, I sit very high, you cannot see -- at night you can see the lights coming. So, there is a safety problem at that intersection if you're going to have between 700 and 1,000 car passages a day going in and out of that subdivision, because somebody is going to get nailed at that intersection. It is quite dangerous, you have to be very alert. I would make one other comment on the Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 29 of 105 developer, when he was up here, he was sort of bragging about the fact that the -- in these smaller units down here near the railroad track, that the -- there was -- he wanted to reduce the unsightly 20 foot setback to eight feet, so that cars would be in the garage and I guess I would ask the question where are they expected to wash their cars? Are they going to wash their cars in the garage? Any questions? Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Do we have -- come on. Hicks: My name is Dave Hicks and I live at 3725 West Pine. My property is the little square right next to the subdivision, the only piece of property that is on the same side of the creek as the proposed subdivision. Right there. Borup: And your access -- is that an access road that comes along the canal? Hicks: Yes. On the east side of it. Yes. Borup: Okay. Hicks: There is my house and, then, on the other side of the -- Borup: There is an access road. Hicks: So, it accesses for two houses. Both my neighbors dealt with the barrier. I would be concerned about that. The houses, two story, because in my case they would literally be looking down on top of me, because they will be right next to me and also the walkway would be a concern on the outside of that subdivision, because that would lead right into my place. Borup: Now, to walk they would have to cross the canal to get to your place. Hicks: No. I'm on the same side of the canal as this subdivision. Borup: Oh, down here you're saying? Hicks: Yeah. And that's basically all I have to say. Borup: So, you'd like to see a barricade, I assume, at the walking path? Hicks: Oh, I'd like to see it fenced off inside the subdivision, so they couldn't -- Borup: Okay. My understanding is the problem of that is going to be is -- well, maybe we will let them clarify that, but I understood the walking path was in ACHD right of way, not -- Zaremba: Nampa-Meridian. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 30 of 105 Borup: Or Nampa-Meridian. That's what I mean to say. Yeah. We'll get some clarification on that, though. Hicks: Any other questions for me? Borup: This is your home about right here? Hicks: Yes. Borup: Over on the east side of your property? Hicks: Well, it's actually -- my home is actually almost right in the center of that property, actually, closer to the west than probably to the east. Borup: So, that's not your home there, then? Hicks: It's -- my home is probably about right there. So, it's almost in the center of the property. Mathes: How do you get to your home again? Hicks: There is a road that follows the creek down there and, then, there is a bridge that you cross -- that I actually cross the creek. Mathes: Okay. Borup: All right. Thank you. Who else would like to come forward? Casey: Gary Casey, 4631 Quarterhorse Lane. I live in the -- right there. And I object to the minimum size lots also or below minimum size lots, because like everybody else has said, we all have five or more acres in here and over here and, then, you put minimum lots right in between us, that doesn't do much for our property values or anything. That's all I have got to say. Borup: Okay. It sounds like you're concerned on the water -- access on the water has been addressed adequately? Casey: Yes. Borup: Okay. Do we have anyone else? Seeing none -- come forward. Pond: I'm Gilbert Pond. I live on El Gato Lane, but can I get her to bring up the plat of the subdivision again? I'm a plumbing contractor and something just stood out to me. I can't figure out why that bottom road isn't tied together for fire access, also for extra water line. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 31 of 105 Borup: Where are you -- Pond: Right there. Borup: You say why it isn't? Pond: Why isn't it? I see only -- I see all these access and people coming this way going this way, they only have that road to get out, that road to get out, it landlocks right here. If something's happening up here and this is all locked up, how are these people supposed to get out of this subdivision? I can't see it. They need to get access both ways. And that's all. I just wanted to bring that attention to you. Just a nuts and bolts type thing for me. Borup: Okay. Okay. One more time. Anyone? Okay. Mr. Amar, you got some -- a few comments I would think and I think we have got some questions, too. Amar: Thank you, Mr. Commissioner -- Mr. President, Commissioners. Again, for the record, Kevin Amar. And I have taken notes and I will try to respond, but if I miss anything, please, let me know. I'm going to try to start in order, starting with Mr. Noll. As far as he had a question about notification. We actually received the notification list from the city, so we notified the same people that they notify and at the time that -- I know we not talking about Castlebrook No. 1, but at the time Castlebrook No. 1 went through, we did notify people on El Gato, because they are within the 300 foot requirement that the city gives us notification for. So, there was some notification at that time with respect to that road and some of those actually did come and testify at that time. So, as far as notification of the neighborhood meeting, we didn't send them a letter, because they weren't on the list to send a letter. With respect to the residential connection to Ten Mile, I'm sure you're aware, but we don't own the property to the east of this. All the neighbors are opposed to driving down their private road. That's part of the reason we are barricading it off from access for these people to get through that. And, then, with respect to the no completed phases, we, actually, have completed and are constructing houses in Castlebrook Phase 1. Castlebrook Phase 2 we have construction materials on site, pipe and things of that nature. The final plat has been approved by the City of Meridian and Castlebrook No. -- am I done? Borup: No. That was left over from the previous one. Amar: Castlebrook No. 3 was approved also -- Castlebrook Phase 3 was approved by the City of Meridian also, so we are in the process of getting those final plats recorded and we have actually started building houses in Castlebrook Phase 1. With respect to El Gato and a traffic study, we did incorporate a traffic study into not only this project, but also Castlebrook No. 2 and Castlebrook No. 1. El Gato or Pine, the portion that we are constructing, is designed to have a capacity of 8,500 vehicles trips per day. With this project there is a capacity of 2,500 -- when it's all built out, 2,500 vehicle trips per day. So, El Gato is well below the threshold. With respect to Black Cat, the city is currently building or in the process of building the lift station and the pressure main and Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 32 of 105 sewer lines along Black Cat. After that construction is completed, ACHD will be rebuilding, I guess, if you will, improving Black Cat Road. That will happen after the Meridian -- or Meridian city completes those improvements. With Castlebrook No. 1 and No. 2, we are required to put at both the intersection of Black Cat and Cherry Lane and the intersection of Black Cat and Franklin turn bays so there will be additional widening at those points because of the traffic. And that is triggered -- I don't remember the exact time, but I think it's upon completion of phase four of Castlebrook Subdivision. So, that has been looked at and it will be addressed through the process of construction. With Chesterfield, the traffic study came back by the traffic engineer and no additional improvements are required beyond what has already been required in Castlebrook No. 1 and No. 2. Mrs. Wilder had -- Borup: While you're still on that -- Amar: Yes, sir. Borup: -- Kevin -- and I realize you said phase one already has homes under construction, but was there any discussion at that time on entrance other than Pine to Ten Mile? Amar: Mr. President -- Borup: Or to Black Cat I mean. Amar: With respect to the location of El Gato or -- Borup: Right. On having that north of the Kennedy Lateral. Amar: That discussion -- tonight is the first night I have heard of that discussion. Borup: Okay. That wasn't something that was looked at in the engineering designs or did ACHD have input on their preference on -- Amar: When we were approved in Castlebrook No. 1, Pine was a requirement to be improved as a collector, so they were looking at that as the collector, rather than putting a collector through the center of the subdivision, if you will. Borup: Okay. And that's what I was getting at. That's what I was remembering. I thought that was something ACHD wanted. Amar: They want Pine, El Gato, built from Ten Mile to Black Cat and, eventually, that will happen. Borup: Okay. So, in deciding that as the entrance, that was through their input? Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 33 of 105 Amar: That is correct. That was required at that time for Pine to be built. Are there any further questions? Borup: No. Rohm: Before we leave this area, on the barricade on the east end of Pine -- well, where you tie into a private road. Yeah. Well, the point is I'd like you to specifically speak to the barricade that you're willing to put up, because there has been a number of people that have testified to what they would like to see and I'd like to just have you speak to it, the specific barricade that you're willing to go with on this. Amar: Sure. Mr. President, Commissioner Rohm -- is it Rohm? Rohm: Yes. Amar: The barricade that we had anticipated with Castlebrook No. 2 was the concrete barricades similar to what you will see on the freeway, so people understand what we are talking about, and that would be from curb to curb, so vehicles cannot get around them. At that time we hadn't discussed a chain link fence, although I guess we can. It's -- I don't know the logistics of part of that with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District and the future removal of the chain link fence and that's certainly open for negotiation or discussion. We were trying to keep vehicles from traveling east to Ten Mile. Rohm: And I think that the concrete barricades do that, but to some of the other testimony, it doesn't keep the human traffic -- you know, they jump over the three foot or two and a half foot concrete and I'm not sure that it would be anymore expensive to put up a chain link six foot fence across that, which would provide the same vehicular barricade, while at the same time address the issues of the -- of the public. Amar: And that's -- we can put a -- I guess a chain link -- six foot chain link fence from - - we have a fence on either side of our landscape berm, so there would be a fence from fence to fence, so to speak. The one concern I would have would be with this pathway, Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District will not allow us to fence across their property, the pathway there, but if were to put a fence this direction, we would have to get approval from Nampa. Rohm: I think primarily it's the roadway barricade that we are talking about here. Amar: I'd certainly be open to putting a chain link fence from our -- from one edge of the right of way, including the landscaping, to the other, so people can't walk through there either. Rohm: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 34 of 105 Zaremba: And that was going to be my comment, too. I don't know the economics, but it would seem to me that's probably even cheaper than the Jersey barricades that you're talking about. Amar: Uh-huh. Correct. Also, with that Mrs. Wilder requested a no trespassing sign, which is also something that we can -- private road, no trespassing, or something to that effect, so people are already aware of what they are looking at. Rohm: Thank you. Amar: I think it was addressed, but we are adjacent to AG land and we understand that. As a part of the plat we have to put the Right To Farm Act on that plat, so that is something that we have to reference also in the CC&Rs, because the notes will be in the CC&Rs as well. Mr. Haneke asked about fencing. We are fencing the entire exterior of the subdivision. From this point to this point will be a six foot fence. Along the Ten Mile Creek will be a four foot -- what did you call it? Invisible fence, something - - Rohm: Transparent. Amar: A transparent fence. But it will be a four foot fence. But the entire boundary will be fenced and, then, the frontage along El Gato behind the landscaping will actually be a six foot fence also. So, the entire site will be fenced. Also, just to note, during the course of construction, should this be phase one, we have to put the exterior fencing, but we also have to put up temporary construction fencing to keep -- and that's a city code -- to keep trash and debris from blowing onto the neighbor's properties. Zaremba: Before you leave that subject, can I ask -- Amar: Yes. Zaremba: At the south end of the pathway where it would enter the neighbor's property and probably head right straight into his house, can you either stop that pathway short of there or barricade it or somehow work out with him a way to let pedestrians know that they are, again, aiming towards private property? Amar: Yeah. And we should probably do it on both the south and the north end, but put private property, no trespassing signs on those also. They will be able to -- there is a sidewalk along -- I guess they can walk back and forth on the pathway until it's connected to anywhere, but we can put no trespassing signs, private property, on both the north and the south. We can hold the pathway short, so it does not go all the way to the edge of his property, but, again, Nampa-Meridian will not -- we can put a barricade there, but they will not allow that fencing also, they don't -- if they want to get up and down that easement or the property -- it's not an easement that they own, they don't want to move barricades or open gates. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 35 of 105 Borup: You say you can or cannot do a barricade? Amar: Cannot. Borup: A barricade either. Rohm: I think noticing is important. Just say private property or something beyond that, something to that effect. Amar: We can certainly do that. With respect to the schools -- the comment that was made at the neighborhood meeting -- and it's the standard comment that Wendell Bigham sends out in all of the letters that he sends, is exact school locations cannot be guaranteed and school -- I'm paraphrasing, because I don't remember the exact words, but school location, kids may have to be bused to different locations. What we don't know is if these kids will go to the school -- can you put up the vicinity map, please? Thank you. There is a school located -- it's at this location. We don't know if the kids will go to school here or at a different school, but we are aware of the school situation and, in fact, Bridgestone, which was before you a few months back, we actually set aside property within that subdivision for a future elementary school site and so we do meet with the school district and in this instance we met with them and they had indicated that they had a school at this location and don't need further elementary schools here. But I think in reading the paper recently, the schools are building about an elementary school a year in order to try and keep up with growth. It's something that everybody is trying to keep in pace with. So, that was the reference to the school letter. Along Mr. Schweiger, he lives in this location along the Ten Mile Creek. We are putting a 1,600 square foot house, but we are not requiring them to be single story and that is -- or we are not requiring anything, we are not requesting them to be single story. But that is in line with what was required on Castlebrook Subdivision No. 2. In fact, it came up at that time can we allow single story and this body said, well, that you didn't want to allow that or, I don't know, allow that. That was not a condition of approval for Castlebrook Subdivision No. 2. But we are trying to stay in line with what was approved with Castlebrook Subdivision No. 2, again, keeping the 1,600 square foot house, but if they want to be two story they can be. We have made the lots large enough that if they are a single story house, a 1,600 square foot house will easily fit on those lots. I'm sure I have missed something. But Mr. Pond had indicated -- I'm sorry. I think -- Wendy, can you go back -- yes, please. This road, why is it not connected, it's simply a function of traffic. With the connection of this road it makes it a very very long straight stretch. As you can see on this side we actually put a little traffic island in the middle. I guess if that's a requirement, we can connect that road and put an island in the middle, but it was determined that with an access point here and here, these people can get out here and out here without pushing the traffic through the subdivision in order to get back to Pine. So, it funnels them back to Pine as quickly as possible and, then, using that collector to get out to the main roads, trying to minimize some of the interior traffic -- cut-through traffic if you will. That was the notes I took and I'm sure I didn't address them all, so, hopefully, you have questions for me, just as a -- I guess a final follow-up, this project, again, is on the low side of the density in this area. Berkeley Square and Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 36 of 105 Mosser Point and I don't remember the name of the other project, but all of those are within a half mile of this site and have significantly higher density than this project. So, we are trying to -- I know the neighbors want lower density and I know they probably, to be honest with you, would rather just have a farm here. That's what they have grown up with for years. Unfortunately, we want houses there and so we are trying to keep on with the Comprehensive Plan and keep on the lower side of that density and we do feel that the fencing and some of the amenities that we are putting in the subdivision, it will be a better subdivision and a better development than it could be. With that I will stand for any questions. Borup: Okay. Questions from any of the -- you hit the ones I had on my list, so I don't know if there is -- Zaremba: Yes, you did mine and we discussed them as you went along as well, except for the eastern border. Would you find it absolutely unacceptable to have a one story height limitation along the eastern border? Amar: I just was really hoping to stick with what was approved in Castlebrook No. 2, trying to keep that 1,600 square minimum that was brought up again at that time during Castlebrook No. 2 and if I remember right -- it was awhile back, but Mr. Borup had indicated why do the neighbors want that. Zaremba: If I remember, the neighbors that were bringing that up were on similar sized lots, not much larger lots, and some of them had two story houses. So, we felt making a requirement that backed up to them be different than their requirement wasn't fair. In this case the situation, to me, is a little bit different. These are much larger lots and whether they are single or two houses on them, I don't know, but I can see more reason to make that limit on this property than on -- than on Castlebrook. Amar: If that's -- you're the governing body, so if that's a decision that you want to make -- Zaremba: And I may be the only one that has that opinion, but I could support the -- Rohm: I think it basically boils down to how far the existing homes east of the subdivision are from the property line and I think we don't -- I'm sure we don't have any elevations available, but as -- if they are right up against the property line and they have a single story home and you build a two story home right across the property line from it, it's going to be more intrusive than if they are a couple of hundred feet from the property line and so I would be curious about that and -- Amar: Wendy, can you put up the aerial photo? Borup: And Commissioner Rohm was correct, I think that was one of the things we discussed before was distance. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 37 of 105 Amar: With this being laid out, this Ten Mile Creek width is 100 feet and I'm -- the location of this house, as you can see here, is in this general area, so it's another 100 feet or 150 from that point. I don't -- Borup: That's probably close enough. Moe: Now, the gentleman -- the house in question was right down along there. Amar: Okay. I'm sorry, I was speaking to this generally. Borup: That would be correct for there. Zaremba: Well, I, actually, was thinking about both of them, but the greater concern was the southern one, but the one on the same side of the creek as they are. Amar: I guess I'd say again, if that's a requirement that you're going to make, that's one that we will -- Rohm: How far is the home here from the property line? Hicks: Dave Hicks. I would state that my house is probably no further than away than 75 to 80 feet from the property line. Rohm: And, then, the -- this right here is a hundred foot right of way, this ditch right of way? Borup: No. He's on the other side. Rohm: Well, you're here -- Hicks: It, actually, runs right -- Rohm: Oh, excuse me. Got you. Thank you. Zaremba: Yeah. I think the wide line that you're looking at is just the mark that -- Rohm: I got you. Thank you. Zaremba: I would extend one story houses at least along that property line. Rohm: And that seems appropriate. Zaremba: I could give them up on the northern property line, since that house is a pretty good distance away. Borup: There is only two lots -- Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 38 of 105 Zaremba: It's just two lots. Borup: And it is the side of the lots also, it's not a backyard that directly -- well, I guess the sides of the backyard would be there. Moe: I don't want to belabor the issue on the fencing again, but I'm kind of curious where -- we are talking about we are going to go through the roadway here, that is going to be an ACHD approved roadway through there with curb, gutter, sidewalk on both sides of the road; correct? Are we anticipating that we are taking the fence from -- to the back of your berms on both sides and connecting into fencing, so, then, I anticipate we will have gates at the sidewalks as well or are you talking about -- then, you have no access back east through there at all. Amar: We can put gates there, but I think that the neighbors would probably object to that. We can put the fencing up from fence to fence, so it will go across the entire right of way, plus the landscape buffers. There will be fencing or sidewalk on this side of the road in front of what is approved as Chesterfield. On the opposite side of the road that project -- or that property has not been developed yet, so curb, gutter, sidewalk will not be on that side of the road yet. So, we can stop them from coming down the road -- or coming down the sidewalk, I'm sorry, on the Castlebrook side, but on the Chesterfield side we can -- we can certainly stop them, but if we put a gate in there it still gives them access to do that. Kirkpatrick: And, Chairman, members of the Commission, I wanted to point out that while the developer has agreed to put in the chain link fence, it doesn't necessarily mean that the Fire Department will also approve that, so we want to -- if you do approve this this evening, perhaps condition -- require a sign off from the Fire Department on that gate. Rohm: Thanks, Wendy. Borup: Okay. Amar: I'm going to speak one more time on the fencing issue. Maybe if it's required we could put a gate in the center of the road, so if the Fire Department needs to get through, they can use bolt cutters and -- we can lock it and they can use bolt cutters or whatever they want to get through it, but that might satisfy everyone. Zaremba: Well, if you're talking about the roadway, I think the neighbors were talking about a gated, locked gate and the Fire Department would break through it if they needed to. Amar: That's fine. Zaremba: But the general dog walkers wouldn't. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 39 of 105 Amar: Correct. Borup: Okay. Anything else for Mr. Amar? Zaremba: Okay. Confirm for me -- maybe staff or you. Just to make sure I'm looking at the latest plat -- the two lots that we are talking about specifying first story -- one story only are Block 6, Lot 22, and Block 10, Lot 65. Is this the latest version? Because that is the numbers off of them. Borup: That's not the latest, but did the lot and blocks change? Amar: I don't know. Let me -- if you will, I'll grab the -- Borup: Okay. They may have changed on the north side, because they reduced -- they eliminated the lots -- Zaremba: I just saw the date stamp and this one is not the latest one. Let me find my latest one. Borup: I would suspect the one on the north that the numbers have changed. Probably 21. Amar: On the latest version, the revised entrance that ACHD approved, it is Lots 21, Block 5, and Lot -- and Lot 65, Block 9. It would be -- I guess another way to describe it as the two lots touching the eastern boundary. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Amar: Did you want a copy of this? Zaremba: I have it, it's just that I have all the others as well, so I just grabbed the wrong one. Borup: Okay. Any other questions from anyone? Anything else -- you were up -- you have been up twice. Come on up to the microphone. Hicks: Dave Hicks. And the one thing that I don't quite understand on this walkway -- and I will show you on the map is -- I don't do karaoke either. If the walkway goes from here, but there is going to be a gate right there blocking our road -- am I correct that's where it's going to be? What is this walkway for if there is going to be no gates to the back of the houses? What's the purpose of it? Borup: A lot of the walkway is for planning -- for future planning. Some day the vision would be that it would be a continuous walkway, as all the properties around develop. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 40 of 105 Hicks: Okay. So, it's just for future -- that was on my -- well, who's going to use it and for what? Borup: If we don't do it as they are developed it doesn't get done. Hicks: Okay. That answers my question. Zaremba: But my instinct is the same as yours. At the moment it's fenced off so nobody could use it but you. Eventually, the thought is it will be used. Borup: Okay. Mr. Amar? Amar: I was going to say, just for clarification, there is one point of access from the subdivision, a walkway from the subdivision that connects to that walkway, so just to put everything on the record. Borup: Well -- and I have seen others that way, too. They don't get used, because it doesn't go anywhere. Zaremba: And that's the reason for the fence only being four feet, so somebody can watch and make sure there is no dangerous activity going on there, since it isn't used very much. Amar: Thank you. Borup: Do you have something pertinent, sir? Because this is not really a back and forth discussion, but -- okay. Dennis: My name is Robert Dennis and live on 5858 El Gato. Now, on your pointer tonight, I understand Planning and Zoning doesn't control Ada County, but as agencies you work together. All right. This is the developer's property; correct? Borup: Yes. Dennis: And I'm not opposed to development, I'm pro-choice to good comprehensive development. Now, if it's my understanding when we were talking accessing the alignment of the road, my question is from this point to El Gato whose property was this and who gave the easement? Did Ada County Highway District have that property already tied up? Where did the access come from El Gato to this plot? Borup: Okay. We can get some clarification on that. It was part of the -- of previous development, though. Dennis: This parcel right there? Borup: Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 41 of 105 Dennis: So, there was no consideration given on this development on the Comprehensive Plan what was going to occur here prior to this development here. Because it's my understanding that the lift station and that -- and correct me if I'm wrong, but -- and I wanted to ask this question -- is you're going to tie in a loop with the city sewer and water and we all know that development goes with city sewer and water. I would suspect -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- that the city sewer is going to pick up somewhere at Linder and Franklin, go west to Black Cat, turn north and head towards the Wastewater Treatment Plant. Am I not correct? Borup: Bruce, could you maybe clarify that? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, members of Commission. You are not correct. Dennis: I'm not correct. That's what I want to know. Freckleton: Yeah. The sewer -- predominately, the slope in all of Meridian flows to the northwest, okay, so everything out of this development is going to be flowing to the northwest. It's going to be going into Castlebrook, Castlebrook -- there is going to be a regional lift station in there that takes it north in Black Cat. Dennis: All right. But what's looping -- I guess what I'm looking at -- Borup: Sewers don't -- water loops, sewers don't really loop. Dennis: I'll take issue with you on that, but that's another thing. You can build a loop system in a sewer plan. I just want to know what the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Meridian is south of the tracks over to Franklin, future development. Are we looking industrial, mixed us, or what? Because if we are, the city -- that's the main reason for that lift station going in to pick up some of that area, isn't it? Borup: No. Each lift station would service a certain area. Dennis: That's correct. Borup: And I'm not sure what is servicing south of the railroad tracks. But what's the point? Dennis: The point is I'm asking the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian what is in their Comprehensive Plan from Linder Road west to Black Cat south of the railroad tracks. Borup: As far as what the Comprehensive Plan shows? That's what Wendy spent about ten minutes explaining at the beginning of her presentation as what the Comprehensive Plan was anticipating for those. South of the railroad tracks was industrial and high density. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 42 of 105 Dennis: Okay. And there is not going to be any provisions for sewer in that area? Borup: If it's developed, there will be, yes. That's a requirement. Dennis: That's my question. That's what I -- Borup: Well, the exact sewer design is not a part of the Comprehensive Plan, what's envisioned for those areas to develop is, and the sewer needs to be designed along with that. There is an overall master sewer plan for the city that's a general outline. Mr. Freckleton would be the one that would need to answer anymore detail than that. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, there is a master plan. The city has a complete sewer master plan that covers the entire urban service planning boundary for the entire city. Dennis: Thank you. Freckleton: It details -- not set in stone, but it details the routing of major trunk lines that we need to plan for in order to serve every parcel within the urban service planning boundary. So, we do have that planning tool for serving those future areas. Dennis: Correct. And that was my question. That should -- if you have a master plan in effect, it should give you some idea on your Comprehensive Plan in what direction you're moving. What I have seen happen here, unfortunately, is with our gravitational flow of sewer, Cherry Lane over the years, from the city core of the old Meridian City limits, has moved westbound on Cherry Lane and followed that accordingly and, then, they have moved back south towards Black Cat and we have an area there that in good comprehensive planning and growth development on Franklin, in my opinion, should have came along systematically with that had we had the funding and the provisions at the time. So, logistics tell me now that in the master plan that's the next area that's going to be impacted for development and it has to incorporate sewer somehow, so it has to be in your Comprehensive Plan. Freckleton: I think it's important to point out that the majority of the sewer and water mains that you see going into the city are not put in by the City of Meridian. Dennis: I know that. Freckleton: Okay. They are put in by development and development drives -- development drives where development goes. Dennis: That's correct. Freckleton: However, you know, we have those documents that control locations and that's our guideline tool, like I said. Sewer is -- I guess in public works' opinion anyway, is a really good way of controlling growth and where you go. Without those utilities you Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 43 of 105 don't have it. So, the development and our planning -- we do the planning so that we can -- we can plan for the areas, but, I don't know, I think I have talked around a tree here and I don't know if I have answered your question. Dennis: You have answered my question. Thank you. Freckleton: Okay. Borup: Thank you. We had one more -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to say that this meeting has been educational, but we are strained from the application at hand and I move that the Public Hearing be closed. Rohm: I'll second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Okay. Do we have any other comments from staff? Kirkpatrick: No, there are none. Borup: Okay. Commissioners, discussion? Would we like some discussion before we formulate a motion? Zaremba: Well, while I'm sensitive to many of the opinions that have been addressed and, actually, the applicant has cooperated with many of the things that have been expressed, either already or has promised to work with somebody to solve many of the problems, the basic underlying premise is that this is very much in agreement with our master plan, the Comprehensive Plan. I see nothing that disagrees with the master plan. How the roadway impacts Black Cat is not really part of this application. The other issues -- the applicant having agreed to work with it, my personal opinion is that I would move this forward to City Council. Rohm: I generally support -- Borup: Okay. The first item is that of the annexation. Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of item four on our agenda, AZ 03-037, request for Annexation and Zoning of 46.40 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for proposed Chesterfield Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC, east of North Black Cat Road and north of West Franklin Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of February 19, 2004, received by the City Clerk February 17, 2004, with no changes. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 44 of 105 Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of item five on our agenda PP 03-046 and in so doing I'm referring to the Preliminary Plat received by the Clerk January 23rd, 2004, request Preliminary Plat approval of 215 residential lots and 34 common lots 46.40 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Chesterfield Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC, east of North Black Cat Road and north of West Franklin Road -- Borup: Commissioner, maybe -- you made reference to which plat? Zaremba: This was the plat received January 23rd, 2004. Borup: Okay. We received a revised plat that was February 4th. Zaremba: Then -- okay, then, we want to talk about the February 4th one. Borup: And that was the one that's been on the -- Zaremba: Okay. Borup: -- on the screen. Zaremba: All right. Then, we were talking about the new revision from February 4th, 2004, and delete my earlier comments about January. And this motion is to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of February 19th, 2004, received by the City Clerk February 17th, 2004, with the following changes. On page 19 add a paragraph 12 that says the Right To Farm Act shall be referenced on the plat. Add a paragraph 13 -- I'm sorry. On page nine. Page nine of the staff note. That was a paragraph 12. Add paragraph 13 that says on Block 5, Lot 21, and Block 9, Lot 65, buildings shall be limited to one story, meaning a maximum peak height of 25 feet. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Borup: Would this be the spot to include the barricade on Pine? Zaremba: Well, the barricade was, actually, part of the previous subdivision and it was left up to the developer what kind of barricade they were going to put, so I -- we can specify here if we need to -- Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 45 of 105 Borup: Yeah. The discussion was a chain link fence, rather than the concrete barricade. Zaremba: We will add a paragraph 14 that the previous agreed to barricade will go wall to wall across the right of way and be a chain link with a gated -- a locked gate. Kirkpatrick: And, Chairman, members of the Commission, if I can interrupt. We also want to make sure that there is a sign off from the Fire Department. Zaremba: Yes. If agreed to by the Fire Department. Okay. In that same paragraph -- this would be of paragraph 14 on page nine. Referring to the fence. Developer will also provide private property no trespassing signs on that fence and at both ends of the walking path. Rohm: I think that's it, Dave. Zaremba: That's the end of the motion. Rohm: I'll second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of item six on our agenda, CUP 03-070, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development with request for reduction to the minimum requirements for lot size, street frontage, and front yard setbacks -- side setbacks for patio homes for proposed Chesterfield Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC, east of North Black Cat Road and north of West Franklin Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date February 19, 2004, received by the City Clerk February 17, 2004, with no changes. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Thank you. Thank everyone for being here. This will move to City Council. Commission, would we like to continue or like a break? Rohm: Break. Borup: Okay. We will take a short break at this time. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 46 of 105 (Recess.) Item 7: Public Hearing: CUP 03-072 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a drive-thru window for a proposed coffee shop for Central Park Plaza by Nahas Enterprises – northeast corner of South Progress Avenue and Central Drive: Borup: We'd like to reconvene our meeting this evening. I just -- I might -- I would like to mention, in case someone had noticed the agenda, but the last items on the agenda, the Mussell Corner Subdivision, was -- is being renoticed, so there is not a hearing on that tonight. Okay. The next item is CUP 03-027, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a drive-thru window for a proposed coffee shop for Central Park Plaza by Nahas Enterprises. We'd like to open the hearing at this time and start with the staff report. Kirkpatrick: Chairman, members of the Commission, this proposed project is located in the Center Valley Corporate Park just north of Winco Foods and it's at the northeast intersection of Central Drive and Progress Avenue. And I'm going to show you the aerial. The applicant is here for a Conditional Use Permit for the drive-thru for the proposed retail building. I'll go ahead and put up the site plan, but because they are here for the drive-thru, we are required to look at the entire lot while considering this application. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed application. There was really only one issue that's come up. There is no proposed connection between the parking lot for the proposed retail building and the parking lot that's shown in the southeast corner of the site plan. The way that the applicant explained this to me was that the parking lot in the southeast corner is proposed employee parking for a proposed restaurant, which will be located on the western side of the site and the property owner for both of those lots is a different property owner than the retail building owner and he wanted to make sure that there wasn't -- that the people -- the patrons of the retail building were not using the parking lot that was designated for employee parking for the restaurant. I'm sure the applicant will address that this evening, but the staff felt that it was poor planning to have two parking lots that were adjacent to each other and not adjoining, so we are recommending that they adjoin those parking lots. And also wanted to point out that if -- when they come through with an application for the employee parking lot in the southwest -- southeast, they will be required to come through with a Conditional Use Permit for that parking lot if they are not -- if they are not adjoining. So, I just wanted to make sure the applicant was aware of that. But, otherwise, we recommend approval of the application. The drive-thru takes access off of -- essentially a private drive aisle, so the impact to surrounding public streets should be minimal and, otherwise, we have no additions. Are there any questions for staff? Borup: Questions from staff? I mean for staff? Zaremba: Just to confirm that I'm working on the right date, this is a site plan that is dated 30 December '03? Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 47 of 105 Kirkpatrick: As far as I know we only have one rendition of this site plan, but let me look at my dates. Zaremba: There is a landscape plan that is different than the site plan and I believe that was from earlier. Kirkpatrick: The site plan that I have is dated 30th December 2003 and the landscape plan is dated December 12th, 2003. Zaremba: Okay. So, we want to work with this site plan and their landscape will have to comply to this site plan. Kirkpatrick: Correct. Zaremba: Okay. The landscape plan shows a different entry to this drive-thru. That's the only reason I bring it up. No other questions from me. Borup: Okay. Anyone else? Would the applicant like to come forward? Strite: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, Billy Ray Strite, 1010 Allante in Boise, Idaho. I'm here on behalf of the Nahas companies and Ralph and Nellie Nahas. And, in the interest of time, quite frankly, I did not make that very clear to the staff and I apologize, but in the arrangement to sell the parcel to Tony Romas. Tony Romas national franchise has a requirement for a 45 parking space minimum employee parcel and, hence, the southeast parcel is, in fact, the parcel purchased with the developer. The developer and the purchaser Tony Romas have agreed that there is -- as part of their process that there would be no cross access and that that parking lot would be principally and specifically for the employees of Tony Romas and that's why there is no cross-access there. Borup: That's exactly what staff said. Strite: No. That's what I'm saying. But what I didn't explain to staff, I believe, was the intricacies of the parcel sale. I probably should have been a little more clear in my letter of request. Borup: How many parking spaces are in that lot? Strite: There are, I believe, 48 and we have a minimum requirement of 45. Borup: They have 45 employees at one time? Strite: That's their requirement. I don't think that they can get 45 employees in there at one time. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 48 of 105 Zaremba: But at a shift change they might have that many cars, though, for coming and going. Strite: Well, it's 8,000 square feet, seats 300 seats, I suspect that there is a potential they could do it in a shift change, yeah. Zaremba: Yeah. So, Tony Romas would be exactly east of where the parking lot is depicted; is that what you're saying? Strite: Tony Romas is at the southwest corner. They bought parcel number one, which is the southwest corner of the site. They also bought the southeast triangular parcel, which was kind of a remnant parcel, if you will, as part of their purchase and it's a separately deeded lot and so you have, actually, separate parcel owners. Zaremba: Even if there isn't vehicle access, cross-access, is there a pathway? Strite: Mr. Chair, Mr. Zaremba, there is pedestrian access. We have provided pedestrian access going south out of the parking lot in question and, then, we pick up the sidewalk, which, incidentally, is not required, because this is a private drive, but there is a sidewalk proposed that goes westerly, if you will, along the north side of the access between Winco and this project that takes you up to Tony Romas. Zaremba: I guess my concern is that the employees would walk through the drive-thru - - Strite: They do. That's absolutely correct. Zaremba: Are they separated from the cars in any way? Strite: Well, certainly we are going to have bomanite walks at those two locations as part of a break. Zaremba: So, they aren't right on the roadway, they can be up on an elevated sidewalk? Strite: Well, that's correct. But more importantly, the shift changes are probably not in conflict with the coffee shop, which is an early morning user. Zaremba: Okay. I guess my only other question is the signage issue. Is the employee parking going to be signed as employee parking only or -- Strite: That's correct. Zaremba: Okay. And, then, the real issue tonight, which is the drive-thru, the exit from the drive-thru, are you going to have any signage indicating that that's exit only or -- I mean so people don't turn in that drive-way wrong direction? Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 49 of 105 Strite: Yes, we will. Zaremba: Okay. That's my greatest concern. Borup: Other questions? What happens if Tony Romas leaves and the new owner does not require 45 parking spaces? Strite: Well, because it is a part of a conditional use, there is a requirement regardless of the change, it's a conditional use as a parking lot. If that use changes, it has to come back before you, so -- Borup: So, you would have an opportunity to redesign and redevelopment of those areas. Strite: Well, I think it would be quite easy to do, because you're looking at the service side of the retail building, so I don't see that as being a major issue in the future. Borup: Oh, I agree with staff on their comment on this. Maybe not a hundred percent in this situation, but it can be very annoying that -- to go 200 feet away and have to drive 800 feet to do it. I think that staff's looking at more the -- probably the long-term aspect of it, not just this one use. Strite: Well, I think that we could make a compromise and certainly we would be prepared to do that. I will have to go back to Tony Romas, I'm sure, to see if I can't get them to agree, but we would be prepared to provide a cross-access agreement and show an access for future, if that would be a compromise. You know, for the potential of another user taking that site. You know, you start to look at that site, you said put it in context, if you go out there today, that is the truck access to Winco, the back side of Winco on the northeast side is nothing but truck access and so it's not going to be a real popular place to locate a building, that's for certain. So, it appeared to us -- appeared to purchaser -- it appeared to Tony Romas that this would be an ideal spot for a parking lot, because it backs the service area of the proposed retail, as well as the service area of Winco. Borup: The other boundary is the canal? Strite: That's correct. Eight Mile is on the east side. Borup: Any other comments from staff? Kirkpatrick: No. Borup: I mean on -- on Mr. Strite's proposal to have the cross-access agreement in place. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 50 of 105 Kirkpatrick: And to clarify that, so that would be if the property ownership were to change, there would be a cross-access agreement there in place? Borup: Yeah. He's saying have it in place, but not built at this time. Does that work? Zaremba: That may be a legal question. Can it have an if attached to it, it would be if the property changes hands in the future, then, the cross-access agreement comes into effect. Can that be done? Holinka: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I'm not quite sure, but it seems to me to be -- and certainly the Commission now has the ability to place a condition on the approval of this application, so I think in that respect -- Zaremba: But it's a condition that's triggered by a future activity. Holinka: Right. Zaremba: And is that okay? Holinka: I mean think you would -- Zaremba: It may or may not happen. Holinka: Right. To me I think the better route would be to make the condition more concrete and something that would have to be -- you know, just make it a condition, not an if/when kind of thing. Strite: Mr. Chair, I have a suggestion to counsel, perhaps, that might work. We have REA's throughout the three parcels. We have excluded this parcel specifically. The REA's call for cross-parking, cross-access, et cetera. If we were to add this parcel to the REA's, would that satisfy the legal intent? Holinka: I think it probably would. Strite: We are prepared to do that. Powell: Chairman Borup? Borup: Yes. Powell: What's an REA? Strite: Just a cross-access agreement. CC and R's, I think, is another way of putting it. I have -- you mean specifically excluded this site at the request of Tony Romas, however, I think that it would be appropriate that we could ask them to be included in the total CC and R project, so -- Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 51 of 105 Borup: So what's that -- Strite: That would give you, then, the legal right to have cross-access to that site. Borup: So, what's the full meaning of REA? Strite: Well, you got me. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Real estate agreement, maybe. Strite: I think the reason that they wanted these lots was because they were going to have exclusive rights only to that parking and that's why they were excluded. But perhaps we can do that through signage and that would probably be sufficient. Rohm: I, actually, like having the employee parking off site, if you will, because that leaves all the other parking to the retail customers and it, actually, creates a better environment from the retail perspective. Borup: Well -- and with the -- realizing the orientation on this, it makes more sense, too. With the buildings around it. We didn't have that on our other site plan. Strite: I have also one other suggestion and I would ask that you add that as a condition. As we have done before you and you have heard this a hundred times, so it probably shouldn't need to be repeated, but we have designed our parking spaces per ULI, not per the City of Meridian. We have a two foot overhang on our cars, the seven foot walks. I think you have all heard the story more than once, but I just got a -- I just want to make certain that that's -- that this goes on record as a condition and would be prepared to add that as condition number 12. Borup: The city has approved that in the past. Strite: On all our projects. Zaremba: Give me the numbers again. It's a nine foot space with a two foot overhang? Strite: That's correct. ULI suggests that those spaces ought to be 17 feet with a two foot overhang, because it adds up to the total of 19 feet on the -- Zaremba: I thought I left ten feet off of that. So, we are talking about 17 feet with a two foot overhang. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 52 of 105 Strite: Seventeen feet with a two foot overhang, minimum seven foot walk. In relationship to the compact spaces, they become seven and a half by 13 with a two foot overhang, minimum seven foot walk or landscape strip. Borup: And the sidewalk curb would be the tire bumper. Strite: That's correct. Zaremba: Uh-huh. And that's how you proposed it; right? Strite: That's correct. Borup: Okay. Any other questions? I don't think we have anything else. Strite: Thank you. Do we have anyone else here to testify on this application? Seeing none, Commissioners? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move the hearing on item seven be closed. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Not seeing anybody jumping for discussion, I'll make a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of -- I'm sorry, is this one that we decide finally or do we forward this, when it's just a drive-thru? Kirkpatrick: It is forwarded to -- Zaremba: The whole thing gets forwarded. Kirkpatrick: -- to Council. Zaremba: Okay. Back up and start the motion again, then. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of item seven on our agenda, CUP 03-072, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a drive-thru window for a proposed coffee shop for Central Park Plaza by Nahas Enterprises, northeast corner of South Progress Avenue and Central Drive and this is referring to the site plan dated 30 December '03, to include all staff comments of the staff report for the hearing date of February 19, 2004, received by the City Clerk February 17, 2004, with the following change: On page five add a paragraph 12 that says parking stalls maybe 17 feet, with a two foot overhang of a seven foot walk as proposed. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 53 of 105 Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: I'm assuming that's approving the project as presented. Zaremba: Well, it's taking the developer's word for it that they will change the CC and R’s and include that piece of property. Borup: Which does not include all staff comments, then. Strite: I was just about to say that. I apologize. I think we will have to reopen this. If you look at item number 11 as written, you might want to take a second look at that. Zaremba: I'm sorry, my motion was adding that and it was not a -- I didn't realize it was in writing. I thought that was a verbal request. Did we vote on the motion? Rohm: I don't think so. Borup: No. Zaremba: In that case, I would make an amendment to the motion. Powell: You did vote on the motion. Borup: We did vote on the motion? Okay. Zaremba: Take some direction. Do I need a new motion, then? Borup: Can we rescind that -- how do we rescind the motion? We have done this before. Zaremba: Yeah, we have. And, actually, what we did is we made an amendment to the previous motion, so Mr. Chairman -- Borup: A new motion. It would be a new motion. Zaremba: I make a new motion that we amend the previous motion. All aspects of CUP 03-072 remain as stated in the previous motion, with the exception that on the staff notes page five, paragraph 11, the current sentence can be deleted and we will substitute the sentence that applicant has agreed to revise the CC and R’s to include a cross-access agreement. All other aspects of the previous motion remain. Rohm: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 54 of 105 Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 8: Public Hearing: AZ 03-025 Request for annexation and zoning of 57.84 acres from RUT to C-G zones for Blue Marlin by W. H. Moore Company – northwest corner of East Ustick Road and North Eagle Road: Borup: Thank you. Next item is Public Hearing AZ 03-025, request for annexation and zoning of 58.84 acres from RUT to C-G zones for Blue Marlin by W.H. Moore Company. I'd like to open this hearing at this time and start with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, members of the Commission. This item was originally set for hearing November 6th, 2003, and at that point it was continued until January 15. At that point the property had not been appropriately noticed and so it was continued to tonight. There has not been a staff presentation, even though we have had this on two previous meetings, so I will just briefly go over the application that W.H. Moore Company has submitted to the city on this. The property is approximately 58 acres northeast -- I'm sorry, northwest corner of Eagle Road, State Highway 55, and Ustick Road. There are three separate parcels, but all under single ownership. Parkstone Subdivision, which came through as Champion Park, is abutting the entire west boundary. Jasmine is a subdivision that is to the north, which is Ada County. This purple line that you see on here is the area of city impact boundary between the City of Boise and the City of Meridian. This does show that this -- this northerly 12 -- 12 acres was added -- was withdrawn from Boise City, then, added to the City of Meridian's area of impact last year. So, this is at the extreme north -- sort of east -- northeast corner, really, of our area of impact, at least on Eagle Road. This would all be City of Boise, then, as you head north for a couple of miles. The applications on the south side of Ustick Road, other than our new Commissioner Moe, I think everyone else has been -- was on the Commission when these came through. This was part of the Kissler application, similar, in that they requested annexation and zoning only without a development plan, which is the same as this application for you tonight. That application included this approximately 24 acres here on the southwest corner and it also included 18 acres here on the southeast corner. Unfortunately, the city has not acted on those. There is no final action. That is planned for this coming Tuesday. So, staff's hope was that we could come back to this commission and sort of tell you what the counsel's direction to staff was on these annexation requests without development plans. It is fairly rare. However, there has been quite a bit of activity that is -- well, I should say some activity that's different on Mr. Moore's property than the ones on the south. One of them I have already mentioned, that's the fact that this area of impact change was done, but also the will serve letter was issued by the City of Meridian to W.H. Moore Company a couple of years ago, which did address the services of water and sewer, as well as an agreement, essentially, to annex when it could be annexed. Last year Parkstone was annexed, which, of course, made this property eligible, so at that point a couple of months later they chose to go ahead and submit their application. The South Slough Trunk extension project is complete -- pretty much complete. That Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 55 of 105 does run along -- does provide sewer service, essentially, to the parcel now. Municipal water does run along Ustick Road in front of the piece. Just to point out for the record, there was a letter dated February 11 submitted to the city by Jack Ketlinski, he's a Jasmine Acres homeowner to the north who did express some concerns about not seeing sewer services stubbed to the north. As I pointed out, a couple of these properties in Jasmine are not in Meridian's service area, so those would not receive City of Meridian sanitary sewer. These parcels here on the northwest, of course, would and the city has -- Public Works, as you well know, has a requirement for to and through on sewer services, so we can let -- if you like, we can have more discussion about that later, but I think that was a point of clarification there. We did also have in the record for this application comments from ITD, October 30 letter from Dan Kuntz, who requested a traffic noise screen, since it is adjacent to a state highway. Those were not specifically included in our staff report. That has come up a couple of other times from ITD, but we -- the City Council has not formally incorporated that comment into a city condition, in part because we, frankly, haven't gotten a good explanation of what the noise screen study is. So, just for your classification, that's not included at this point in any conditions in our staff report. Ada County Highway District did also comment. Meridian Fire Department commented. Both of those agencies -- typically those conditions would not become effective until we received the development application, so they -- we would, unless otherwise directed by the Commission, leave those conditions out of annexation and include them in a future development. Finally, the -- on the slide here I just wanted to show you the way that Parkstone was approved, this is the entire preliminary plat for Parkstone. They were conceptually approved for this mini storage project, which abuts the property almost a thousand feet of shared property boundary with the applicant's property here tonight. They had some office retail here at their entrance off of Ustick Road. There are some -- a few residential lots, single family detached houses, that do abut this Blue Marlin piece and there are no stub streets to the property, however, as you can see. Their only stub street is to the Jasmine Acres to the north, which is located here. And sewer and water are in the stub street going north to Jasmine. Okay. That's from Bruce Freckleton. I think the only other item I'd like to point out in the staff report, which is dated November 6th for the November 6th hearing, received November 4 by the City Clerk, there is quite a bit of discussion in there about the required findings that the city must make before annexing property. So, I won't go over all those in detail, other than to say that we did get a response letter from Jonathan Seel, dated February 17, that responds to a couple of our recommended conditions. We are recommending that a development agreement be entered into between the property owner and the City of Meridian and that that development agreement include some basic standards for future development, whether that's this developer or someone else and those -- there are two of those recommended conditions that they are disagreeing with. They have agreed to enter into it at this point. They are opposed to that agreement stating that there would be a public -- some kind of a backage road along Eagle Road. They would like to have that withdrawn from the development agreement and potentially discussed in a future conceptual plan. And, then, the second item that they are strongly opposed to is the inclusion of any residential within this 58 acres in the future. They do foresee this as strictly a nonresidential development and Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 56 of 105 they have listed their reasons there on page two of Mr. Seel's memo to the city. So, I think, unless the Commission has other questions of staff -- Borup: Questions at this time? Zaremba: I would ask one and that's kind of to pursue the issue of the public or private backage road. It's my recollection that ITD has said that they either will refuse or seriously frown on any access onto Eagle Road, State Highway 55. Is our added requirement just a due diligence to say you know that we know that you know that we know that ITD isn't going to let you put access on Eagle Road? Borup: And maybe along that same line that the Eagle Road study addressed this, I remember very well what they were talking about on the mile between Fairview and Ustick Did that study go to McMillan or did it go all the way to Chinden? I'm not remembering to what extent those recommendations were. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, are you referring to the 1997 -- Borup: I think so. Hawkins-Clark: -- Eagle Road corridor study? Yeah, I believe it did go to Highway 20/26. Borup: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: Chinden. Yeah. Their jurisdiction, of course, goes to Highway 44, in terms of the entire stretch of ITD's -- from the interchange to Highway 44. But I think the study, yeah, began at -- in some ways that bears less weight now. They are underway with another Eagle Road arterial study that they are actually having a three day workshop at this very time. They have brought in some outside experts to help them address a lot of the changes that have happened since '97. They have admitted that it's been a difficult corridor for them and I think they recognize that some changes need to be made. Borup: At that time I believe their proposal restricted it to three accesses in the mile, basically. No more than -- at least no more than three traffic lights. That's probably excessive, but -- Hawkins-Clark: Right. Borup: And so we could assume with the increased traffic that it's not going to be anymore lenient than that. Hawkins-Clark: The letter that we received from ITD from Mr. Kuntz did not -- was not specific on that and their policy is that they really don't put down their hammer, so to speak, until an access permit is applied for, so we have numerous form letters from ITD Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 57 of 105 that talk about this general access policy, but until they actually receive an application for an access permit, they don't make their final decisions and, of course, if there is a deeded point of access -- they cannot isolate a parcel. ITD is -- the way that it was explained to me, if it's an isolated parcel, they have to provide access somehow to that, even if it's temporary. But those issues are addressed with the applicants at the time that they actually apply to -- Borup: That makes sense. It's hard to comment on a plan that doesn't exist. Did you have some other -- Zaremba: Well, what I was getting at is are we trying to require something that ITD is going to require anyhow, whether we ask for it or not? Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner, I don't believe so. I think it's an important discussion and, you know, these access management -- access controls are something that I think the city has the ability to talk about and really should. You know, they are leaning towards frontage roads in some cases and, you know, in this mile where you really are only talking about less than a half mile where you can do much with because of existing conditions, I think that you will -- they will probably have to deal with these on a case- by-case basis. But this intersection is a -- certainly a key intersection in this entire corridor, sense all four corners today are undeveloped. It's a great opportunity for the city to place conditions that we feel are important to help keep Highway 55 moving traffic. Zaremba: Well, not to preempt their current ongoing meeting, but rumor has it that some of their discussion is urban interchanges and going to almost zero access on Eagle Road. Don't know if that's going to be the end result, but we will see. Borup: Okay. Does that conclude your remarks? Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Thank you. Borup: Okay. Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Seel: Jonathan Seel, 600 North Steelhead, Boise, Idaho. Good evening. First, if I could, I'd like to just give a little bit of background information before I kind of get into the meat of it. Just thought I would mention it. We did have a neighborhood meeting back in October of last year, since then, because, obviously, we have tabled this on several different occasions, but made an attempt to keep the homeowners apprised of the cancellation, so they didn't come in here and sit and spend the evening. I also talked to Mr. Hedricks last week and explained to him that we were going to have the hearing tonight. If they wanted to, we could -- we would be pleased to meet with the neighbors, which has been primarily neighbors of Jasmine Lane. He said with an annexation rezone there is not a great deal to talk about. But wanted to mention that. Another couple of things Brad touched on, as he mentioned in his discussion, approximately 13 acres of this land was originally within the City of Boise. It was zoned Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 58 of 105 for commercial use. We had discussions several years ago when we thought it would make sense to combine this into the City of Meridian. We had discussions with the former mayor, the current mayor, and also some council members and I think the vision always was that this would be a commercial development and my purpose in this I think will become evident as I move through my discussion. I think also as we discussed on Parkstone, that there was mini storage to the east of our project and I attached a copy of the minutes. Again, the vision again was that this would be a commercial development. So, I think all the way along it's been a commercial development, again, and I will get to it. I guess the first thing I'd like to address is the purpose that we are here simply for an annexation and rezone. We recognize that that's a little bit unusual. That's not typically what you see. You typically see the annexation, the rezone, the preliminary plat, and the various stuff. The reason is because what we are finding out here within the industry today is that prospective user or users as they come forward they approach us, one of the first questions that they ask is, is the land zoned for this use. If the comment is no, they simply move on at that point. The conversation ends very quickly. You know, there might be a reaction that, well, that sounds pretty good, that's something a developer would dream up. But as Brad Hawkins-Clark -- as I have talked with Brad about -- you may be aware there is, actually, a project right now called the Hercules project. It's going down into Silverstone. It's a fairly confidential project, but I can talk about it to some degree. We have had a meeting with these people, they are looking at bringing in potentially 3,000 employees into the City of Meridian, a development -- that will go down there. It's very serious. We are moving forward. They have picked this area. Their intention is before the end of the year to have this project up and going. Had that land or lands not been zoned for that particular use, you may very well today be hearing about them moving to another city within the Treasure Valley, or, potentially, within another city outside the state. They were looking at a variety of cities from the east coast to the west coast. I guess the point that I'm trying to make there is it is a critical thing for them. There is too many choices, there is too much competition, and even though you might say, oh, gosh you can get it rezoned, the point is they are not willing to take that chance, they simply move on. They don't need to waste the time for us to say to them, for example, yes, we think we can get it rezoned, just hang in here with us. We even had a preliminary discussion last week with a user for this Ustick and Eagle land. I think it would be very attractive. It's one that's not within the City of Meridian and I can't go into more detail, but the only reason they even began to approach us about it on an extremely preliminary basis is because they heard we were coming in tonight for an annexation and rezone. Also, Winston Moore, who is here tonight, got a call from another large user today, who is another opportunity. But, again, the first question comes out the annexation and rezone. So, again, the reason that we are asking for this tonight is that it enables us to market this project, so that we can develop this as a first class project, whatever that might be. But without that annexation and rezone, we are, essentially, fighting with one hand tied behind our back, maybe both. So, it's very critical to us to move forward to achieve that and to market it to have that annexation and rezone. That is, really, the purpose that we are here tonight for. We wouldn't typically. Now, having said that, within the staff report we can appreciate some of the concerns that might be addressed that you're, well, approving this, but what controls do we have. What we have talked with Brad -- and I think as I Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 59 of 105 indicated in my letter, we are prepared to enter into a development agreement and even though I think it wasn't spelled out specifically in there, we are prepared to either agree in that development agreement to either come back for conditional use permits or for a planned use development. And if I can, if you will bear with me -- and I know everyone here is familiar, but this is -- I thought it might be worthwhile -- this is just the general -- Zaremba: You need to stop talking until you're back on the microphone. Seel: Anyway, I understand that everybody is certainly very familiar, but I'd just like to read the language under general for a moment, because I think it's very clear. You know, what it says is conditional use is, by definition, are characteristics which require that the proposed use be reviewed and evaluated by the Commission and Council as to whether or not the use would be detrimental to other persons, property, or uses in the vicinity. The Commission shall hold public hearings and shall recommend approval, denial, or modification of the application to the Council. Recommendations for approval or modification shall include conditions deemed necessary to insure compatibility of development with other uses in the vicinity and such additional safeguards as is necessary to uphold the intent of this ordinance. I think what this says here, very simply, is that you're going to have another bite at the apple. What we are, in essence, agreeing to tonight, if it's approved, is almost certainly a nondevelopment agreement. It's really not even a development agreement, if you want get technical. What we are saying is we cannot do any development on this until we come back for you for a planned use development, conditional uses, or whatever it is and at that point, then, you can evaluate what we are doing, you can put conditions on it, you can deny it, you can modify it, you can change it, you can turn it upside down. You have that opportunity. I think this language here I think speaks very clearly to that and that's why I wanted to get a copy of this. So, again, I don't want to belabor this, but I think we appreciate the concerns, but the city has, I think by our willingness, to put within the development agreement either a planned use development or the conditional use. I think you have the protections, we are simply only asking for tonight is the approval of a multi-step process. We are asking for the first step of approval in a multi-step process to allow us to put our foot in the door, so we can move forward on this thing. Now, having said that, as far as the actual development agreement itself, the things it has mentioned in here we have issues with and I think that the private or public backage road -- maybe I can clarify that. Again, I think that that's an issue that can be addressed in the Conditional Use Permit or the planned use development. I guess the part that concerns me a little bit -- and this is when they talk about parallel road. You know, we oftentimes have approved things -- and we have done this, too, and it doesn't sound to bad at that time and, then, we come back later and we find out, boy, why did we do that? Why didn't we recognize. My concern is maybe the parallel. You know, maybe the road will be perpendicular, maybe the road will go diagonal, but I think we can address that when we submit the plan to you at that point and I think as far as access points, they will be addressed, then, too. We do have deed -- deeded access points off Eagle Road. Whether or not we can use those, we don't know, but we are not looking at that right now. That's the next step in the process. So, again, that's my main concern in asking that that be removed. We recognize there will be roads. Whether they will be public, Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 60 of 105 private, backage roads, whatever they will be, there is certainly going to be those within this project, but let's not put that specific condition in now, let's address it through the plat, through the PUD, through the CU process. We are not trying to dodge anything here, we just -- we have concerns that you put certain language in now it comes back to bite you later. The other thing I'd like to mention is the multi-family. The reason that I mentioned about the 13 acres and change and talked about Champion Park and what have you, is because our vision has always been one of commercial. Up until recently, until approximately a month back in October when we started to talk with staff on this, that conversation of multi-family never came up. I understand within the Comp Plan it says multi-family within this zone, but it says where feasible we will encourage this. In our opinion it's not feasible here and it should not be encouraged. This is prime commercial land, you're surrounded by thousands of acres of residential that's either been developed, will be developed, or is being planned for development right now. Why would somebody want to locate within a business park or a business park type setting, when literally you could throw a stone to residential settings there. The economics don't justify it. I mean I have gone through a list of things and I won't bore you. They are in my letter. So, we are asking that that condition be stricken from your - - we feel very strong about that one. You know, even the cost of it. I mean you can't justify building multi-family on this land as costly as it is today. Plus, the market for it just doesn't justify it. So, we'd ask that that would be -- would be stricken. So, I think it's -- in summary in this thing, you know, try to wrap this up and don't take a lot of your time, we are not trying to do an end run around anything, we are not trying to circumvent the process, we are not trying to be sneaky here, all we are trying to do is allow us to move to the next step. I think you should know with Winston Moore -- I have been up here before. I was up here in front of you with El Dorado, for example. You have seen the quality we have done there. We want to do the same of type of quality here. We went well above what was requested there. We landscaped the interior of that, we have done things there that are far beyond and were extremely expensive, but we wanted to do it, because we want to build quality, we want to build quality here, but we need your assistance in order to market it, so we can develop the quality project we want that will increase your tax base, will bring employees to the city, and bring the type of projects to this city that you will be proud of. So, I will leave it at that and answer any questions. Borup: Okay. Questions for Mr. Seel? The only one I have got is that pertaining to the -- well, as it says in the staff report, the private road, whether it's a backage road running parallel or whatever and I would agree that whether it runs parallel or not is probably not an issue. The pertinent things to me would be access to Eagle and access to adjoining properties. In this case probably the properties to the north. And if something could be worded that would address that and maybe it's not pertinent to a development agreement, I don't know, but would that make sense to you, something that can address those concerns, which I think that's really probably what we should be concerned with. Seel: Mr. Chairman, I can appreciate your concern on that. I guess, again, I go back to the issue we are going to come in with a plat with a conditional use. If there is not an Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 61 of 105 access road in a particular spot or road in a way that you don't like or you think it should be, you have the opportunity at that point -- I guess we are getting -- I think we are getting the cart ahead of the horse here. Let's concentrate on the things and when we know what it is, we can evaluate it. I don't disagree, I suspect that the neighbors to the north would be extremely opposed to any access point and I'm sure that that would be there, but, you know, I think we are spending energy now doing things that we don't have to address at this point. Borup: See, I could see the neighbors -- some of the neighbors may feel just the opposite. Seel: Well -- Borup: If the ground is that valuable and it may be not that pleasant of a place to live as a residential property. Without that access point, then, that would decrease the value of their property. Seel: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you on this, what I'm simply saying is I don't think that this is the time or place for us to discuss that. You will have an opportunity down the road when we come in with a plan to put those requirements or remove those requirements from our plan. I think we are trying to speculate on something that we don't know now. So, in all due respect, I think you will have the opportunity, you will have that bite at the apple later on to address that, along with a multitude of other things, whether it's buffers for the homeowners and I know they are here and they have concerns about that -- a variety of things. We will -- you know, we will make sure -- I mean I don't think we have ever come in front of the city with a project that I don't think everybody's not proud of. Borup: Other questions? Rohm: My only question would be if, in fact, it's rezoned and they come in with a proposal down the road that fits within that zoning -- Borup: They have already agreed for a conditional use on everything. Rohm: I mean can we make it a condition that the Conditional Use Permit or a planned development be attached to a rezone? Can you do it that way? Zaremba: Well, the development agreement would require -- if we make it -- if we rezone it to C-G, then, there are certain things that are automatically permitted because of that. What we are saying is -- and I believe they are saying is we make a development agreement that says regardless of whether they would be permitted or not, you're still going to come back either as a CUP or as a planned development and I forgot what the third thing was. There were three choices. Seel: Well, the plat, but I think conditional use or your -- Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 62 of 105 Zaremba: Okay. And, yes, at time of annexation we can make that a legal requirement that removes the automatic permitting element. Rohm: Okay. Well, that was my major concern, is if, in fact, you grant the C-G and once that's issued, then, they, under certain developments, wouldn't have to come in for a Conditional Use Permit or planned development or otherwise, then, we are -- our hands are tied. So, as long as we can make that a condition of annexation or rezone, then, I don't think -- Zaremba: They have agreed that in concept what the question is how many more elements are going to be in the -- in the development agreement. Seel: Well, Commissioner Rohm, I think, you know, as I mentioned to you, we are literally, in my mind -- I'm not an attorney, but we are really saying to you in this effect is we are agreeing to a non-development agreement. In other words, yes, you got those uses in there, we can't go out there and just build this use or that use, you know, what we have to do is come back for a planned use development or a conditional use, you evaluate that with those uses and, then, you either say again if you look at the definitions in here, we think that's a good use, we don't think that's a good use, we think that there is certain modifications. So, that's -- you know, I think we are trying to give you the protection that you're -- Rohm: And I appreciate that. Thank you. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup? Borup: Yes. Hawkins-Clark: If I could just chime in. I think the initial concern of Commissioner Rohm's I think is a very good one and our Planning Director talked about it earlier as far as when you do zone, those vested rights that go with that underlying zone are strong and -- but certainly a development agreement is a legal contract that is entered into between the property owner and the City of Meridian that is also very strong, but I think our -- there is a certain amount of buyer beware that goes on here. The city P and Z Commission and the Council have really put quite a bit of emphasis in the past on insuring that future property owners know what the city is looking for when they buy land and as much as we can sit here tonight and say that this is going to happen exactly as the applicant is stating to us, frankly, we need to be thinking about all possibilities and that's the reason that we are wanting to just inform all parties through as many opportunities as possible. And, of course, an agreement that talks about a strong desire of the city to get connection from Ustick up to the north without being forced onto Eagle Road is an important piece for all future buyers to be aware of. Borup: And I agree with that and I think that's important, but stating that it has to run parallel to Eagle may be a little too strong. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 63 of 105 Hawkins-Clark: And I would agree with that. I think the language I included in there was the same as Kissler's and that was why it was in there, but, obviously, the bottom line here is that there is -- there is public access without having to weave through a mirage -- a myriad -- is that the word? A maze. That's the -- a maze of commercial driveways to get up to Jasmine, under the assumption that that redevelops in the future is important, whether it's parallel or meanders -- yeah. I agree. Zaremba: I think the part that strikes me -- the other Winston Moore projects that are ongoing in the city I think are a tremendous benefit to the city. The difficulty is the rules are not made for the people that we trust and admire. They are made for everybody else and the difficulty is the people we trust and admire have to fit into the same rules. The point is we could annex it and rezone it and not have these conditions in the development agreement and you could sell it to somebody else who wouldn't have the same principals and I think that's what the city is trying protect itself from. Seel: And I think that that's what we are saying, unless I'm missing part of this, is that we are agreeing now that that's a condition. You know, again, I'm an attorney and I don't know how to exactly do it, you know, we are saying that -- in fact, if you look at the -- if you look at the commitment concerning development -- concerning use or development on your annexation, it says in here if the property is annexed and zoned the city may require a permit as a condition of zoning that the owner or developer make a written commitment concerning the use or development of the subject property. That's right within your -- that's your zoning ordinance. You know, I'm certainly -- Borup: Right. And isn't that what the staff is asking for, that the commitment is made as part of the development? Seel: Yes. And I think the commitment we are making here is we are making a commitment literally to do a non-development agreement. What we are saying is that we will agree to -- before we do any development we have to go through the PUD or CU process. We can't develop until we have got that approval. So, maybe I'm missing something in here, but I think we are giving you the comfort that you need and it also enables us to move forward our marketing efforts. I mean as I read it here -- if you read the staff report -- let me get that out. Powell: Chairman Borup, while he's looking that up, there is a difference. Your -- the city's greatest influence is whether or not you decide to annex a property and that's where -- even though they are agreeing to come in with a Conditional Use Permit, if they have the zoning and you look at the Conditional Use Permit, if it fits all the codes of zoning ordinance at the time that they submit it, then, your ability to say no is fairly limited. However, your ability to say no to an annexation is much greater and these are ones as they come down from the state. The state has said the cities have a right not to annex property, but because it's such a strong property right state, you don't have those same kind of opportunities to say no when it comes to a Conditional Use Permit and that's why all staff is trying to do is make the buyer of this property aware of what Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 64 of 105 the Comprehensive Plan says and what -- the two things we would be looking for, consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and some sort of road system throughout there, rather than a private commercial drive and that's all we have tried to do and we are still acknowledging that this property could be zoned and come back in for a Conditional Use approval. On the previous request for the annexation we have also required some sort of conceptual plan and we did forego that on this one, but we are -- all we are looking for is consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and some sort of road system. Borup: Is there some other suggested wording that would cover those concerns without maybe being as specific as saying it needs to be parallel back-age road? Mr. Seel, were you starting to say something? Seel: Well, I guess I can say if this is what we are hung up on here, you know, I don't -- I don't know if it's a hill worth dying for, quite frankly, you know. I think it would concern me that it would come back and it would be one of those things that would bite. I mean to say that there is going to be some type of road system in there, if you want, I think that that's -- you know, I think that's -- you know, we are comfortable with that. Again, we are not disagreeing, Mr. Chairman, that there is not going to be a road -- Borup: Right. Okay. And that's what I was just going to ask. You agree there needs to be a north -- some type of a north-south access generally parallel to -- Seel: Yeah. I mean that's truly the issue. Borup: And if you plan on doing that, then, I'm not sure why there is a concern. Seel: Well, again, like I say, I don't think it's -- Borup: Unless it gets too specific as far as the design and how that would tie in and, then, that makes sense. Seel: It just -- it seems to me -- Borup: You need some flexibility to make -- Seel: That's all I was looking for, that I felt that that could be addressed in another step of the process. But, again, if that seems to be the only thing that we are really hung up on, I -- you know, Winston -- Mr. Moore's here, he can talk to it, and if he's fine with it, then, I'm fine with it. Zaremba: Could we say that there will be an internal roadway, either public or private, that has its access on Ustick? Borup: Has what? Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 65 of 105 Zaremba: That has its access on Ustick? Borup: Well, I think it needs to say it's going to run generally in a northerly direction to - - Seel: Well, I think something is going to. I mean -- Borup: Well, it -- Rohm: We are getting there. We are getting there. Zaremba: We are going to agree somehow. Seel: Again, we are not trying to be difficult. We are not trying to nitpick things here. It's just sometimes it kind of struck me, again, we recognize there is going to be a road system through here, there has got to be, and there has got to be access points and everything else in this process, so we certainly recognize that, we would just -- I guess I was a little concerned that it was maybe more my call, when it says parallel it may be, you know -- again, maybe we are splitting hairs here. Borup: I think so. Seel: We are trying to move forward on this thing and I think, you know, we will work with you. Rohm: We'll just have to address the verbiage and I think we can get there, just -- we will have to work through it a bit. Moe: I would anticipate instead of the parallel, that we just note that it's north and south. Borup: And do away with the word backage. Zaremba: The other issue I would address is the multi-family part of it and I realize that the Comprehensive Plan says that this is a multiple use planning area, which may include residential. My question would be do we interpret the Comprehensive Plan as being permissive? In other words, if the applicant wants, they could have residential or as being demanding that they must have residential in this area? I interpreted the previous applications -- and I never anticipated that we were going to look for residential on this piece of property. I can understand the Comprehensive Plan allows it, but doesn't demand it. Borup: And I think it said -- used the word also encourage where feasible and so I'm sure the road -- Eagle Road is a feasible location for a residential development. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 66 of 105 Zaremba: Yeah. I agree with staff that the Comprehensive Plan includes it, but I'm not so sure that that's the right thing for this property. Certainly the applicant doesn't think its the right thing for this property and they are the ones putting their money up. Borup: I'm comfortable deleting that from there entirely. Zaremba: I still would like to defend having some roadway sentence in there, but -- Seel: That's fair. Zaremba: Can we make a trade? Seel: Sure. You take this. You take that. Yeah. We want to be reasonable. Borup: How about just saying a public or private road generally parallel with Eagle Road, access from Ustick, and extending northward. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, if I could just put on the record that staff has concerns about it being private. Borup: Okay. I was reading your -- Larsen: My name is Cornell Larsen, address 210 Murray, Boise, Idaho. I'm here with the applicant this evening. The suggested language for the road might read: There will be a public or private road system that goes from Ustick to the north and, if required, connect to the northern boundary. In other words, the neighbors may be opposed to a connection to the northern boundary, but if required connect to the northern boundary. It may also connect to Eagle Road where permitted by IDT. Borup: Any problems removing the word private after public? Zaremba: Okay. Do that again now. Larsen: There will be a public road system that goes from Ustick Road to the north and, if required, connect to the north boundary. It may also connect to Eagle Road at locations permitted by IDT. That allows us the flexibility to go to Eagle Road where we can, so that we can create a roadway system, if necessary in there. If the project became a large shopping center, then, the roadway system may be a little different than a public road and that was my concern of putting the word private in there, as was done similar to the family centers, there is an internal private road that acts as a back-age road, which is created in the parking lot, and so if something like that were to occur, we'd like to have that flexibility, as opposed to making it a public road. So, my comment would -- the request for a private road was simply to allow for a circulation system inside of the project that may be deemed wide enough to be a roadway system like was done at the family center. I personally think the family center is a little narrow and would like to have it a little bit wider and a little more generous, but that would be the idea and the request for the private portion of the road. And, then, also while I was up here I wanted Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 67 of 105 to talk a little bit about utilities and annexation. We had requested about two years ago a will serve letter from the city for serving the property and going forward with the development in Ada County and the city was willing to do this at the time and agreed to provide that letter to us, simply because we had no path of annexation. We agreed in that -- in those initial meetings with the city that should the property become available for annexation or be requested at the city's request to be annexed, because we were taking city services, that we would not oppose that annexation. So, I want you to be clear that at that time we were not opposed to annexation and we were willing to do so two years ago, so I wanted you to know that. We also did a study with the engineering company checking to see how far north we could go from Ustick Road or where the service line is. I don't know whether Bruce remembers that, but I believe we had Pinnacle Engineers do that and we can get to the -- we can get to the north boundary -- I'm not sure how far north of the north boundary we could go. At that time we were only concerned about the north boundary. That was all the notes I had. Borup: All right. Thank you. Rohm: I think that the important thing as far as this internal roadway is that it's at least a part of this approval process, that they have to have an internal roadway that connects south to north, north to south, generally parallel to Eagle Road. And I think that the applicant's agreed that that would be in good keeping. Borup: It needs to be a roadway, not drive aisles through a parking lot. Rohm: I don't know that it necessarily would have to be public, as long as it -- it would be part of a Conditional Use Permit process or the planned development and so it wouldn't necessarily have to be public in order to comply. Seel: Sure. It will still give you the same benefit. Zaremba: How about this? If we take Mr. Larsen's statement and include both public and private, but add the word continuous, so it says there will be a continuous public or private road system that goes from -- so whether parts of it are public or parts of it are private, at least it's continuous, which was the point. We didn't want a series of driveways. Seel: Sure. Understand. Zaremba: For somebody to go -- and, otherwise, I like Mr. Larsen's statement. Let's see. I don't have any further questions, but I don't know if there is anybody else in the audience that -- Borup: Yeah. That's why we -- Seel: I think there is. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 68 of 105 Borup: Okay. Anything else you've got? Seel: No. Borup: Thank you. Seel: Thank you very much. Borup: Okay. We'd like to open this part up for public testimony. Do we have someone that would like to come forward? Hedrick: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Wally Hedrick. I live at 13984 West Jasmine. We are the property to the north. That's 44 acres with five homes. The two lanes that access that property are private lanes, so -- that's my property. These are the other four lots that exist there. These lots -- four lots are accessed by a private lane on this side. This is not a dedicated roadway. And that lot's accessed by a private lane right here. We met with the W.H. Moore Company on October 30th, had a discussion with Mr. Seel and several other representatives. I think the important thing here is there is insufficient information upon which to base any decisions. For that reason, the Jasmine homeowners association, as you might expect, is unanimously opposed to this rezone and request for annexation. You have discussed a little bit the roadway to the north. Since it's a private lane, we aren't anxious to have access in from this property. Secondly, it sounds like to me that -- Borup: And we weren't talking access to your private lane. Hedrick: I understand. Borup: We were talking about basically a stub street. Hedrick: I understand. I wanted to make it clear where we stood. In your discussion it sounds like this is an unusual request and, for the most part, the rules that the City of Meridian follows reflect a more detailed information prior to taking these two particular actions. Also, the City Council has not acted on the two parcels on the southwest and southeast corner of Eagle Road and Ustick at this point. What would happen if they would turn this down? And I realize they could turn down -- or turn down the two requests that are before them. I realize they could simply turn this one down, but if we are going to apply the standards of land use in this community universally -- and I concur, Mr. Moore's operation is first class -- if we are going to apply the same standards, then, they ought to be applied here as well. We look forward to working with Mr. Moore and his company when there are specific plans with tenants, with roadways, with berms, with heights and all the other requirements that exist in the planning and zoning rules and regulations. So, with that I would be happy to answer any questions you might have and I'd like to get the Clerk -- the Deputy Clerk some information I just spoke about. I don't know whether I said I was the president of the association, which is an illustrious position. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 69 of 105 Borup: You said there were five homes on 44 acres? Hedrick: That is correct, Mr. Chairman. Borup: Any other questions for Mr. Hedrick? Hedrick: Thank you very much for your time. Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Davis: My name is Tom Davis, I live at 2740 East Ustick Road, Meridian. The Parkstone property, for your information -- Borup: And you're right here, Mr. Davis? Davis: This is all my ground, yeah. Hillview has bought this piece right here. This line right here. I still own this property right -- all of this property here. If they had a plan for this property, the biggest concern that I had -- I represent the Layton Lateral, it is -- it is piped from Cloverdale Road and it's all piped in 30 inch concrete right down to this point. It is open ditch to here. It is piped across there to 30 inch concrete and this is the main lateral to go to 220 acres down here and our concern is -- maybe we are a little early here, but we want this in concrete, not in steel or plastic. And, then, there is -- right at this point there is headgates and to carry the water to these people over here would need to be in concrete, too, and this is a drain ditch, which if this parcel here is developed at some point, this could be eliminated. I guess that's all I -- we are just requesting that we have the same type of pipe in the Layton Lateral that we have above there and what we have at Eagle Road. Do you have any questions? Borup: Does that lateral feed anyone else beyond the Parkstone boundaries? Does it go to other properties to the west? Davis: Yeah. There is 220 acres. It goes clear to Locust Grove. Borup: Okay. So, the other acres that it feeds would be Summerfield Subdivision? Davis: Summerfield and the school property and Hollister property and all this of my property. My property is here now and Hillview -- the pressure irrigation and all that. And the 30 inch pipe I think needs to be across here, because if, eventually, they had pressure irrigation -- and we have onto that with Settler's, is that if the power goes off and they are pumping, you still have to have a big enough pipe to carry that water, unless you have auxiliary power to keep the pumps going and we can get into a lot of extra water and the 30 inch -- there is 320 miner inches of water that comes down that ditch. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 70 of 105 Borup: Okay. Thank you. And they are required to pipe the ditches through their property. That's a standard -- Davis: Yes, but we -- Borup: But you want it in concrete. Davis: We want the concrete. Thank you. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, could I just ask a question of Mr. Davis? Borup: Mr. Davis? Freckleton: Sorry, Tom. The Layton Lateral, is that under the jurisdiction of Settler's Irrigation District or is it a private -- Davis: That is private. Settler's Irrigation, when the water leaves the canal, it is up to the patrons on that lateral to maintain that ditch and take care of it and Settler's isn't like Nampa-Meridian where they deliver the water to your property, so all this -- this -- this ditch that comes down from Cloverdale has all been tiled because of development and, then, it's open ditch here and it's open ditch there and that is our responsibility, not Settler's, to take care of that and to see to it. Freckleton: Thank you. Ketlinski: Good evening. Jack Ketlinski, 2610 Jasmine Lane. I own the triangle property right there. I want to just say something that Tommy has just told what was concerned about the irrigation district. Our subdivision here is taken from a headgate here straight down Eagle Road into our property and that's how we irrigate. Not only do we have concerns about that water being kept and provided to us, we also have concerns with the drainage ditches along the southern part of our subdivision be left intact for a road. It's the -- it's not so much in here, but along my southern edge of my property that's a drainage ditch you see there and concerns have got to be made to what we are going to do with that drainage water. My last concern was -- I think Keith Borup said it, that if you give approval of that zoning tonight, there are implied things that we may not be able go back and fix without a development plan. That's all I have. Thank you. Borup: Okay. Any questions? Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else? Okay. Mr. Moore. Moore: If I may, please. I'm Winston Moore, I reside at 11665 Thomas Drive in Boise. I'm going to try and be brief, but I do want to just touch on a few things that come to mind, just more or less as an attitude and the spirit that I have in this development and with the city and with our neighbors and the community. Starting at the back, more or less, as far as the irrigation goes, you know, we have done this all over the valley and we understand, you don't shut the water off, you don't impede the water, we work with Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 71 of 105 the irrigation districts, we certainly work with the neighbors, the last thing we would ever consider is interrupting or interfering with irrigation to the adjacent properties. There is just almost nothing to talk about as far as I'm concerned. It won't happen. Now, how -- that's my word, but I mean there are also laws out there about water, which Tom Davis knows infinitely better than I ever will. So, I respectfully suggest that that should not be a concern. I'll just touch on a couple of things, which, apparently, have already been decided, but just by way of clarification with respect to residential and I think you have already eliminated that, but it may help that the interpretation of the mixed use regional designation in the Comprehensive Plan, part of that says the intent of this designation is to offer the developer a greater degree of design and use flexibility. It doesn't say it would still offer the city a mandate to insist that we do certain things. This, to me, says it's the developer's call, it's the developer's money, the developer knows the market and, believe me, in this instance there is no market for multi-family in that area, the land is too valuable, and I think it should be a non-issue, simply because of what the definition is. And as far as our not having a conceptual plan with this application, we are not intending to circumvent anything, to dodge anything, to be clever, what we are attempting to do -- and it's just as much for the city, believe me, as for anyone else and I might just digress for a split second. I was invited a week or two ago to visit with the new mayor's economic development council, I guess. I was up there for an hour and a half and the only thing they wanted to talk about is how the City of Meridian could encourage new businesses to come to your community -- to our community to create jobs. What can we do -- they call me Mr. Moore and I don't -- that was my dad. I don't know. But, you know, what can we do, Mr. Moore, to encourage people to come here and my comment, frankly, was to just use common sense to try and figure out ways to make things happen, instead ways to make it difficult for them to happen. And in this instance with respect, again, to the development plan or the conceptual plan or the lack thereof, it's our intent that you folks will have total control of this through the development agreement, as you spoke about conditional use the way we interpret that and the way we are used to, that you have the absolute control there. We have no intention of coming back -- and I'm not going to sell that property, incidentally, so you would be dealing with someone else, but we have no intention of being, I don't know, devious or scheming, it's totally straight forward and above board and, in my opinion, you will have just as much control without having a development -- a conceptual plan or concept plan as you will if you did have one and the reason that we are -- I'm maybe repeating what Jonathan said and I'm going to -- I'll sit down. A development of this size in a location that this is in, the market in -- I'm going to say the Treasure Valley is not such that we can lay out a firm plan on 58 acres and say this is exactly the way it's going to be. There are going to be this many buildings, there are going to be these many uses, they are going to be this size and so on, because we don't know what it's going to be. But it will conform to the laws and ordinances of this city and certainly to the zoning. So, to me, there is -- and I think I'm objective here -- there is no down side to the community, to the city, certainly you folks, in letting us proceed without the conceptual plan. Jonathan touched on something that, you know, again, going back to Mayor de Weerd's committee and so on, how do we encourage people to come here, we can't do a concept plan. We just can't do it, because we don't know what's going to be there, as far as how it's going to be arranged, but the city has an investment there in Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 72 of 105 sewer and water and utilities. You want hookups, you want to generate income from that investment and, therefore, it's obvious that if the sewer is developed in a quality way, the better off that the city will be. This is -- this is the developer's risk and our investment there will be pretty close to 60 million dollars and if you extrapolate that into property taxes, depending on which level, you go from 1.3 percent to 1.8 percent, that will generate just about a million dollars worth of property taxes. I don't know how it's distributed, it goes to Ada County tax assessor, I guess, we write those checks every year, but certainly a proportionate share would come back to your community. So, it's just very much to the community's benefit to have that intersection and certainly our property, developed in a quality way as soon as practical and quickest, soonest, best, most practical way is to let us proceed without the concept plan and I don't want to put this in the context of what's good for us, we want this, we want that, with me it's a partnership, we are all working together to make quality things happen in this community. And that's -- I probably rambled on too long. If you have any questions at all, I'd certainly welcome the chance to respond. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Rohm: Thank you, sir. Moore: Thank you. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, the one comment that I'd like to make about this whole proposal here is that with this proposed annexation being in concert with the Comprehensive Plan, it seems more appropriate than if, in fact, the application was to have it a zoning other than what was proposed within the Comprehensive Plan. If there was a complete departure, I think that we should wait until we see specifically what would be moving forward, but, in fact, it's within the plan itself, then, it doesn't seem like we would be going down the wrong road here. So, I would be in support of moving forward with the application -- with the applicant. Borup: Then, let's do that. Let's move on or move ahead. Zaremba: I agree, Mr. Chairman. I move the Public Hearing be closed. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Do we need any discussion? I think we have discussed the residential aspect. I don't know if there is anything more -- Zaremba: We've discussed it pretty thoroughly. From the staff comments, I think the paragraph that we are changing is on page eight, paragraph three, and we do want to Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 73 of 105 develop -- to enter into a development agreement between the city and Winston H. Moore, but the elements of that development agreement -- well, I see whether Mr. Seel's letter might have said it the way we can comfortably say it with the addition of Mr. Larsen's statement. If I can find Mr. Seel's letter. Okay. If everybody will look at Mr. Seel's letter, I propose that I replace staff's paragraph three with Mr. Seel's paragraph one and two of the items they agree with and add a third paragraph that adds Mr. Larsen's statement. Does that sound like we cover everything? Okay. In that case, Mr. Chairman, I'm ready to make a motion. I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 8 on our agenda, AZ 03-025, request for annexation and zoning of 57.84 acres from RUT to C-G zone for Blue Marlin by W.H. Moore Company, northwest corner of East Ustick Road and North Eagle Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of November 6, 2003, received by the city clerk November 4, 2003, with the following change: On page eight, the current paragraph three will be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following statement. This is paragraph three and we will call this Subparagraph A. Prior to annexation ordinance approval the City of Meridian and Winston H. Moore will enter into a development agreement. This development agreement will require either a conditional use, planned development, or subdivision application be submitted to the City of Meridian prior to future development. Subparagraph B, a conceptual master plan would be submitted with the planned development for a site specific plan with any conditional use. Paragraph -- subparagraph C, any plan shall show a continuous public or private road system that goes from Ustick Road north and may connect to the north boundary and may also connect to Eagle Road, State Highway 55, if allowed by ITD. No other changes. End of motion. Yeah. Residential was part of the proposed development agreement from staff and I deleted that whole paragraph. Rohm: I'll second that motion. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Thank you. That concludes that item. Powell: Commissioner Zaremba, can we get a clarification on that? So, on deleting three, were you aware that continues for a page and a half? Zaremba: Yes. Powell: Okay. Zaremba: I was deleting three in its entirety and replacing it. I asked if that was comfortable and I know that removes the residential requirement and it removes all -- really, all of the Comprehensive Plan discussion, but -- Powell: Yes. We just wanted clarification. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 74 of 105 Zaremba: Yes. I meant to delete the page and a half long paragraph. Item 9: Public Hearing: AZ 03-036 Request for annexation and zoning of 19.7 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Salisbury Subdivision No. 2 by Earl, Mason, and Stanfield, Inc. – south of West Ustick Road and west of North Meridian Road: Item 10: Public Hearing: PP 03-042 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 72 single-family residential building lots and 2 common lots on 19.7 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Salisbury Subdivision No. 2 by Earl, Mason and Stanfield, Inc. – south of West Ustick Road and west of North Meridian Road: Borup: Okay. Our last item is Salisbury Subdivision No. 2. I'd like to open Public Hearing AZ 03-036, request for annexation and zoning of 19.7 acres and Public Hearing PP 03-042, request for preliminary plat approval of 72 single-family residential lots. Again, both these hearings are opened at this time and I'd like to start with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. You have received a staff report at your previous hearing on this application. I think I'll just point out for you a couple of the changes and discussions that have happened since the last hearing and, then, can take any questions that you might have. The reason -- the primary reason -- well, I guess there was a couple that the application was continued last hearing. First and foremost the noticing did not happen correctly, so that -- the property was posted and we did received confirmation at the city clerk's office that they did that. That should be in your packets. Secondly, the hearing was continued for discussion about some -- more discussion about Venable Lane and some of the treatment on that. There was a -- we also did not have the Ada County Highway District report as of the last meeting. They did approve the plat. The plat that the highway district approved is shown here on the screen and it's substantially the same as the previous plat from the last hearing, with the exception of the stub street -- there is a -- there was formerly only one stub street to the north, which was this one here in the northeast corner and there was a pedestrian connection here on the north and they are now proposing that to be a public standard 50 foot right of way street. What was called Claire Avenue was shown about in the middle of this block on the west boundary adjacent to Venable. That has been removed in its entirety and, essentially, shifted up here to the north. I think maybe at this point I will go ahead and put the other plat that was presented at your last hearing, just so you know that there has been numerous discussions between the Salisbury Homeowners Association and the applicant for this project. That doesn't come up -- well, maybe if we can get a little more light on that, but, as you can see, essentially, they were proposing a stub street to the north as well, but the east-west connection here is removed on the proposed plan. There we go. Shed a little light on the situation. To create a knuckle here on the north side and, Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 75 of 105 essentially, funnel traffic to the south. I just wanted to point out that that plat has always been floating around and part of the discussion since the last hearing. Zaremba: Brad, I'm sorry. Did ACHD see that choice? Hawkins-Clark: I believe they did, yes. And they agreed that the applicant's plat was preferred and, primarily, that's a distribution of traffic. They felt that it would better distribute traffic in this area to have both streets utilized, instead of funneling the majority of the traffic to the south. I included this section from the future land use map in the Comprehensive Plan here, primarily just to show you the long range vision for this area and this neighborhood center, as you can see, does come down and touch, in effect, a piece of this property and the majority of the north part of it. And so I think the connection to the north to have basically two ways into this neighborhood center, which is envisioned to be higher density, is -- you know, is probably a good thing to encourage connection, particularly under the assumption that Venable Lane in the future has a signalized intersection at Ustick and Venable at this point that would allow residents to have good access, less than a quarter mile, to a future signal. There is also a school immediately north there, so a signalized intersection would provide for a safer crossing as well. So, I think a public street there is a good thing, although all the plans, with the exception of their first, showed both stub streets to the north, so -- and, then, one other item to point out is on the -- the main change to the staff report, you did receive a revised staff report that was revised February 12th and the main change to discuss is on page ten and this is a discussion about Venable Lane and, essentially, how we prevent this private lane from becoming some kind of troublesome parcel in the future, since it's under totally separate ownership from any of the adjacent parcels. It is owned by Mr. Venable and his wife, who live outside of the Meridian area, and there is ingress- egress easements of all the abutting properties on Venable Lane, so, obviously, they have the right to use Venable, but it's different than a lot of our lanes where the adjacent parcels own to the center line of the lane and it's often like a lane users association. There is no such animal in this case. It's just a stand-alone parcel. Borup: That's this entire property? Hawkins-Clark: Seventeen hundred feet long. Zaremba: Yeah. I don't think I understood that before. The only thing they own is the road that -- Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Zaremba: They don't own an adjoining property or -- Hawkins-Clark: Correct. And I don't know all the history there, but today that's the case. Zaremba: A pretty narrow house they could build on it, with the setbacks. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 76 of 105 Hawkins-Clark: Bruce Freckleton was just pointing out that they did own the lot of land to the south of this and that was sold off for Waterbury Subdivision, so -- so as far as -- I'll just go to this aerial, so you can see the main -- there is -- the two parcels that are the subject of this application have frontage and access onto Venable and, then, there are two parcels on the west, which are within the Semanich family control and, then, there is this larger parcel immediately north that is -- that has a lot of frontage on Venable, so you, really, have three other parcels besides this application tonight that have the right to use Venable Lane to access Ustick. So, the question becomes how do we help prevent -- if Venable does not become a public street, which the highway district does not want it to be, how do you present this 40 foot wide private lane from just sitting there and becoming maybe a de facto sub street by other properties in the future or something else. You know, if we -- if you assume that a portion of Venable gets redeveloped and maybe is extended down and, you know, serves the area, there is a large ditch that runs along Venable on the west side that could be piped, I suppose, but it would be unlikely. So, the assumption is that probably it would -- this parcel to the north when it redevelops would be able to take access onto Ustick, maybe relocate Venable, somehow acquire the lane or otherwise incorporate it into their parcel and get a public street that still comes down at least to the north boundary of this application tonight and provides, then, a connection across Venable for the Semanich property to give circulation in this whole area. So, that's what we were trying to get at with this item number seven was trying to -- I guess, conceding with the highway district that probably the northern -- the southern 700 or 800 feet is unlikely to really help move much traffic in this area, but that the northerly thousand feet is probably going to be pretty critical to this neighborhood center and we would really -- we would want to see that happen, we would want to preserve that ability. So, we recommended a new condition, which is on page 13, item 16, that says prior to the City Council hearing the applicant should obtain written notarized statements from the other three parcel owners that they are, in effect, relinquishing existing ingress-egress rights on Venable Lane when a new public street is provided to serve their parcels and if legal counsel has any input how that wording could happen, but that's the only thing that staff could think of at this point to help insure that we get this Venable Lane to be public and to be a usable access in the future. Borup: Well, there could not be any development of those other three parcels out without public access of some type, could there? I mean that would prevent any development of that property at all, wouldn't it? Of the three parcels that are abutting Venable now, without a public roadway down there, a public access, there would not be any development, would there? Hawkins-Clark: Well, if I understand your -- yeah. I mean they need to get some kind of north-south movement within those parcels to get up to Ustick Road and certainly preferably east-west movement as well at some point. Two of the three currently have frontage on a public street, of course, on Ustick Road, but this southerly one down here has a stub street coming from Waterbury Park to its southwest corner. Other than that, should they want to continue to use their right to use Venable Lane to get up to Ustick Road, the plat that you have before you right now, the latest one, doesn't show -- the Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 77 of 105 application -- this plat to take any access on Venable. That doesn't mean that this parcel, either one of these, would come in and be as agreeable to not use Venable. If they -- if they chose to exercise their right that they enjoy today, that we would like to, I guess, see -- go back to the old plat and see Venable used, but the problem is that there is no control over this -- over this lane and the highway district is very clear that they don't intend to put any public money to purchase this to make Venable public, so they envision us to just -- Borup: But they are not opposed to developing -- future development as a public road, though, are they? Hawkins-Clark: Well -- Borup: By someone else. Hawkins-Clark: By someone -- right. Borup: Right. Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Zaremba: If we required the other three properties to make it a public road when they requested, is that what you're talking about? Borup: Well, when those properties developed. That's the time to do that. Zaremba: This may have been covered when we talked about this before, but has anybody approached the Venables about abandoning their easement or selling it for a dollar or -- what value is this piece of property to them, other than that they pay taxes on it? Hawkins-Clark: Certainly city staff hasn't offered by buy it. I believe the applicant has had some conversations with them. Borup: The only other question I have was the applicant's comment on the easement. I don't think you mentioned that in your staff report this time -- or did you? Hawkins-Clark: I'm sorry, Chairman Borup -- Borup: Well, they are proposing -- aren't they still -- Zaremba: I think I saw a proposal after your report -- Borup: Right. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 78 of 105 Zaremba: -- that they provide a common lot that could eventually be a connector road, if I'm remembering that correctly. Borup: To Venable if they'd ever sell it. Hawkins-Clark: Oh, yes. There was an Option B. Correct. And that -- that is shown here, which this public street would just -- we would have curb, gutter, that would go across there and this would remain a common lot. Borup: With no curb, gutter, or anything. Hawkins-Clark: It would not be improved as a street, but it would remain -- remain there as a potential -- as not a buildable lot. Zaremba: Doesn't that help -- Hawkins-Clark: Well, certainly from staff's -- I mean that would be -- that would be a good solution if they are willing to keep this option on the table. My understanding it was withdrawn from the table, but we can get clarification. Borup: Okay. Yeah. We didn't have anything more recent than that, so maybe we can find that out. Anything else? Powell: Chairman Borup? Borup: Yes. Powell: Just to -- Brad and I struggled with what to do. If you could move up to the vicinity map. And the concern is if we just do piecemeal development -- if we just do piecemeal development, that as each one comes in -- or piecemeal planning. As this one comes in, yes, they could bring in a public street and serve their entire property and connect to this one, but they are going to put lots that back onto this or they might put a stub street there, but the stub street would end at the property owned by the Venables. But they couldn't front on this area, because it's not a public street, so you would be backing up to it. And, then, as this property comes in the same thing would happen and, hopefully, this will look something -- what we are trying to avoid is that it starts to look like Wingate Lane, where you have got perhaps one property owner and I'm not trying to imply that Mr. -- the current owners would do this at all, but if there were one property owner here that refused to give up their access right to this property, then, we are creating that situation again and it's doubly bad, because we have got this neighborhood center that's trying to be here where you can't even get across this no man's land and we don't know what to do. I mean we are grasping here, if you have ideas, but at some point with these four properties, these are the properties using that lane and if we just keep on pushing it off and pushing it off until the next development, it's just going to be a nightmare. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 79 of 105 Borup: So, what's the best solution? Powell: Well, our solution was before the City Council hearing that all the owners kind of agree that eventually this will be a public road and they say once a public road its their property that they will give up rights to the private road, the private lane. Borup: And were you anticipating that this public road would tie into this project, then? Powell: No, not actually this one. It would probably come through this up here. Borup: So, you're not concerned about access from Salisbury to a future -- Powell: No. We are just concerned about this whole area with the two streets going here and we did look at that a lot, because there is a deep ditch right there and the Venable on the other side of this street is kind of right here. So, they really need to -- the entrance needs to be here and whether it swings -- you know, it may be appropriate to just kind of T it in this location to serve those properties and, then, they can stub into the two for Salisbury. So, we didn't -- you know, originally the tactic had been to try and get them to make this a public road, but that seemed to not work at all with ACHD, so we are still struggling -- I mean we really are just trying to plan for this area and trying to make sure that we don't have a private lane that becomes a problem in the future. Borup: Well, I agree with that, but I wonder -- the time to address that is going to have to be when any future development is applied for, isn't it? Powell: This is the first of the access ones to come in. If you put it off until the next time, this guy is going to say the same thing. Borup: Well, no, my question was -- but you said you didn't want any access from this property. Powell: No. But he is -- they are one of the rightful access users to the private lane. Borup: Right. Powell: So, the issue starts here. Now, whether the buck stops here is a different question, but the issue starts here. Borup: But if they have no access, no public access to that private lane -- I guess they have got a right, but, you know, they are not really giving up anything or they are not using it, so it's -- I don't know why -- how it applies to this project that much, I guess what I'm saying, unless we wanted it to have future access. Powell: No. The only thing is that the next guy can say the same thing. You let Salisbury go and it didn't make them deal with this issue. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 80 of 105 Borup: Well, I know. It's different, though. Powell: Well, they could serve their whole project on their property. They wouldn't -- they wouldn't need to use the Wingate -- or the Venable property. And when this one came in, they could say the same thing. Borup: Well, maybe this project needs to -- needs to sign off their rights and this would be a good one to start with. Powell: That's it. That's what we are trying to do. Borup: Well, you said all four of them, which are off-site -- off-site properties and maybe that's what needs to be, to start with this one, have them relinquish it and -- Powell: The problem is if one of them ever doesn't sign, the last one -- the problems -- you have already created the problem by the time the fourth property is developed, depending on the sequencing, but there is a high likelihood that you already have that and your opportunity to deal with it is gone. Borup: Well, the difference I see is I don't see the other three properties developing without some cooperation among all three of them. I mean I -- I don't know how staff would look at a proposal like that, but I don't think that -- Powell: All of these -- well, we had a developer come in that was looking at all of these, so I assume they were on at the block, so if that were the case -- I mean this one is right across the street from Venable and it could certainly come in and stub into this and provide stubs out that way. This one could take access over here. It would be certainly far enough away for ACHD standards. And I think they have stubs into this property. Zaremba: You still have the issue that if the neighborhood center develops there on Ustick, is it, you have this right down the middle that nobody can cross. Powell: Exactly. Borup: Well, I agree with that condition, but how did we -- how do we require this applicant to obtain -- well, let's hear from the applicant. Maybe we ought to move on. Unless there is any other questions from the Commission. Mr. Stanfield. Zaremba: I would have that question of the applicant. Borup: Okay. Stanfield: Feels good to stand up, actually. Scott Stanfield, Earl, Mason, Stanfield, engineering firm in Caldwell, Idaho. I'll jump right to it. I completely understand where the city is coming from. You just got to realize we are caught in the middle, so I really don't know what to do. But I can throw a couple things out there. You do realize that Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 81 of 105 this situation wasn't created by either the current landowner or the previous landowners. This condition was, actually, created when Waterbury was approved. That's when this strip was allowed to be detached from the south. In my opinion that completely eliminated the concept of a north-south collector, because it doesn't go to the south and there is nothing I can do or the developer can do or the city can do or anybody can do to bring that back to this point. So, we are caught in the middle. What do we do. Condition 16, you know, it has some good ideas, but if I were one of the landowners would I sign it? No. I would be scared. Am I signing one of my rights away to something? That's what my perception would be. So I wouldn't -- I personally wouldn't sign it. Borup: Which right would they be signing away? Stanfield: Well, my perceived right to have access to Venable Lane, not fully understanding how the rules work or what the future would entail, why would I give up a right that I already have today. So, to counteract that -- Borup: Well -- but it wouldn't go into effect until a new public street had access to your property. Stanfield: Well, you know that and I know that,, but -- Borup: Well, that's what it states, though. Stanfield: But does the property owner really understand that? That's what I'm getting at. Would a property owner -- would a layman understand what that really means. So, what I can do on our end is on our final plat, to eliminate access from this parcel, because they do have a right to access it, every lot owner that purchases a lot here would have a right by that old instrument. I can put a one foot no access strip easement along our whole entire west boundary flat forbidding any vehicular access or anything to go across there. Borup: Wouldn't it be even more comprehensive just to relinquish access rights for this parcel? Stanfield: I don't know how you would do that. That would be a lot easier, but I don't know how you would do that legally. I know that -- Borup: Is there a legal agreement now granting access? Stanfield: There is the one that goes back many many years and by the pure use of that by the neighborhood there is certainly a prescriptive. I don't know how you get rid of that. I do know if we put a no access strip on the plat it's gone for this parcel. You cannot cross over the top of it. So, in my opinion, that would supercede that old document. So, that's an item we do quite a bit in Canyon county and it seems to work quite well. It eliminates any questions, period. That will force the city, obviously, to be Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 82 of 105 on their toes with future applications. I think the city has control as future applications come in and at annexation time to make a similar requirement, analyze their preliminary plats, analyze their layout, see if it's in the best interest of the city and the roadway network patterns and if you don't like it, you don't annex it, you make them have a similar condition like I'm volunteering to put on our final plat. Borup: Well, you said -- you were just talking about a no access strip, but they're not giving up their legal rights to access. Stanfield: Right. But they can't cross it -- Borup: Well, what if someone -- what if the city or whoever, future developer wanted to abandon that Venable Lane and the property owners in Salisbury said, no, I'm not going to relinquish that right? Stanfield: Well, they still have a right, they can drive up and down there, but they can't go to their house, they can't trespass back and forth. Borup: But they could prevent that from being abandoned. I don't know. I -- Stanfield: I don't know either. They could prevent it from perhaps being developed, from being blocked, but I don't know how you legally get rid of that right. Borup: Anna, you said that's what you would like to see is -- Powell: Our understanding is that if -- if that access is just a part of the deed, that that access doesn't need to be continued onto the next one. I don't know that you can relinquish that access right just by platting it and not continuing that access on. Stanfield: We could do that. We could even create a notarized statement that the developer signs -- well, he owns the entire ground, which he does own today, where he just hereby relinquishes any and all rights to such and such document and blah, blah blah, and record that. Borup: Then, you wouldn't have to worry about a no access strip. Stanfield: We could do that. Borup: That would be cleaner anyway, right? Stanfield: That would be a whole lot cleaner. Borup: Okay. And, then, that would be -- that would be setting the precedence for future development; wouldn't it? Hopefully. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 83 of 105 Powell: As long as the development occurs from south going north it will work. The concern is if it goes from the north going south, then, we have got a problem and that's - - Borup: Well -- but there is only a problem if the city annexes it. Powell: Okay. I'm going to remind you of that. Borup: Please do. Powell: I'm marking this one down. Borup: No. Yeah. And, hopefully, we are still around when something happens there, we could all remember that. Stanfield: That's my position. The city, via the annexation process, has that control and it probably should be noted -- well, this could change, but I believe that the Semanich family owns everything to the west north and south and, then, the parcel due north on the east side of Venable is one owner, except for that one little piece, which I think you're dealing with one owner on each site contiguous. But I still come back to annexations in the future the city has control. The best I can do is eliminate anything that Salisbury residents can do. Borup: Okay. Well, I think would be a good start, but as Anna said, you got to start somewhere and this is the property that we are dealing with that -- Stanfield: I would like condition 16 -- I don't -- to be rewritten such that the developer would relinquish the rights and record whatever necessary to relinquish the rights to Venable Lane. Borup: So, I take it you have not talked to any other property owners about this? Stanfield: I believe the owner's representative, Ken Reeves who is here tonight, has contacted some of them and I suspect you're going to hear probably what I exactly told you. Borup: Okay. Stanfield: So, I would propose the rewriting of 16 and what if they don't sign it, then, that means I can never go to Council with this action the way the condition is written, so I would like to leave it that if this developer relinquishes his rights that that would be sufficient for this project. I had notes all over the place here, but I think I have pretty much addressed everything. Oh, there seems to be some confusion on this option B. That was an option we threw together at the last hearing, again, being caught in the middle and not knowing what's going to happen. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 84 of 105 Borup: I think this other discussion makes that probably a mute point. Stanfield: Okay. And I do have -- what was I going to say? I have notes all over here, but I think I'll probably just -- Borup: Any questions from the Commissioners? Stanfield: -- answer questions. Borup: I think we -- I mean that seemed to me, in my mind, probably one of the major questions was that and there may be some others come up, so we will give you a chance after some public testimony. Stanfield: Thank you. Borup: Okay. This is the time for public testimony. Who would like to come forward? Snodgrass: Thank you very much. My name is Mark Snodgrass. I reside at 405 West Sedgewick, which is part of the Salisbury Lane Subdivision and I'm actually a little bit discouraged to report to the Commission today that as of the last meeting that we had that I believe started on January 15th and ended on the 16th early in the morning, I believe that there was an admonishment by this Commission that the engineer and the developer meet with our homeowners association to try and workout some sort of solution and I am actually a little bit discouraged to report that that has not been done, that to my -- the best of my knowledge that has not even been attempted outside of a return phone call from Mr. Stanfield, which I did deeply appreciate. One of the things that we discussed when we were here previously, we did come up with a previous -- or a new street proposal, which was previously put up on here. We felt like that that was a very good opportunity to give our subdivision as much buffer as we could as far as new traffic, as we thought was reasonable. It did not address any kind of fire code changes. The other thing that I was hoping that they might be able to put up would be the map with the red on there. One of the concerns that we also had originally is all these areas that we have -- we had a concern with the reverse density that this seems to be promoting. This area of Waterbury Park, R-4, these areas here are R-4. This new subdivision here R-4. The two subdivisions here, including Salisbury, R-4. This is an R- 4 designation. All these here are RUT. This is also R-4. And, yet, we are actually promoting an R-8 designation here, which promotes I think a reverse density that you will not find hardly anyplace in the valley, because that, actually, goes against a lot of the kind of demographics that we are trying to promote. The other thing that we had talked about was a designated construction entrance. I would like to commend Scott Stanfield, he and I have talked -- at one time we played phone tag for awhile, but he actually did contact me and said that he had spoken with the owner and developer of this property, but I think one of the problems that we have here is we have a person who is the developer of the property that is absentee and as much as I can appreciate the things that Mr. Stanfield was doing, he really has limited or no authority to be making a lot of the decisions that are made and I find it very, very difficult to think in Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 85 of 105 seeing testimony that's been presented early today in the previous meetings and I find that those developers really want to be there, so that they can understand the concerns of the community and that has not yet happened. When I continue on and couple that with the fact that no attempt has been made to contact the homeowners association, I'm really kind of feeling that there has not been a whole lot of regard by the developer to address any of the concerns that we are having. Borup: Could you maybe just quickly outline those concerns again? Snodgrass: The concerns that we had originally was with the -- with the original, we had a concern about the street layout, that that was going to put quite a few homes onto our street that we are really not prepared to have at the outset. We knew that the stub street that was there at the end of Salisbury Lane was at some point in time going to be added onto and that we would end up servicing some additional homes. However, I don't think that there was anything that would have led us to believe that we originally would be looking at servicing four to five hundred cars -- car trips per day. Borup: I would have thought you would have expected more than that. Snodgrass: Oh. Borup: Well -- I mean you have got all this property here to the west and it would be logical to think that whatever subdivision went here could continue on to the west. Snodgrass: Well, we would have probably thought that, with the exception of that with a lot of the properties that is adjacent here I think that we also felt since this was a landlocked piece that many of these other properties here would have provided additional access points to that property by being developed off Ustick Road, rather than -- it doesn't seem reasonable to have all of this property accessing, even in this area, accessing -- Borup: Well, not the only access, but there is normally going to be -- there is normally going to be tie-ins to the other subdivision. Snodgrass: And I would -- Borup: And because of the situation of this Venable Lane, you know, that's been stopped now. Snodgrass: Right. Exactly. I would also like to note just from the original proposal previous to the one that is being submitted, the original proposal only had access onto Salisbury Lane, because of a preexisting condition that occurred down here that they were not sure that they were going to be addressing. I guess my point is is that the developer, in my opinion, has really not taken into consideration any of the adverse effects that might be affecting our subdivision and seems to really be looking only at potentially the monetary benefit, rather than the community benefit that can be derived Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 86 of 105 from this subdivision. I can probably state that not only in access points, but also the R- 8 designation and, frankly, the unwillingness of the applicant and the owner to work with anybody within our association to try and resolve that. There have been some red flags that I have seen the developer from this position has not moved at all since we have met with you previously, has not met with any of the homeowners associations. The absentee problem to me is problematic, in that should this move forward, we really have no person that I have any confidence in as far as being absentee, but once this development moves forward, who are we going to have to go to to resolve any problems that we may have with construction or anything like that if we have a person who is not even available to come to hearings or meetings or anything like that. The other thing that I also am concerned about and many of the other homeowners are concerned about is, you know, I understand that this was presented -- that our alternative proposal was presented to ACHD, but none of us were ever made aware that that was going to be presented as a proposal, so that we could defend the merits of our proposal versus the applicant's original proposal and I find that to be somewhat of a disservice in that I think all we had to do is say, hey, we are going to present this to ACHD and be able to present our proposal on the same kind of level footing as everyone else. I know that more than likely that this was not just presented to ACHD as two plans that they drew upon their desk and said, hey, which one of these do you like. Obviously, the applicant is going to take on the merits and explain the merits over ours, we, unfortunately, did not have that opportunity. Outside of that, you know, I know it's getting late, I think that there may be a few other people here that would like to discuss a little bit more about this, but we would really respectfully request that the committee decline this application until the developer not only comes to bat a little bit with us as a homeowners association to address our concerns, but addresses those in a real and tangible way that promotes community goodwill as well. And with that I would stand for questions. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Again, I was trying to write down what you felt your concerns were and the only one I got was you said street layout and the R-8 zoning. Snodgrass: The street layout and the density. We were also a little bit concerned or have been concerned about designating Indian Rock Street as a designated construction entrance. We really didn't have that many concerns about Venable Lane. The addition of the northern -- the additional northern stub street was something that we had put into our proposal as well, so that was something that perhaps borrowed from that and I think provided additional access to the north when some of those other properties are being developed. Borup: So, you'd like that aspect? Snodgrass: We have no problem and we really felt that by stubbing that out to -- to this area here -- if I could grab the -- there is a proposed stub street here which we are okay with and, then, we propose this other here with the continuation of this. We have no problem there and we feel pretty confident that at some point in time this area is going Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 87 of 105 to be developed with perhaps multiple access points onto Ustick Road and greater amount of access here. Rohm: And that will relieve the pressure on your streets. Snodgrass: It would. When that became developed that would alleviate a lot of the pressure on our streets, but, as I said, what we are trying to do, more than anything else, is provide a little bit of safety for our neighborhood as far as having that major access point be onto Indian Rock Street. Perhaps you could pull up the proposal that I had, if that's available. Yeah. What we are really looking at is by having this street here, you know, it looks like most of these people and I would agree, most of these people are going to access out this way, because that's going to be their primary access point. Once this is developed to the north, you're going to actually see people using this and that's going to become an access road for them as well, as well as this point here. What our proposal, really, is trying to do is this area here is a new subdivision and those people that are looking at building in that subdivision or purchasing in that subdivision are going to be able to make an informed decision about whether or not they want to buy or build a home that's on a street that's going to service up to 40 other homes. Unfortunately, the people that are in Salisbury Subdivision, we haven't had that opportunity. We knew that at some point in time we would probably be servicing some homes, but at this point in time I think we are looking at, hey, we are more than willing to accept the responsibility for 20 homes or so, we just don't want to end up servicing 35 to 40 homes on our street. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Snodgrass: Thank you. Borup: Do we have someone else who would like to come forward? Come on up. Reeves: My name is Ted Reeves, I'm with Coldwell Banker, 6933 Emerald, Boise. And my involvement in this subdivision has been a case of working with the engineers and staff primarily in the shoes of the developer. He has not been absent, he does reside in Boise, Idaho. But he is out of the state quite a bit during the week and I stay in daily contact with him over the phone and give him updates and faxes and this sort of thing, so he is aware of what's going on with the development and he's part of this whole thing. We have done some major efforts of working with staff and going into with staff at various different meetings. I have tried to work out the best -- better good for all concerned, the neighbors -- initially we were going to do R-4, but with this community center up front it seemed to be the best thing to do was to go R-8 as a buffering and it was, actually, one of the things that we felt that that's what the city wanted was just to have a buffering of R-8, because of the community center. The thing about the access, the roads or the stubs going north of the subdivision, go before ACHD and you folks have -- undoubtedly you have done it quite a few times more than I have, probably, but had the luxury to go up there and negotiate streets and this sort of thing is not really that much of that. When you go before them I just would like for everybody to know Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 88 of 105 that it's a case where they pretty much dictate and determine how much flow and where they would like -- as a result of good planning. That's all it is, just good planning to make the subdivision flow as nice as possible. And initially we had that street going off of Venable and we didn't have an additional street going north, but it was -- ACHD required that of us, the last time I was in there that was their requirement is to have that additional street go north and take the one off of Venable and the whole idea was is when that community center comes in there servicing that northern site, those people like from Salisbury, they will be able to have a good access going north up there to for the stores or whatever, the kids are in an environment of a residential area and riding their bikes and they can -- they are not on the main thoroughfares to be able to go to those stores. So, that's nice for the subdivision. And when it came down to how many lots of -- 72 I believe we have in there, we actually have four artery roads of being able to be in and out of, it's probably got more flow than any other subdivisions I've had in the last nine years and to be able to service that amount of lots in there. So, I think this is a good plan. We put a lot of effort into it, but I don't know how many times we have met with staff to try to come up with the right combinations and stay in compliance with everybody's needs on this thing, so I'd really appreciate it if you would let this project go forward and -- so we can get going with it. The idea of Venable Lane and it's ownership, that's very workable as far as -- I think that's a good idea, for the ownership giving up their rights to it proportionally when they come in and there is no reason why they can't work on that and we can certainly do it on our end. Thank you. Do you have any questions? Borup: Do you have questions for Mr. Reeves? Zaremba: Would you have any problem with designating Indian Rocks as the construction entrance? Reeves: Construction entrance? Zaremba: During your construction keeping -- keeping traffic off of Sedgewick. Reeves: I would be more than happy to use Venable Lane. We can do that. That could totally take all the pressure of construction off of Sedgewick going into Salisbury. Borup: Okay. You would use Venable for the majority of the construction? Reeves: Probably the tail end, but the way the land lies there, it -- we talked about that at great length, enough that that's what we are seeing disturbing, we don't want to do that. It would involve disturbing people. We can relieve like 80 or 90 percent of any kind of construction disruption by using Venable Lane coming in there. That include all the construction development, as well as construction of the homes. That would be one of our things that we would make a requirement as far as the builder is concerned is to utilize that. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 89 of 105 Zaremba: If you do that, though, then, at what point would you relinquish your access to Venable? Reeves: Well, in order to accomplish what we talked about earlier, that -- we would have to work that -- the other thing is what wasn't spoke of, yes, it is privately owned, but it is also a county road that parallels going all the way down. Our maps are really -- are fine where you can see them right here, but I could show you where it has its actual own parcel number for Mr. Venable, which is on the east side going north and south on Venable, full length, 20 feet. On the right side is county road, full length, 1,700 feet, parallel to each other in there. This property here doesn't -- wouldn't hit Venable's property, it's a county road, actually. Borup: A county road of 20 feet you said? Reeves: Twenty-five, I believe. Borup: That hasn't come out previously in testimony. Reeves: Ada County is aware of it. Or not Ada County, but ACHD. That's the reason why they don't want anything to do with it and as far as -- I think they wanted to abandon it, primarily. It's not big enough to do anything with. Got the gigantic canal on the west hand side -- or west side. Borup: And how much of the Venable property? Reeves: Twenty feet is what they are saying. Private ownership all the way. It's even in the multiple listing that 2.3 acres for sale for 15,000 dollars. Can you believe that? Borup: Twenty feet wide. Reeves: Yeah. Borup: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you. Reeves: Thank you, folks. Borup: Anyone else? Semanich: I'm Joe Semanich and I live at 955 West Ustick and I own the property -- and the family owns the property on the west side of this subdivision. It looks like Venable Lane is creating a problem. It hasn't been for sale. If it is for sale, the price is astronomical. Now, let's see if I can learn how to work this thing. Some of the people were talking about that when this property develops, this one develops, this one develops, might have to use Venable Lane. It's privately owned. If we would have to be involved in Venable Lane, why not these properties? Why would they be excused from having any expense on rebuilding Venable Lane? Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 90 of 105 Borup: Because they are not accessing it. Semanich: Well, why would I have to access it when it's private? Why would I have to build it? Borup: You don't if you don't want to develop your property. Semanich: It's a private road. Borup: Right. Semanich: It's private. The staff was talking here about when Ward's property develops and mine develops, that we should go ahead and build Venable Lane as a street. Borup: Well, no, they are saying when any property develops it needs to have public access to it. Semanich: To Venable Lane. Borup: No. To the property. Venable Lane could be abandoned as long as there was another public road. Semanich: Well, there is a public road on Ustick. Ustick's a public road. Borup: Well, a lot of that is going to determine -- it's going to depend on how the property develops. Semanich: Well, certainly. But -- Borup: So, that would be when that application comes in. Semanich: Wouldn't a quarter of a mile of frontage be allowed access to Ustick Road? Borup: Yes. That would be allowed access normally. Semanich: Yes. And, then, you would not need Venable Lane. Borup: It depends on if you want access -- are you going to put one building on the whole property? Semanich: Sixty acres takes more than one building. Borup: Exactly. So you -- Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 91 of 105 Semanich: And you can drive down any of these streets where these other developers are doing and they have access a quarter of a mile or much shorter pieces of frontage. Why would I have to access Venable Lane? Borup: Okay. I think we are talking about something that probably doesn't really apply tonight. Semanich: Well, I think we are. It's very serious. If you're going to allow these people to be excused from working on Venable Lane, why should the other property owners have to fight Mr. Venable and build a lane? Borup: That property already has two public roads accessing their property. Semanich: But he has to go out to Ustick also. Borup: No, he doesn't have to. Semanich: Who doesn't? Borup: This Salisbury has two public roads accessing their property. Semanich: Yes. Yes. It has two public roads. Borup: And they are providing future access for other properties that may develop in the future, so that we can have continuity between the neighborhoods. Semanich: May I ask over here again why these people we are talking about having Ward's property and our properties build Venable Lane, to access Venable Lane. Is that correct? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, would you like staff to respond or -- Borup: Yes, please. Hawkins-Clark: I think there must have been a miscommunication. Our whole concern with this is -- I don't think the statement was that you have to build Venable Lane. The statement was that once some public access -- and our assumption is that it will be more than just Ustick Road -- once that happens, you come off Ustick and head south on Ward property or your property, that the alignment of those north-south streets that are going to go up to Ustick will be built by that developer of those two parcels. It doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to be Venable Lane. Semanich: If you're going to line up with Venable Lane on the south you have to get that property from Mr. Venable. There is another 20 feet that's involved. Hawkins-Clark: I understand. That's correct. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 92 of 105 Semanich: So, then, you're forcing the Ward property and my property to line up with Venable Lane on the north. Borup: No, not necessarily at this point. All he's saying is that if this property -- if your property develops, you need to have roads in it. Would you agree with that? Semanich: Absolutely. And I give roads -- I have donated -- Borup: Okay. That's -- Semanich: Listen, I can speak here just as long as these other people can. I'm not as good a speaker, but I want my rights here. I have donated property for the bike path free of charge to this city. I have donated property to the Tully Park free of charge. Now, you don't want to give me time to discuss this. I should not have to build Venable Lane, because I don't own it. Borup: Okay. It's agreed. Semanich: And also the people on the right, the Wards -- and if we have to build it, this property here should participate. Borup: Okay. I don't think anybody said you had to build it. Semanich: All right. Let's just put that in the minutes, then, that that will not be required to be built by either Wards or us. Improved. Borup: Right now it's county property that's just not even in the city limits, is it? The city is not going to require you to do something to property you don't own. Semanich: No, I don't own it now, but if somebody would want to develop those two properties -- Borup: Well, that would be up to that person to decide how they want to get road access into their property. Semanich: Would they have to go through Venable Lane? Borup: I don't think that's necessarily a requirement. There just needs to be access. That would be determined by Ada County Highway District on how they want their roads to align. Semanich: They were using plainers to show when this property comes -- develops the road would come right up there and come in about here and join up with Venable Lane on the north side. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 93 of 105 Borup: Okay. He's talking possible -- possible development scenarios. The city does not -- does not design and develop property. The city tries to -- Semanich: Will you guarantee us at Planning and Zoning that we are not required to build Venable Lane. If Salisbury doesn't have to participate -- you know, I said at the last meeting if Salisbury puts an access, I'd like -- if they put an access, I'll have an access from Venable -- from the Cattrell property. The one that was shown right there. Borup: It's not a public road. It's a private road, isn't that correct? Semanich: It's privately owned. Absolutely. Borup: Okay. Any other questions? Semanich: Well, I hope you understand me, that if Venable Lane is going to be required to be rebuilt, then, Salisbury should participate. Borup: Okay. I understand what you're saying. Semanich: They border Salisbury just -- more so than I do with this piece of property. And they are also a little farther north. Zaremba: If one of the proposals was to have the neighboring property owners, which would include you, abandon their access to the Venable property, would you do that? Semanich: Pardon? Zaremba: Would you abandon your right to access the Venable property? Semanich: I, actually, do not need access to Venable Lane if we can come out to Ustick. This here parcel is separate now. It has access through these other properties that are down here from this subdivision, but presently it's accessed by Venable Lane. These two properties were accessed by Venable Lane. Borup: Is there anything else we can answer for you? Semanich: Well, I'm just disappointed in what -- what I have discovered here tonight. Borup: And why is that? Semanich: You can't give me a clear determination on Venable Lane. Borup: No, because there is no project before us. That's a private road. How can we - - Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 94 of 105 Semanich: That's right. It is a private road, so how can you force me to build a road on Venable Lane? Borup: I don't think anybody is forcing you to do anything, sir. Semanich: You were talking about it. Everybody was talking about it, to bring Venable Lane and make it a public road right there to connect with the north side of Venable Lane. Borup: And that could be a development scenario if this property ever developed. That probably can stay like it is for a hundred years. Semanich: If I go in and develop my 60 acres there, can I develop it without going to Venable Lane? Borup: Bring the project to the city and we will take a look at it, I'm sure. Semanich: I'm asking you now as Planning and Zoning. This is part of this entire meeting that we have here, because I own property that adjoins this other property on Venable Lane. Borup: Well, but we are not talking about your property on the agenda tonight. Semanich: I understand that. But I should have a fair answer. Borup: Well, this is not the body to give that answer. I'm sorry. Do we have anyone else that would like to -- come forward, sir. Corbin: I'm Jerry Corbin and I live on Sedgewick. I bought the Sedgewick home for a simple reason, it was a nice street, it was a nice area, accommodated by quite a bit of things going on there and with the growth of Meridian happening in all, much much better than Boise where I lived prior. Now, the situation arises, okay, we get a lot of traffic and you would be surprised the amount of traffic. Right now the way it is comes off of the next door neighbors subdivision. What is that Landsbury? People cut through down on Sedgewick, goes out at 3rd Street, take a left and go over to Landsbury right now at the moment. Okay? So, we are getting traffic from there already, which they have their own street that comes out onto Meridian Road, but they don't use it. The other one is is that if this goes through back there, you know as well as I do there is going to be hundreds of cars. The reason I say that, you got 72 homes, the majority are families all over, not just this area. Two people have to work in order to make a living, so what's it going to be? Two cars per household. What's going to happen? Like a lot of these cars, some of these households got teenage kids driving cars -- they don't know how to drive. They shouldn't be driving, but they do, they race up and down the street and everything, now what's it going to be? Husband and wife, children come up of age to get a driver's license, drive the car, where is it going to go? Up our way. You know as well as I do. You have the main streets -- which, actually, Ustick is a main street, you Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 95 of 105 have Meridian connecting to it, which is a main street, will they use those? Not necessarily. People like to take -- it's a trait with people to take the way they want to take and the way they want to drive. You can't stop them from driving. You can't stop them coming down Sedgewick and going on 3rd Street over to Landsbury. I mean that cannot be stopped. That we understand. But if you're going to take another 72 homes and put -- you stand a good chance of coming up that way early in the morning and revving their engines high and everything going up there trying to go, some people racing, you're going to have school buses go back into there that's going to have to make pick ups and everything, you're making a main traffic area out of Sedgewick. I don't see anything else or any other way that this thing would said or spoke for. I don't like the idea. I'm totally against it and I think you would find a lot of other ones if the people would only show up here and talk about it. I looked for a street that was kind of quiet, nice, everything, which it is. It gets a little noisy once in awhile, but you have to accept that. That's why life goes on. But I do think that these 72 homes are going to put a lot of traffic down that main street. I only have one thing to say, you want to buy a home? It's just up to that. I bought the home with the intentions of being a nice, quiet street and find out that this is happening. We looked at it very closely. Well, if they do anything in the back down there it should have points coming in from Ustick, not being aware or understanding the whole situation. But now finding out between the last meeting we had and this one, well, how much traffic -- can you tell me how many of those 72 homes are going to create how many cars. Borup: When you bought your home you didn't realize there was a street stub to the west? Corbin: We realized it stopped back there. We realized there is a drain back there against the property. Okay. But the most common ordinary thing to be -- and it's just kind of general all over, you more or less go out to an existing main street you have ways of doing. Unfortunately, you got a situation here where you got a piece of ground that's sandwiched in between a bunch of other pieces of ground that all have subdivisions, how are you going to get out, where are you going to put them to, what are you going to do with it? Unfortunately, that's what you're trying to decide, what are you going to do with it, what's going to happen to it. Looking at that, we did drive down that way, we did look over the open way there, we seen what was there, we couldn't figure out why they put that drain thing there, but we kind of understand, because they could have had like another two houses back there, just like Landsbury has, they go it all what they did back there, so they don't have it going out to them from this new subdivision, Salisbury Two. We have an opening there. Put it that way and make a main street out of a nice residential street. That's the way I look at it. I'm totally against it. Thank you. Any questions? Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Mr. Stanfield. Stanfield: Seeing nobody else up here, I'll come up here and offer some quick rebuttal. I'll key into Mr. Snodgrass first and I apologize to him for some of the return phone calls and I must admit he's probably one of the most polite individuals I have worked with in Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 96 of 105 this situation, so I appreciate that. I have to take credit for not getting with his group. It was my understanding when we left the last meeting that if the lead agencies, i.e., the city's fire department and/or ACHD, if either one of those -- if both of those folks did not have a problem with the new layout, then, I would get with his group. So, that was my interpretation and it's got nothing to do with the developer, so I apologize to him and to this board ahead of time if I was incorrect. With that said, we did get with the fire department, Mr. Joe Silva didn't -- he preferred one over the other, but he said code wise there is nothing in his code book that would preclude either one. So, then, we moved onto the highway district and the highway district said -- and Mark asked a question, well, he doubts the layouts were just thrown out in front of them and said which one do you prefer. That's exactly what I did. I didn't lead them, I laid them both out on the table, eight and a half by elevens, and said which option best suits the highway district. That's exactly the way I put it. They came back with a letter -- we finally got the letter two days ago and I have a copy of it -- in fact, my only copy, but you can have it if you want it, but it basically discusses which option that -- Borup: Staff has a copy I think. Stanfield: It basically goes over that they support our option. Well, you know, why do they support our option? I think it's important to point out that they make statements about it increases emergency services response time, increase walkability throughout the region. Reduces vehicle miles traveled and interconnection to the surrounding neighborhoods. More importantly, it distributes the traffic equally between all the neighborhoods in the region, rather than focusing it just on Clearbrook Estates, which is aka Indian Rocks. So, she gave some of the reasons why. And step back and you look at your own Comprehensive Plan. In fact, your own Comprehensive Plan pretty much states the same thing, wherever and whenever possible your Comprehensive Plan wishes to have interconnectivity, walkability, and evenly distributed to traffic. It says that in numerous places. So, engineeringwise all I have to follow is what ACHD guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan dictates. So, that's why the alignment stayed the way it was proposed originally. Primarily because of ACHD's input. And Mr. Wood couldn't make it this evening, but I told him that he really needs to be at the Council meeting and he will definitely be there, should we make it that far. Mr. Snodgrass asked why R-4. Well, you look at our density and are actually like 3.65. We are actually less than Waterbury by quite a bit. The Comprehensive Plan actually designates an R-8 in this area because of the family center. So, again, we are doing this reverse density, we are just following what the Comprehensive Plan says we should do in that area. And as Mr. Reeves pointed out, that's because of the neighborhood center, to create a buffer so that you don't have R-4, bam, light office and small commercial businesses. So, again, R-8, but our density is actually quite a bit less than an R-4 when you run the numbers. Mr. Snodgrass asked about whom should they call when they have problems during construction. Well, heck, everybody else calls me when they have problems, so he can feel free to call me. Construction entrance, we will try, definitely, to work through the Indian Rocks Street. I will be honest with you, I don't know how successful the developer or my office or Mr. Reeve's office can be. The fact remains that's a public street, it's a full width, it's a full right of way width, and we can try as we might to really Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 97 of 105 insist that those contractors use other mechanisms, but when it comes down to it, can I really police them -- can the developer police them, but we will definitely encourage them to the fullest extent possible. Borup: That would be signage and -- Stanfield: Signage and perhaps a little statement in the lot options, anything we can do we are all for it, because we understand -- Borup: But you do have more control over the development -- Stanfield: Correct. Over the heavy construction. Zaremba: I'm thinking the heavy infrastructure development traffic control. Stanfield: Correct. I'm thinking backwards. I think the house building is going to generate more traffic than the infrastructure is. Zaremba: But that's generally light traffic. Stanfield: Yeah, but it's a lot. It's your framers, it's your sheetrockers, it's your concrete truck, it's your delivery trucks, it's the city building inspectors, it's a lot more than the heavy construction. Heavy construction is going to be slow and far and few between. But, again, no matter what type of traffic throughout this we will do the best that we can. But please realize that we can't police them and stop them from using it, but we certainly can focus them in the right direction. We could even use Venable for the heavy construction. If we have to relinquish the access, I would propose prior to signature of the final plat by the city. At that point, then, the builders couldn't use it. Again, stretching through my -- I think -- I tried to get everybody. Again, we are convinced we are following the Comprehensive Plan, so we are not asking for any special treatment. The reasons I stated with the Comprehensive Plan regarding uniform traffic and interconnectivity, that's why this stub street was proposed there, right, wrong, or indifferent, no matter what I think, no matter what the neighbors think, no matter what you think, that's there and the best I can do is follow the rules that are in front of us. And with that I will stand for any questions. Borup: Questions for Mr. Stanfield? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I have one if no one else does. Borup: Please. Freckleton: Excuse me. Scott, I was -- I'm a little unclear -- Mr. Reeves got up and was talking about there being actual ACHD public right of way in Venable Lane. When we first reviewed the application when you submitted, I know that issue was discussed, you Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 98 of 105 and I talked about it, because your original preliminary plat showed it that way and I questioned it and you researched it and came back and said, no, that is not the case. Stanfield: Correct. Freckleton: And revised the plat accordingly. And so now Mr. Reeves testified tonight that it, indeed, is public right of way. So, I guess I need some clarification on that point. Stanfield: To my knowledge that is not ACHD right of way. They don't recognize it in their staff report. Andrea Tunning claims they don't recognize it as being public right of way. Instrument documents don't recognize it as public right of way. I'm convinced and the highway district is convinced that it's privately owned by Venable and Mr. Semanich I think even addressed that, too. So, to my knowledge it isn't, based on discussions with the highway district and quickly reviewing their staff report. I don't know if that -- Borup: Mr. Reeves made a reference to a notation on the plat or something. Stanfield: It's what -- there is a strip there and what -- Borup: Was it recorded, though? Stanfield: There is an instrument number or there is a strip of land right there that started Bruce and my conversation at the very beginning and the instrument number, according to the assessor's office, was, I think, a roadway, wasn't it, Bruce? Freckleton: I believe it was. Yeah. Stanfield: And, then, ACHD did some work and, then, Jeff Wood's title company did some work and came back, no, it's not. And the highway district agreed. I actually talked to Gary Ancelman and Andrea Tunning about that and completely disagreed with the assessor's office, as did the title company who did the research for us. Borup: Okay. So, there was something showing at one point? Stanfield: Yes. Borup: So, it's a matter of -- Stanfield: Yeah. Something in the mapping somewhere got thrown on there, but Mr. Venable has been paying taxes on it forever. Borup: Okay. Stanfield: So, hopefully, that helps, Bruce. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 99 of 105 Freckleton: It does. It does. Just one other point that I wanted to make and that is the construction access issue that's been brought up tonight. I have a real concern with trying to funnel construction access from this development onto Clearbrook Estates, which is a development that's already gone through our process and has been approved. Their final plan has been in front of Council, it's a little hard to impose a requirement on another property that they have to accommodate the construction access through their development from an adjacent property. I think there could be some legal issues involved with that. Certainly, the timing of the developments -- I mean you could really be causing some problems with that. Borup: Well, you're saying if the traffic had to funnel through there before that's a public street you mean? Freckleton: Correct. Borup: I had that same thought. It's going to need to be a public street. Stanfield: Correct. I thought about that last hearing, but it completely escaped me. That's correct. We have no right to go on that property until it's a recorded plat. Borup: I think we are assuming that their development would be ahead of yours Zaremba: We are talking about Indian Rocks? Stanfield: Correct. So, perhaps that condition should be maybe eliminated with keeping the city out of hot water and me telling you tonight that I'll encourage all the people involved in this project to cooperate with Indian Rocks and try to utilize another means for construction traffic. Zaremba: Well, the suggestion that I was going to make as a substitute to on page 13 of the staff notes, the new paragraph 16, I was going to suggest the substitution that you be required to use Venable for heavy equipment that's constructing the infrastructure, then, relinquish your right to use Venable before signature on the final plat, which would mean that house construction would have to get there by whatever public road was available, which would mean half of them are probably going to be on Sedgewick and half of them are going to be on Indian Rocks, which should be in by that time. The two stub streets to the north probably aren't going to be connecting to anything quick enough, but the heavy traffic would not be going through existing subdivisions and although there is a lot of it, the lighter contractors' trucks would split between the two, but the city would not be directing which way that happens. Borup: I think the applicant said that they are willing to put some signage and encourage them to use Red Rock, as long as that's a public street. Zaremba: Indian Rock. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 100 of 105 Borup: Or Indian Rock. So long as there is a public street. Mr. Freckleton. Freckleton: Mr. Chair, I just -- and, Jill, if I'm off base, please, jump in, but I have a real concern with the city trying to dictate where -- where we are telling this developer that he's got to run his heavy traffic, especially when we are dealing with other people's property. Venable Lane, excuse me, it's there, it was, obviously, intended as an access. I don't think the original intent was for heavy construction equipment to access down through there. Certainly I don't think the road base is probably adequate to support heavy traffic like that. I guess I would maybe suggest that we look into the legalities before we make a condition like, you know, trying to dictate that they have to take their construction access over Venable Lane. We should probably get some guidance from legal counsel if that's even possible for us to do that. Holinka: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I would tend to agree with Bruce and maybe for now it's sufficient to have the indications from the applicant and we can research that issue further and have that more finely tuned before Council, perhaps, would be the best way to go. Borup: Okay. Stanfield: I'm amenable to that. Borup: Anything else that needs to be mentioned? Stanfield: I hope not. Zaremba: I guess I would -- I had one remaining question, which I didn't ask earlier and it would probably be on phasing. Until Indian Rocks is connected and there are, therefore, at least two ways in and out, they wouldn't be able to go beyond 50 houses; right? Borup: Correct. Zaremba: Is that standard or do we need to make that a condition? I know that's a fire department requirement, but -- Stanfield: I'll jump in there. That's not only a fire department requirement, but that's a highway district requirement. Zaremba: Okay. Stanfield: Yeah. That's understood. And the developer is aware of that. Zaremba: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 101 of 105 Stanfield: To use Indian Rocks. And, you know, I will add -- I want to throw in real quick the same Indian Rocks, Mr. Snodgrass's concerns -- his position be well-founded about the developer's position, but speaking of Indian Rocks, he went out of his way with a great expense to purchase that spite strip to bring the traffic back around. Granted, he could have done quite a bit less lots, but he took that upon himself to purchase that spite strip and I don't think a lot of other developers would have. I do have one more thing. REA. Reciprocating Egress Agreement. That's what that stands for. Borup: Thank you. Rohm: I was not sleeping tonight. Stanfield: I knew you couldn't sleep tonight until you knew that answer. Zaremba: See, these are educational meetings. Stanfield: Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup? Borup: Yes. Hawkins-Clark: If I could just clarify that. I think for the benefit of the neighbors, for the record that the Landsbury 13.3 acres, 41 lots, 3.1 dwelling units to the acre. That's Landsbury. Salisbury 14.66 acres, 42 lots, 2.86 dwelling units to the acre. The proposed subdivision, 3.65 dwelling units to the acre. So, I just wanted to point out what the actual -- Borup: Okay. You didn't calculate Waterbury, did you? Hawkins-Clark: I did not. I'm sorry. Just need another couple hours. Borup: A few more lots in there. Do you want to keep the meeting open a couple hours do you say? Zaremba: Uh-huh. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Anything else from staff? Hawkins-Clark: Well, the Meridian fire department had a condition that Venable Lane has to be improved to serve as a secondary emergency access, but that was before the revised plat was submitted, so if the Commission chooses to approve this, if you could delete condition number eight on Meridian fire department comments. Or, yeah, you could modify that regarding the 50 houses, because that is a Meridian fire department -- Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 102 of 105 Zaremba: What page is that on? Hawkins-Clark: That was Meridian fire department December 30 memo, page one. Zaremba: Is that an annexation comment or a preliminary plat comment? Hawkins-Clark: Preliminary plat. Zaremba: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I move the public hearing be closed. Corbin: Can I make another comment? I'll do it real quick. Borup: Okay. We will hold you to that. Corbin: Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Something else that's come to mind. Thank you. Borup: You need to state your name again. Corbin: I'm Jerry Corbin. I live on Sedgewick. Okay. I have something else that I want to bring up to you. We are talking about construction vehicles going up and down the street. As you know, our construction on our street has been done quite sometime ago. Okay. This past summer has been incidents where a cement truck comes down the cul-de-sac -- now if you come off into Sedgewick, if you come off into the Sedgewick subdivision there is -- Powell: Sir, can you get forward. Borup: You need to get on the microphone. You said it was going to be real short, remember. Corbin: To the left when you come in the Salisbury Subdivision is a cul-de-sac area there, okay? We have had cement trucks come down there down, they come from other areas, now, okay, I think Ustick Road. Borup: Okay. I understand what you're saying, but I'm not sure how that applies to this. Corbin: It does apply. They come through that area there and what do they do, they run their cement in their truck a bit and they dump it out, so it goes on the street and makes the street look bad. Okay. Also, they reach in the cab of their truck, the pop bottles, pop cans, rags, pieces of lumber, threw it out in the cul-de-sac area of the street. There was several times I went out there, with the help of the neighbor across the street, to pick up this garbage. Is that going to happen now? Who can say it's not going to happen? Cement trucks will be going back down there up and down Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 103 of 105 Sedgewick, see that area, oh, this is a nice big area, swing around, let's dump our garbage there. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Zaremba: That would be illegal dumping. You need to get their license numbers and call the police when you see that. Borup: I would do that. Zaremba: I believe there is a motion on the floor. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: The first item is annexation and zoning. Zaremba: Well -- and my comment would be, once again, this complies with the Comprehensive Plan. I like the fact that there are eventually going to be four ways in and out of this. I realize in the immediate future it puts traffic pressure where traffic pressure is not desired, but I think by the time there are four ingresses and egresses, that will spread out sufficiently to reduce itself again. I did like the alternate plan that was proposed by the Salisbury Lane people, but, apparently, ACHD did not. But I still feel that with four eventual accesses and ingresses and egresses that the traffic will eventually -- I mean assuming that it goes equally, that's less than 20 houses per street and it may not go equally. As I say, I don't see anywhere where this doesn't comply with the Comprehensive Plan. That being the case, Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 9 on our agenda AZ 03-036, request for annexation and zoning of 19.7 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for proposed Salisbury Subdivision No. 2 by Earl, Mason and Stanfield, Inc., south of West Ustick Road and west of North Meridian Road, to include all staff comments of their memo originally for the hearing date of January 15th, 2004, but revised February 12th, 2004, the revision received by the clerk February 13th, 2004, with no annexation and zoning changes. Mathes: You said R-4. I believe it's R-8. Zaremba: I read that incorrectly. It should be R-8. R-8 is the correct number, regardless of what I said. Rohm: I'll second that. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 104 of 105 Moe: Are we doing anything at 16? Zaremba: That's preliminary. Moe: Okay. Borup: 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 10 on our agenda, PP 03-042 and I note that we are referring to the preliminary plat dated the first -- dated January 13 of '04, received by the city on February 3rd, '04, request for preliminary plat approval for 72 single family residential building lots and, actually, four, not two, common lots, on 19.7 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Salisbury Subdivision No. 2 by Earl, Mason and Stanfield, Inc., south of West Ustick Road and west of North Meridian Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of January 15th, 2004, revised February 12, 2004. And received by the clerk February 13, 2004, with the following changes: On page 13, paragraph 16 will be changed to -- actually, the current paragraph 16 is deleted and a new paragraph 16 substituted that says applicant and developer will relinquish their own rights for the use of Venable Road prior to signature on the final plat in some formal legal fashion. Moe: Venable Lane. Zaremba: Venable Lane. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 11: Public Hearing: AZ 03-038 Request for annexation and zoning of 21.38 acres from C-2 to C-G zones for proposed Mussell Corner Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. – northeast corner of East Victory Road and South Meridian Kuna Highway: Re-noticed due to improper noticing Item 12: Public Hearing: PFP 03-007 Request for Preliminary Final Plat approval of 4 commercial building lots on 21.38 acres in a proposed C-G zone for proposed Mussell Corner Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. – northeast corner of East Victory Road and South Meridian Kuna Highway: Re-noticed due to improper noticing Meridian Planning & Zoning February 19, 2004 Page 105 of 105 Item 13: Public Hearing: CUP 03-071 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development to allow the construction of a combination feed store and gas station / convenience store on one of the proposed lots and to allow the existing commercial and residential uses to remain and the property for Mussell Corner Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - northeast corner of East Victory Road and South Meridian Kuna Highway: Re-noticed due to improper noticing Borup: Thank you. That concludes our agenda. Do we have one final motion? Rohm: I move we adjourn. Mathes: Second. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second to adjourn. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: We adjourn at 12:20. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:20 A.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED ______________________________ _____|_____|_____ KEITH BORUP - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: _____________________________________ WILLIAM G. BERG, JR, CITY CLERK