The URL can be used to link to this page

2004 01-08Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting January 8, 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 and Commissioner David Zaremba. Others Present: Jill Holinka, Jessica Johnson, Bruce Freckleton, Anna Powell, Craig Hood, Brad Hawkins-Clark, Steve Siddoway, Wendy Kirkpatrick and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call ___X___ David Zaremba _______ Vacant ___X___ Leslie Mathes ___X___ Michael Rohm ___X___ Chairman Keith Borup Borup: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We'd like to begin our Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for January 8th. Start with roll call of Commissioners. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Item 3: Consent Agenda: Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from December 4, 2003: AZ 03-027 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 140.25 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for proposed Saguaro Canyon Estates Subdivision by Farwest, LLC – north side of East McMillan Road and east of North Meridian Road: Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from December 4, 2003: PP 03-032 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 461 single-family building lots and 43 common lots on 140.25 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Saguaro Canyon Estates Subdivision by Farwest, LLC – north side of East McMillan Road and east of North Meridian Road: Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from December 4, 2003: CUP 03-058 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for reduced requirements for frontages, lot sizes, and minimum house size and permission to have two cul-de-sac lengths exceed the maximum length in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Saguaro Canyon Estates Subdivision by Farwest, LLC – north side of East McMillan Road and east of North Meridian Road: Borup: Okay. Our first item is a continued Public Hearing from December 4th and -- it would, actually, be the first three items on the agenda, four, five, and six. AZ 03-027 Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 2 of 89 and PP 03-032 and CUP 03-058. I'd like to open all three of those hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Powell: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Yes. Powell: I think you need to adopt the agenda. Borup: I think we are adopting the agenda as written. Any changes from any of the Commissioners? Rohm: No, sir. Zaremba: No. Borup: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, members of the Commission. On Item number four, the annexation and zoning request, the property that is the point of discussion here today tonight on all three of these is shown in bold. We are talking about the north side of McMillan Road, approximately a quarter mile east of Meridian Road. Havasu Creek Subdivision. This is zoned R-4 in the city. Paramount Subdivision has been annexed also. These are later phases in Paramount that are shown here in yellow. The majority of the rest of this property is all surrounded existing Ada County land. This would be the first annexation and zoning request the city's received in Section 30. This is Township four north, one east. The request for annexation is to rezone the entire property R-4. The few other surrounding uses, just to point out to the Commission, the large 100 plus acre property shown here at the northeast corner of Meridian and McMillan is currently under ownership by the Aschenbrenner family. The Meridian School District has let the city know that they are interested in acquiring approximately 40 acres of this for a future middle school. Larkwood Subdivision, an existing county subdivision, on the eastern boundary for approximately a half mile north of McMillan and, basically, estate parcels that are within Ada County that surround -- usually about ten acres to 20 acres in size that are around this northern half. As you can see, there is currently two parcels that are zoned RUT in Ada County. The Boyack family has the north, the Rhead family has the southern. They are proposing -- the applicant's proposing to acquire both and annex all of the -- both of them, as well as the plat is on both of those parcels. This might be a little tough for you to see, the aerial photo. Generally, it just shows that it's a lot of existing AG land up there. This slide shows all of the preliminary plats I believe to date that have been approved in north Meridian area. The final plats are not distinguished on here. This is showing the preliminary plats that have been approved. The 12 acre yellow lot here is what was approved as part of Havasu Creek as a future elementary school site. There is also a future elementary school site in Paramount that was approved here and, then, about a 55 acre high school site that's shown here on Linder Road. Cedar Springs Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 3 of 89 Subdivision, the park, Cedar Springs North, which is just now coming through with their first final plat phasing is in this area. Paramount is phasing from Linder, by the way, to the west. So, I think that gives you an idea of the -- where this property fits. Again, Chinden is shown here on the north about a quarter mile north. So, the annexation request is 140.25 acres. There is, also, I might point out, on the Comprehensive Plan, a neighborhood center that is on the south side of Chinden that would abut the north property line of the Boyack parcel and that is a -- I believe it's a mixed use community neighborhood, which is -- of our three neighborhood center types, that's kind of the mid scale in terms of the size of retail and shopping that would be allowed there. So, we do envision quite a bit of impact in the future, obviously, on the south side of Chinden Road, Highway 20-26. This parcel that's shown here on the northeast corner of Section 30 has received approval and they are under construction of a new high school, academy high school. It's similar to Meridian Academy, which is currently on the south side of Franklin Road. The staff report I think mistakenly said it was an elementary school, so I just wanted to clarify that. Then, of course, the Catholic Church, which is at the corner just 200 feet north of this parcel and, then, there is also a nursery up there. Staff is recommending at this point approval of only a portion of the annexation request, basically, just the south -- about an eighth of the project. We would recommend that that be annexed as they have requested and platted as they have requested and I will touch on that a little bit later as to why we are only recommending annexation for a portion of the 140 acres, but -- the preliminary plat is for 442 single family detached residential lots. There is 45 common lots. The buildable lots range in size from 5,735 square feet to 17,900 square feet. Lot sizes. The average buildable lot size is 9,298. They have a gross density of 3.15 dwelling units to the acre. Their plat is proposing a single point of permanent access off of McMillan Road. They are proposing a 100 foot wide common lot on the north side of McMillan Road. Most of that is proposed as landscaping. The Lemp Canal is also a part of that. They have a residential collector that serves up to about the mid point of the plat and it ends here at about a two and a half acre private common area slash park and, then, on local street systems they are proposing another park here as well. Then they have, as I mentioned, over 40 common lots. Most of those are micropath lots. They do have a fairly large open space area here in the north end of the project as well. There are no existing stub streets coming out of Larkwood Subdivision for Farwest to utilize and they are not proposing any either. So, this would be a block length in excess of the city's maximum, but both the highway district and city staff have -- feel that the variance as a part of the planned development is acceptable, since there are no stub streets to extend to. They are showing a new stub street on the north. The first one would be at this point where the arrow is. They have three stub streets on the north boundary. They show one on their west boundary to this existing -- I believe, it's a 20 acre county parcel and, then, they have a stub street coming out of this north mid section here that would serve the Aschenbrenner property that I mentioned earlier. Here is a drawing that reflects their proposal for the McMillan Road 100 foot wide buffer. I guess it's actually shown around 130. The canal would be immediately next to edge of pavement and, then, there would be a 12 foot wide asphalt pathway that would at times also jointly serve the irrigation district for maintenance. Then there is a 77 foot wide area behind this pathway slash maintenance road that would have a berm with their landscaping features. So, we had asked for a little bit Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 4 of 89 more detail of this cross-section as a part of our plat, just so you could kind of get a feel for how the easements and pathway and whatnot fit in there. Then, on item number six, the planned development, just -- these slides just show their conceptual landscaping. Here is the entryway. They are proposing a median to have a split entry off of McMillan and, then, the residential collector, they are proposing these landscape common lots on both sides as you head north through the project. They have a series of micropath common lots on both the east and west sides of this subdivision that would ultimately create a loop system. Here is some more of the landscaping that they are showing throughout the -- conceptually throughout the project. I'll go back to the plat and refer to the staff report at this point. We have received, as noted, a number of written comments. We have also received a response just today from Pinnacle Engineers, David McKinnon, who is representing the applicant here tonight and I have had a chance to review it. I think Bruce Freckleton, Public Works staff, has as well. So we will refer to David McKinnon's memo as well. Generally, just to summarize, there has been a number of issues that have been worked out from the time they originally submitted this application to tonight, the first hearing, as you -- as I noted in the staff report this is a revised plat that we are looking at tonight. Their first one came through, we made several comments, and they also met with the Larkwood Homeowners Association and the Police Chief and Fire Chief and others and some of those -- the results of those conversations are reflected in both our staff report, as well as the applicant's memo. On the annexation portion -- just to refer back to that item number four, I think, really, what the issue comes down to here is two things. One, is the city prepared to annex property that does not have sewer service to all of the property at this time? Secondly, is the city prepared to annex property that only has one permanent access proposed? I think that's really what the question of -- is this annexation the best interest of the city of Meridian about. The comments that came in the response from David McKinnon basically addressed that they feel that the -- all of the property should be annexed right now, that the lack of any schools in the area and the lack of a secondary access and sewer are issues that can be taken care of and I think, you know, arguments can be made on both sides. The question of the secondary access is the first issue that I'll point out and Meridian Road runs north-south here on the edge of the slide and there is an existing 24 foot wide easement that is in favor of this lot that's shown here, which is proposed to be a five acres lot that is sold to the Boyack family that currently owns this northerly -- the larger piece and it would be -- retained ownership within the family as it was presented to staff. That access is one option to come into the property, but the preferred option that we have been told is as the sewer comes through Paramount Subdivision, through Meridian Road, it would cross about in this section. The North Slough is -- you can see is shown kind of ghosted out on the screen here. The trunk line would come across here and the -- there would be an all-weather surface, 20 foot wide, gravel road that would be required by the city, as usual, over that -- over that easement for the trunk and that is for maintenance purposes. That would, then, connect with this proposed Joshua Tree Street that is running here east and west. That would be a local street that improved to highway district standards. So, now, of course, the timing of when that would get there is estimated right now to be about mid '05 in terms of the construction of the North Slough trunk. That is dependent on obtaining all of the appropriate easements to the Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 5 of 89 west in order to get the truck there, but assuming that the current project's time frame runs through, that would be about spring of -- or I mean summer of '05. Until that point, the first 50 homes of the project are at this local street right here. Well, actually, it would be this mid block point here and those 50 homes -- number 50 was chosen, as you know, number one, because the Fire Department does not want to serve more than 50 homes without another access, as well as those 50 homes can sewer to the south side of McMillan Road. Whereas, all the remainder of the subdivision would have to sewer to the future North Slough trunk. So, we do feel that a -- before the 51st house would be approved, there should be a second permanent -- well, a second access that has -- that is paved. That would, again, refer to this access coming across from Meridian Road, which, at this point, looks like to be the soonest and the most logical place for the secondary access to come in at. The reason why we think it needs to be improved -- the highway district has -- essentially, what this would be is a cul-de-sac until a second permanent access is constructed. The highway district has a maximum of 400 trips per day on a cul-de-sac, which is equivalent to about 40 homes. So, until that designation -- the only way that designation could change is when a permanent public street is provided and at this point the applicant is not proposing to either pave or make their secondary access public or pave it. We think that it could work. I mean staff is generally supportive of -- you know, of getting a secondary access here and, then, Bruce did point out to me earlier there are two examples where the city has approved these kind of developments before. One is the Meridian Crossroads Shopping Center. When the Crossroads housing development was constructed, before the shopping center was constructed, they had what is now Records Drive. There is a signal there now. That was -- they were allowed to build out their subdivision with only doing a paved 20 foot wide street before it became public and was improved with curb, gutter, sidewalk. Then, the other example was Macaile Meadows, which is just a quarter mile this side of Cloverdale Road near Pine and you access it through -- behind Wal-Mart. There is access behind Wal-Mart -- between there and the cemetery, that they were required to construct their secondary access all the way up to Fairview from the north boundary of their subdivision, which I think was several hundred feet. In both of those instances the city did require paving and -- versus just a second access being gravel. Borup: Brad, how would the aspect of the sewer line going in there affect this, then? I don't know that Records Drive had a sewer line that came in after the street was paved. In this case, when the sewer line went in, wouldn't that disrupt the access? Hawkins-Clark: Well, the sewer line would be constructed before the secondary access. Borup: Okay. They said one of the options would be to put it in before the sewer line, I thought, if it wasn't in. Hawkins-Clark: I don't think that would be an option for us. Borup: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 6 of 89 Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. They need the sewer -- Borup: The applicant had mentioned that. That's what -- Hawkins-Clark: But they do need the sewer to do -- before the 51st lot would be approved. Borup: Right. Hawkins-Clark: So -- and that's when the access road would come in. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Brad, since your sort of on this subject, in reading through your notes I sort of interpreted that you were giving equal weight to two options and you may be leaning towards one or the other it sounds like. One of the options was only to annex enough to build 50 houses and the other was to go ahead consider the whole development, annex it all with a development agreement that nothing could be built beyond 50 houses until both sewer and second access was there. I felt those were weighted equally. Are you leaning towards one or the other? Hawkins-Clark: I guess that was good insight, Commissioner. No, I don't think so. I think they are, really, even in our minds. I think we are -- unless Anna, the Planning Director, has other feelings -- I mean I think the main reason why we would prefer to not annex is more of a legal question than anything and if the city approves a preliminary plat with 400 houses and that preliminary plat is lying on annexed ground, is the city obligated, you know, to provide them with a final plat. I don't think so. But I guess Bruce has a comment on that. Borup: Did you look at the other option of annexing the property, but not platting any more than the first 50 homes? Hawkins-Clark: No. Freckleton: The answer was no. Borup: But is that -- is that another option? Would that be a third option? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, in that instance you would want the development agreement as well. Borup: Yeah. Okay. You had another comment? Freckleton: Maybe there is three options. The biggest thing as far as Public Works is concerned is timing of our project, getting sewer to the area. With our experience with the White Trunk that we built last year, the easement acquisition process took us almost a year longer than what we anticipated -- just it took a long time to negotiate Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 7 of 89 easements. So our preliminary estimates right now is June of '05 to have this thing completed, but one glitch in easements could set us out, so -- Borup: Where are you at on the easement acquisition at this point? Freckleton: We have not started yet. Borup: How many of them of the -- how much of the trunk line would be going through properties that are not associated with other developments? Freckleton: There is -- there is, really, only the Paramount project -- Borup: And, then, the Aschenbrenner. Freckleton: -- and, then, the Aschenbrenner parcel. So, two parcels. Mathes: Isn't Paramount and these people the same? Freckleton: No. Mathes: No. Who did Paramount? Freckleton: Paramount was Brighton Corporation. Mathes: Brighton. Borup: Well, that was part of the -- I mean here you have got two -- two individuals to deal with, as opposed to whatever there was on the White, but it was more than two. And a couple that didn't have a lot of interest in it, wasn't it? Zaremba: My recollection is that when Paramount came before us, staff highly recommended that Paramount be required to provide the sewer to and through to their eastern border. We agreed with that, made that a condition of it. Mr. Aschenbrenner came and testified that he also agreed with that and would be ready to submit something if that happened. So, I don't think he's necessarily the hold up. City Council overruled us on that when Brighton Corporation objected to that condition, which they sometimes do and is certainly their right. But, you know, if that condition had stayed, I'm not sure we would be having this problem. My difficulty is passing that problem along to this applicant, when we knew ahead of time that that's exactly what would happen. We are holding Mr. Aschenbrenner and this applicant hostage to the phasing of Paramount. Borup: But there is nothing we can do about that, though. Zaremba: Well, my follow-up instinct on that would be to consider this entire project, since it has been thought through, lean towards -- if we end up deciding to recommend Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 8 of 89 approval of it, recommending approval of the entire thing, with a development agreement, and the applicant has already said that they are willing to take the risk of this not happening as fast as we think it would. But rather than having to go through this process several times, when we have what appears to be reasonably acceptable -- you know, with some tweaking -- reasonable acceptable project, rather than just annexing 50 homes. Then, having to go through the process again with the rest of it, the development agreement, and the applicant's understanding that they are taking the risk, would at least let them move forward with their planning. I mean they know what is approved, it's just a matter of timing, then, that they are taking the risk on and my problem is we wouldn't, really, be having this discussion if the City Council had left that condition on Paramount. I don't know if that sheds light or just expresses an opinion, but -- Freckleton: I think you're right on. Right on the target. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I would -- if that is the direction that you want to lean -- Zaremba: Well, that's just me personally. I'm not speaking for the rest of the Commissioners. Freckleton: During the development of the White Trunk, developments that were upstream, we did, through our City Attorney's office, come up with a -- some language for indemnity on the timing, that we weren't, you know, bound by any time frame and it was an agreement that the developers basically had to sign onto that they acknowledged that potential. So, I would -- if you do lean that direction, I would just request that you allow us time to get that language together before this goes on to City Council. Borup: And that should be fairly easy, since it's been done previously. Freckleton: Yeah. I won't have a problem with it. Borup: Okay. Brad? Hawkins-Clark: Just a couple of other things, if I could just point out on the conditions on the staff report, starting on page 14 -- and before I forget it, if I could just point out that the staff report mentioned that one option is for a -- in terms of fencing, the applicant, as I understand it, has agreed to construct a vinyl fence adjacent to the Larkwood homeowners subdivision, a six foot vinyl fence. I will let them confirm that, but that was presented in the staff report as an option. We typically -- the city does not require a material type in fencing, but in this case, since there has been agreement between both parties, I think part of the Conditional Use Permit you're okay to require that. Three other items. Again, on page 14 of the staff report, see on item number eight. This is the condition that talks about eliminating a cul-de-sac and the basis for our comment on that was the Comprehensive Plan, which, you know, encourages full connectivity in subdivisions and, again, we are talking about this cul-de-sac right here. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 9 of 89 One unique feature that they are proposing for this cul-de-sac and the three others that they have in the project is to provide sort of an on-street parking area to kind of help designate where cars would park in the cul-de-sac. It would be in the middle and it would be stripped, as I understand it, and provide that -- that feature. This condition suggests eliminating the cul-de-sac and connecting it in alignment with what they have named Prickly Pear Street and it would not result in the loss of any lots, it would just be a reconfiguration of two or three of the lots at the end of the cul-de-sac. As David pointed out in his response letter, it's really not a pedestrian connection issue, because they do have a pedestrian pathway proposed right here in the middle of the project, but more of just general connectivity. So, again, it's based on the Comprehensive Plan policy that says to encourage the elimination of cul-de-sacs wherever possible. So, the way that it's worded, that would be removed. They have said that they prefer to keep the cul-de-sac there. On item number nine, the condition says prior to City of Meridian approval of any final plat, including the 51st lot, a second permanent vehicular access shall be constructed or approved, and they are proposing to have it, as I mentioned earlier, be temporary, not permanent, and it would be approved by the Meridian Fire Department and not a part of the final plat application. As mentioned, we -- staff thinks it should be not necessarily fully constructed with curb, gutter, sidewalk, but at a minimum have the 20 foot wide asphalt surface that is fully there and available for the public to use. Then, on item number -- condition number ten on the bottom of page 14, this is referring to the five acre lot that is shown up here in the northeast corner, that since it's so large, we asking for a redevelopment, a replatting plan concept to show how any -- how all this will layout and to show how they will connect to the south here. We were asking for this as a part of the final plat for this larger phase and -- Borup: Are they anticipating some -- I mean they have already designed that in the first application, didn't they? Hawkins-Clark: They did, but my understanding is that they removed that entirely and at this point that's off the books. If you approve the preliminary plat, that's not -- Borup: Right. I mean they could submit that as a conceptual layout. Hawkins-Clark: One of the reasons we asked for it is because they showed two cul-de- sacs and we were opposed to that. Borup: Oh. Okay. Hawkins-Clark: So, we want to see a stub street there. Zaremba: Is that where the fourth cul-de-sac was? You have mentioned four cul-de- sacs and I'm only seeing three. Hawkins-Clark: Let's see. They have the one -- Zaremba: And two streets below that. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 10 of 89 Borup: At the top. Zaremba: Oh, I didn't see that that was a -- Hawkins-Clark: This is one here. Zaremba: I didn't see that. Okay. Is that a pedestrian pathway that connects it to the street below? Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: Yes, it is. I think I also failed to point out that they are proposing a -- as the Comprehensive Plan asks for, a part -- part of our regional pathway system would come through this property. They have a 60 foot wide common lot here that would connect to the future middle school and there would be a ten foot wide public path that would come through this common lot and continue north through this private park, which, of course, the ten foot wide easement would be for the public and, then, stub out to the east at this point. So, they would get the public pathway through their project. They have asked for this portion of that easement to be six foot, instead of ten, and I think staff's comfortable with that. We have had precedence in Lochsa Falls Subdivision approving that to a reduced easement. Zaremba: Can I back up a second to the five acre parcel? Borup: Yes. Zaremba: Didn't realize we were moving on. In the applicant's response on -- I think what is their page four, they do mention that the family wants to build a new home there, but also to do a new domestic well and septic system on something we are talking about annexing into the city and within possibly two years having sewer available. That doesn't seem the right direction to me to have a new well and a new septic tank. Hawkins-Clark: Right. That would be against ordinance if you choose to annex this property. I'll let Bruce address that one. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, there was a representative of the family in our office talking to us about this concept. I have discussed it with our City Engineer. Our basic feeling is that we could agree to allow them to do a temporary septic and well until such time that the services could be available to that five acres and, then, at that time they would have to disconnect from their well and septic and connect up to municipal services, so we have had a dialogue with them. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 11 of 89 Borup: They are talking about building before to 2005. Freckleton: Yes. Borup: Okay. Freckleton: Well -- Zaremba: June of 2005 is a year and a half away from now. Freckleton: We don't know that June of '05 that Saguaro Canyon will be built clear up into here either. It more than likely will be built down to here, so -- Borup: Right. Before it gets to them they are planning on building. Freckleton: Yeah. Our discussion with them was that prior to the subdivision being built and having services brought up, so that it's available to them, they were looking at constructing, so -- but, again, we -- we don't have a problem with that on a temporary basis. Zaremba: Not that I want to get into their personal finances, but is a temporary septic and well cheap enough that it could be abandoned after a year of use? I guess that's up to them. Borup: It doesn't matter what it costs, it still can be abandoned. Mathes: Can they use that well for irrigation? Hawkins-Clark: I think maybe the key question on that, Commissioner Zaremba, Members of the Commission, is the number of buildings on a lot and staff was told by one of the neighbors that they believe there could be two houses already there and -- Zaremba: On this five acres? Hawkins-Clark: On that five acres. If we could just have some clarification on that tonight. But whether there is -- yeah, obviously, there would only be one building on one lot, so if we just get clarified. Unless the Commission had any questions for staff, that was it at this point. Borup: Okay. Any other questions, Commissioners? I think we asked them as we went along. Zaremba: I have one other question that's kind of a philosophy kind of a question, I guess, and it applies somewhat to this application, but to others as well. On page 19, paragraph five, I have expressed my objection in the past to whittling away at zones. We ask for an R-4 and, then, the reduced lot sizes and houses and stuff like that, when Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 12 of 89 I say, well, why don't you just ask for an R-8 or something like that. This being a planned development, they would have probably a 20 percent exception anyhow, which could be used for a lot size. I guess what I'm getting at -- and in the past I have ended up voting in favor of most of the applications, even with reductions in them, but I think my question is if we state as a condition that they are approved to have lot sizes of 5,735 feet in an R-4 zone, would that give them the right to come back later and say, oh, I have revised my plat to make this 700 lots, because I am approved for 500 and where I'm going with that is could we quantify this? Instead of saying that they are approved for 5,735 square feet, we say that they are approved for that on a maximum of 100 lots? Is that doable? Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner, while I think it's doable, I don't think it's necessary. Zaremba: Okay. Well, the same question would apply to the square footage -- minimum square footage of houses and -- Hawkins-Clark: On the lot sizes, you know, since they have both a development agreement and a preliminary plat and both of those have legal binding authority, you know, the only way they could do more lots at 5,735 square feet is by amending -- Zaremba: Revising the plat. Hawkins-Clark: Right. Zaremba: Square footage of the building? Same thing? Hawkins-Clark: Sorry. Zaremba: Minimum square feet of the house built on it, if we just say that we are approving a 1,201 square foot minimum house, that's on every single lot? Hawkins-Clark: That's correct. Zaremba: Would we want to quantify that to being only on 20 percent of the lots or only on the smallest -- Hawkins-Clark: Well, that's certainly the Commission's privilege. The zoning ordinance for the R-8 does allow outright breaking up a project in percentages, so that you could do ten percent of the lots at 1,000 square feet, another ten percent at 1,100 square feet, another ten percent at 1,200 square feet, and the rest at 1,300 square feet and larger. They are not proposing the R-8, so they don't have that option outright, so they really are -- everything is going to be regulated by this Conditional Use Permit that they are proposing all these changes on. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 13 of 89 Zaremba: My question is as much a general question, philosophy, and future projects, not just this application, but I'm just wondering -- it would make me more comfortable about giving that kind of minimum if we weren't saying this is available on every lot. Powell: Chairman Borup, Commissioner Zaremba, some of the other communities do do that and it's not -- I mean it's kind of a precedent that's already set in the zoning ordinance with the percentages laid out by the R-8. It's certainly something that you can do as part of the development agreement where the lot sizes are targeted, you know, they can't deviate from the preliminary plat, but the minimum house size is more floating, so that you could tie that down a little bit if you want. It's certainly within your discretion. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Question along that line again. We have seen other projects where the number of lots have varied from the preliminary plat. Not a lot, but a few. I mean -- so I assume it changed somewhere at City Council level. Powell: No. I think the one you're thinking of -- it was -- it was a difference in interpretation about when a new preliminary plat would be needed and I have been saying that just because you're under the total number that's lots -- buildable lots that you were allowed, doesn't mean that you can add lots phase by phase and, then, just have one big lot at the end. So, we are kind of looking at that a little more closely as they come through to make sure that we are kind of keeping in the same -- Borup: Okay. That's what maybe they were looking at is the lot sizes change by phase, but they thought -- they were saying overall they were going to stay the same number? Okay. Powell: Yeah. So, we would have one three acre piece in the final plat had they not come back for a new preliminary plat, so -- one last thing on house sizes. There is -- most of the communities around town do have a minimum house size. There is discussion and rumblings amongst the development community as to whether a minimum house size is appropriate and I'm just throwing that out there, just so it's on the record, because I'm sure one of the developers will bring it up if I don't, but there is some question if you don't allow a certain number of smaller houses, that you're being discriminatory to somebody that might only be able to afford a smaller house, so -- Borup: Well, those rumors started 15 years ago. Powell: Yeah. They have been around for awhile, yeah. Zaremba: Well, I can see -- there was a time where it was very popular to say that all the homes in a subdivision should be the same size, so that everybody had the same property value and everybody had the same stuff. I think that philosophy has gone Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 14 of 89 through a change where it may be more popular not to do the cookie cutter and to allow a mix, so, I don't know, I can see both sets of reasoning. Hawkins-Clark: And I think many times as it's pointed out, it's the design of the house that makes most of the difference as you're driving down a street, in many ways more than the square footage. From the street you could look at one house and think that that's 1,400 and the other one is 2,400, when, in fact, maybe it's just the opposite. So, I think the design and the facades and the street presentation has a big impact on that as well. I did want to also point out that the Planning Department did get an e-mail from Chief Musser, Police Chief Musser, today. He did review the subdivision and said that his single point of concern was the one entrance to the subdivision off McMillan Road. He did say that they would be okay with any access that the Fire Department was okay with. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Would the applicant like to make their presentation? McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. Dave McKinnon, 735 South Crosstimber, Meridian, Idaho. Well, I wish I could take credit for the design of this project. I was kind of brought in on the middle of it and it's actually a pretty neat design for what it actually is. If you think about what this project is, you can understand some of the concerns and comments that came up. This is, essentially, a quarter mile wide piece of land that extends more than a half of mile into this section of road and you have to cross over the Lemp Canal. There was a road that was already designed in Havasu Creek that -- just to the south of this project that had an entry road that we had to line up with. ACHD required us to line up with the entry for -- I guess it's now called Cobre Basin, but ACHD required us to line up with that access and so we were limited on our access point that we had there. So, we put the crossing right there and said let's make this the crossing and, originally, we had provided a secondary access point for the Fire Department right here in this corner -- in the southeast corner. Unfortunately, when we met with the Fire Department and city staff, it was determined that the fire access at that location was too close to this location. If McMillan had problems, they weren't going to be able to get in on either one of those accesses, so we had to move the access someplace else. Unfortunately, we only have a quarter mile to deal with frontage on McMillan. So, it left us in a loop where how do we come up with a secondary access point. Well, within the subdivision itself there is a 24 foot wide access road that runs in from Meridian Road across the Boyack piece of property. Twenty-four feet wide into the subdivision. However, where do you take the access road from here all the way down to this point where we would be constructing? So, that was one option that we looked at. The secondary option that we looked at is where is the sewer going to be coming in. And this road right here is called Joshua Tree. This is where the sewer line will be coming in across the Aschenbrenner property from the Paramount property and so we have shown it on our preliminary plat. There is a 21 inch sewer line that would come in here on Joshua Tree heading to the east, then, all the way down the center collector road and will provide sewer to the remainder of the subdivision where these 50 lots were already being serviced by the lift station in Havasu Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 15 of 89 Creek. When you build a sewer line, the City of Meridian requires that you put a road over the top of it. In the past they have acquired an all-weathered surface. Gravel, for example, is one of the types of surfaces that have been used in the past. Just to give you an example of that, if you remember when we were going through the Lochsa project and we had a lot of discussion as to how the sewer line was going to come across the park and how we were going to get access across that. One of the means of access was a gravel road across the park, across the sewer line for a secondary means of access and that was one of the ways that was approved to get through and there is still is some gravel roadway that's a secondary means of access that has been approved in Lochsa Falls. I spent a little bit of time yesterday with Chief Musser on the phone, Bill Musser, our Chief of Police. I also spent some time with Kenny Bowers discussing the secondary means of access and what would be acceptable for a secondary means of access, because our original secondary access didn't work, and we talked about the two options, the 24 foot wide option beneath the Boyack property and the Joshua Tree alignment. In explaining that to Chief Musser and to Kenny Bowers, they both agreed that the Joshua Tree location would be the preference, going to build the gravel road across that. Both the Chief of Police and the Fire Chief for Meridian felt the gravel would be an acceptable surface for that, as long as it would support a vehicle that weighed 70,000 pounds, which is what the Public Works Department would require as well. So they both felt comfortable with the access -- for secondary access in this location. With that taken care of, the secondary access taken care of, let me jump back and tell you a little bit more about the design of this project. Like I said, I wish I had been involved a little bit more, so I could claim that this was a design I was involved with a lot more, but Farwest, LLC, spent a great deal of time designing this collector roadway. As Brad mentioned, it's a split entrance coming into the subdivision. On both sides of the split entrance there will be detached sidewalks, on either side of the detached entrance, to provide access from McMillan Road. In the middle of the collector street there are islands that run throughout each block section to add for additional landscaping and there are, as was pointed out, four cul-de-sacs, but the need for those cul-de-sacs is not necessarily uncalled for, because there is a pathway system that runs up both the east and the west side of the subdivision the full way to provide for pedestrian access and for circulation. In addition to that, there is a lot of people that would actually prefer to live on cul-de-sacs and so this isn't relying on cul-de-sacs, but it's providing something that the market demands. Some people want to live in cul-de-sacs and it's an option that we felt should be available to those people, so that's the reason why we oppose removing the Prickly Pear cul-de-sac, because it's not a large cul-de-sac, in fact, it's very short in length, only several hundred feet, and there is a pedestrian access here that lines up with the large 60 foot wide access that also goes into the new junior high school. There is negotiations ongoing right now for a junior high school adjacent to this site and the school district has asked for this pathway to connect to the junior high school site, so the Prickly Pear people, the kids that live in Prickly Pear, could walk directly to this pedestrian path and, then, down into the school, so they are not having to go out and around and pedestrian access is there and it provides for the other people in the market. As you continue north on the collector street you run into a large park area and, as Brad pointed out, there is a regional pathway there, a ten foot wide path, and it's a large park area where people can Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 16 of 89 recreate. In talking with Chief Musser, Chief Musser was very enamored by this design. He felt that it was very good to have all the open space as you drive down. He felt that it would be a very safe thing. In addition to that, the islands in the collector would make it so the people would not travel so fast. There is a slight meander to the collector street and at this point where it disperses he felt that that was a very smart thing to do for vehicle traffic control. Continuing north, again, there is another basically two and a half acre park within the subdivision, a small parking area in this location, with a pathway that connects to this cul-de-sac. Within the subdivision there is already one planned tot lot on Lot 6, Block -- actually, it's Lot 16, Block 6. In addition to that, we will stand and put on record tonight that we will place an additional tot lot someplace within the subdivision, so a total of two tot lots within the subdivision. The Boyack piece of property -- I just had a little bit of conversation about what's to happen there. There was some question as to whether or not there is, actually, houses on there right now. Unfortunately, you can't see through this photocopy of the plat, but there is, actually, the two houses lay right here and right here outside of the Boyack piece of property. Those are tear down houses and they are going to fall on Farwest to tear down. The Boyack property, as you originally saw it, had two cul-de-sacs that ran through that and that was when there was the intent to include this property as part of the overall development. However, the Boyack family wanted to retain ownership of that five acres and they want to develop that in the future, but they'd really like to build a house on it now, just as Bruce mentioned, they can put one house on there now with one sewer. It's really up to them to determine whether or not they think it would be economically viable to put in a well and septic and go through the -- to put one house on there and, then, in the future if they'd like to resubdivide that. It's a property that's going to be outside of Farwest's control, it would be in ownership by the Boyacks, so to require Farwest to come up with a development plan for the Boyacks seems out of line, because they don't actually own the property, it will be developed by someone else. They will have to come forward to you in the future for a preliminary plat to develop that, rather than us having to come to you now with a sketch plat that they may or may not have any intentions of doing in the future. So, that was the reason why in my letter I requested that we remove the requirement from the staff report to provide a plat map for that area, because it's somebody else's property, we don't own that property, they are going to develop it, they have already -- they are in conversations with someone else to design that. So we felt that that should actually be somebody else's responsibility to come up with the design for that and they will have to come before you in the future with a preliminary plat. Staff wants a stub street to the south. They can make that a requirement on the Boyack family when that property comes back in the future. It will be developed, but it's not going to be developed by us at this time. It's not a part of the overall development. It's a part of the plat, it's a five acre parcel, and when it comes to resubdivision of that large lot, it would fall under their responsibility. So, I just wanted to make that clear. If I could shift gears just a little bit. The subdivision provides a variety of different types of lot sizes. Commissioner Zaremba, you pointed that out, that there is some really small lots and there is some large lots. The overall average size for the lots within the subdivision is 9,000 plus in size. In an R-4's density the requirement is for a minimum of 8,000 square feet. On the average, if you would average all the lots, it's actually larger than a typical R-4 subdivision, which would allow for the 8,000 square foot. But the reason Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 17 of 89 why it was split up that way is to provide for a variety of different housing types. Within a subdivision you don't want everything to look identical to each other, you want to provide for a variety. You also don't want to, as Anna pointed out, shut some people out from being able to move in there. Some people may want to build homes within this area on the east, which are the smaller lots -- on the west, which are the small lots and on the east side you have the larger lots. You have mentioned how, Commissioner Zaremba, there was some concern that these lots may all be built with 12,000 square feet on them. One of the big reasons that you don't see that is economy. The lots are expensive. The larger the lot you have, the more it costs, and most people don't spend 60,000 to 70,000 dollars for a lot and, then, build a very small house on that. Conversely, they may spend more money on a small lot and build a larger house on that in order to maximize what they have on that site. They typically don't try to minimize the size of house on a large lot. The request for the 12,000 -- for the 1,200 square foot house would be to allow housing in this area within the smaller lots in order to meet setbacks. The lots are big enough to provide for bigger houses, but it provides an option for those people if they don't want to have such a large home and not everybody wants to have a large home, as Brad mentioned, that, you know, design is very important, not all homes have to be large and not everybody demands a large home. So, it's just an option for them, but typically people don't spend a great deal of money on a lot and, then, put a small house on it. If it doesn't make sense financially it's hard to resell in the future if you can't get your money out of it, because all the value is in the lot and not the house. Borup: Mr. McKinnon? McKinnon: Uh-huh. Borup: Back to Commissioner Zaremba's thought on that. Would you be comfortable with stipulating that 1,200 feet to certain blocks or -- I mean you have pointed out an area where you anticipate that those would be. Would that be a problem to limit that to -- was that along the line you were thinking, Commissioner? Rather than the whole subdivision? Zaremba: Well, actually, I liked Director Powell's suggestion, that similar to the R-8 zone, we say certain that a certain percentage of them could be and I wouldn't mind seeing that get into the ordinance for R-4 -- Borup: Well, but in the R-8 zone -- in the R-8 zone they specify specific lots, which sometimes can be hard to work, because you may not want to put that house on that lot and I don't know how they -- I don't know how staff regulates a percentage. Isn't that difficult? Hawkins-Clark: Well, we have -- we have required that they specifically show on the preliminary plat which houses are 1,200 -- I mean 1,201 and 1,301, so both the preliminary and final plat it -- Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 18 of 89 Borup: I know and that's what I'm saying. There is some problems with that. I mean somebody may want to put a 1,600 foot house on an 1,100 foot designated lot and vice- versa. The one person can do it that goes larger, but if the other one wants to go smaller may not, even though it's well under the percentages that were allowed for the subdivision. I don't know if that's -- maybe that's a problem that doesn't -- hasn't really existed, though. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, if I just could just interject on that. I can answer your question and for staff how it becomes difficult. The idea is not to have a whole lot of small homes. If someone wants to build larger on those lots that are designated, it still goes towards those lots as being allowed. This is, actually, a map that I haven't shown you yet. The dark brown area -- I don't know if everyone can see this. This would be the western side. This is where the smaller lots are in the brown area. The yellow side are the larger lots within the subdivision. We would be happy to say the 1,200 square foot minimum would apply to this side, the brown area. So, all this area could have the 1,200 square foot minimum and over here go back to the standard 1,400 square foot minimum for the R-4 zone. I'm going to have to shift gears again. I just looked down at my notes and I know that we have talked about the secondary access already and we have talked about the gravel. One other thing to point out is where we are bringing this sewer down from Joshua Tree through the collector, that 20 foot wide strip of pavement that the city staff has asked for would actually create a couple of problems. One is the sewer would be under there, but water and the other types of services may not be under there at the time that the sewer is installed. In addition to that, all that asphalt would have to be cut out as we go through and put in the landscaping. It would actually be wasted asphalt. It would be something we would have to cut out in the future, rather than having to install it and, then, in two or three years have to rip it back out, we'd prefer to have the all weather surface, the gravel, like the Fire Department and Police Chief were comfortable with, rather than to go to the asphalt. Rohm: And it's your proposal to install that at this time, Dave? McKinnon: What would happen is that this 50 lots would get developed, they would all sewer back to Havasu Creek. The sewer line in the future would come in at Joshua, run down this direction, we would take the sewer from here and build the second phase. This roadway would only be constructed to this phase. It would continue to remain as gravel in this section. As each phase goes forward we would install the landscaping islands and construct the roads and sidewalks and build over the sewer easement. Rohm: Well, it seemed to me that the secondary access and the sewer would be required before you could build out beyond the first 50 lots. McKinnon: That's correct. Rohm: Correct? Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 19 of 89 McKinnon: Yeah. Rohm: So, both those would have to go in before you go beyond the first 50 lots, is what you're referring to? McKinnon: That's correct. What we really don't want to be stuck with is a requirement to install asphalt over the top of the sewer line and, then, within two to three years or one year come back and have to rip out all that asphalt that we have installed. The Fire Department's okay with the gravel road. The Police Department is okay with the gravel road over the sewer. It's just -- it's city staff at this point that's asking for it to be paved, but if we have to pave it, then, we are stuck with having to tear it out in the future in order to put the rest of the improvements in the subdivision. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup -- Zaremba: Kind of sideways on that subject -- let me just do one quick and then -- I'm sorry. Regardless of whether we talk about asphalt or gravel surface, it sounded like you were saying that the sewer line would actually run under the center landscaping aisle, which doesn't sound right to me, because you're not going to be able to plant trees or anything if it's over the sewer line. Wouldn't you still run the sewer under a paved portion of the road on the northbound or the southbound side? McKinnon: That still would be under the paved portion of the road. However, in order to install that we would have to rip that out, that section of asphalt. Zaremba: Yeah. I'm sorry, Brad. Hawkins-Clark: That's okay. Thank you. I think the main point of difference here -- we are talking about -- Dave's talking about an emergency vehicle access. We are talking about a public access that residences would use to get to their homes. We have approved emergency accesses many places throughout the city that have only gravel. I don't think there is any question are we supportive of a secondary temporary emergency access being gravel, but we are talking about a public access to serve these homes and I don't think anybody here believes that this entire subdivision will build out without that Aschenbrenner property coming through. We are not here to dispute that. I think our point is if you say they can do it, you do potentially have 400 lots with one permanent vehicular access and the other one is gravel, 20 foot gravel strip. Potentially that's what you're approving. Four hundred lots with only one permanent vehicular access. Borup: You're talking about having the pavement back to Meridian Road; is that correct? Hawkins-Clark: Right. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 20 of 89 Freckleton: If I might just add something to that, too, Mr. Chairman. The utilities are going to follow the progression of the phases into the development, so the only thing that we are potentially talking about is, as Dave has stated, the gravel -- or, excuse me, the asphalt over the top of the sewer. The water mains are going to follow the progression of the phases. They are going to come in with each phase, so you're not -- you know, with the installation of water, the water is not going to be underneath that gravel -- or underneath that asphalt road until that phase develops. You're going to have to -- it's all going to progress into the property. Borup: Yeah. I think we understood -- understood that. Rohm: Water and sewer are coming from opposite directions. Zaremba: We have had this discussion on other properties. What provides the loop for the water system? Where else does it go? If it's only going up this collector, it's a dead end system; right? Will it connect somewhere else, eventually, and be a loop? Freckleton: Commissioner Zaremba, it will. This, more than likely, will be a residential collector coming in. More than likely will be a residential collector coming in from Meridian Road and we would be looking at a 12 inch water main coming in when that is developed as a permanent residential collector, unless at the time -- this is really hard to predict, because development in the north end, we have to evaluate each phase of these developments as come in. I mean if they come in with phase two and we run water modeling and determine that we can't do it, unless it's looped, then, a condition is going to be placed on the second phase that they provide the loop at that point in time. So, it's kind of crystal ball when that looping will be necessary, but I can tell you it will be at some point in the future. Zaremba: But we don't need to establish that requirement, it would come up during the permit process. Freckleton: Correct. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Mr. McKinnon, while you're on that first -- could you clarify on the sewer line for that first 50? So, that's going to be going into the -- across and through a lift station. What happens when the permanent trunk line gets to that? Will that be abandoned, then? Bruce? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, it will be. There is a -- in our facility plan there is a sewer main that is shown planned to come up McMillan that will take that lift station off line and, then, this 50 lots in Saguaro will gravity flow to this permanent line in McMillan Road, as will a lot of the Cobre Basin project will sewer out -- Borup: That line goes into the North Trunk? Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 21 of 89 Freckleton: That will go to the White Trunk. Yeah. This is a branch of the White Trunk, this portion. Borup: Well, that's where it's being pumped to now, isn't it? The White Trunk? Freckleton: Yes. Borup: Okay. So, the route it's taking now, it requires a lift station. The new route will gravity flow to the White Trunk. Freckleton: Correct. Correct. Borup: Still going to the same trunk link, but different method -- different route. All right. Freckleton: Yeah. Borup: I was not clear on that. McKinnon: There is no reverse flow back to the new North Slough Trunk. I guess two more things before I finish up. Just for your information, we have spent quite a bit of time working with the Larkwood Homeowners Association. There was some mention that we -- this has been revised. There were originally 27 lots that were designed adjacent to the Larkwood homeowners association. The new revised plat, actually, only provides 20 adjacent to that, so, essentially, seven lots were moved or eliminated. Some were eliminated, some were shifted elsewhere within the subdivision, but we have got it down to 20. So, essentially, there is two lots that back up to each of those homes. The homes that back up to Larkwood average over I believe 13,000 square feet in size. Some are 10,000, some are 17,000, but overall they are about 13,000 square feet in size. The largest lots within the subdivision back up to Larkwood, which is the estate subdivision. So, we have tried to accommodate the largest lots adjacent to the subdivision that's adjacent to us and tried to work with them on that. Finally, there was a great deal of discussion about whether or not we understand the risks involved with not having sewer to the site right now and we understand that. We are happy to sign an agreement that says that is, yes, we understand that sewer may not get to this point right now and, no, we will not sue the city if sewer is not there when we are ready for it. That's something we are willing to move forward with tonight and give you assurances that that's something that we will do. We are happy to make that part of the development agreement or just an agreement to the plat. We don't feel that it should be -- should be waited upon until you guys have a chance to review that. We are more than happy to give you that assurance tonight, so that it can move on to City Council. I think we have a good project here. There is a lot of design that went into this and, again, I wish I could claim some of it. They did most of it without my help and they have done a really good job and I would ask for your approval and ask if you have any questions of me at this time. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 22 of 89 Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Okay. We tried to ask them as -- Zaremba: We drilled him pretty well. Borup: Okay. We'd like to turn this over to public testimony time. We had -- it looks like about five people have signed up. If any of those would still like to come forward, we'd like to do that right now. Greiner: My name is Rob Greiner. I work with John and Ed Pritty who own the property at 5740 North Meridian Road. Unfortunately, they are not able to be here tonight, so I'm representing them. They own the piece of property that is right adjacent or abut to the west side of the development. There is 20 acres there. Part of our concern is we are not a usual type of tear down house. We have -- Vic Cook used to own it, for those who know Vic, and it's about a 7,000 square foot home, maybe ten years old at the most, and it has a beautiful attached barn to it. Our concern is we have no plans to tear that down. Currently we have horses on the property, which requires an electric fence to go around the entire perimeter of it. During early spring to late fall we usually have 30 to 40 head of cattle, usually one or two bull, and so our concern is, number one, for the safety and right now it looks like there is probably seven homes that abut to our property line. With an electric fence and with the bull, we are a little concerned about that. Number two, when you think of safety, you think of liability exposure. I'm not sure what kind of -- we are looking into it -- what kind of liability we may have as homeowners with an electric fence and bull and cattle. So that leads us to number three -- Borup: Are you anticipating that there will be an electric fence exposed to the neighbors you mean? Greiner: Well, currently it is. We have a pole fence -- pole fencing -- Borup: Right. You understood they are putting a perimeter fence around the property? Greiner: No, I did not. All I knew is that they said on Larkwood they are going to put a six foot vinyl fence. That's all I have heard so far. Borup: They are doing a fence around the whole perimeter. Greiner: So, the whole property will be a six foot fence that's vinyl all the way up? Borup: Well, they have committed to vinyl on Larkwood. The other side maybe other material. Probably -- Greiner: What other kind of -- Borup: Cedar. But either way a solid fence. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 23 of 89 Greiner: Okay. And that wasn't presented. And I guess one of our -- Borup: Sorry we didn't bring that out. Greiner: But one of our concerns is we were never approached and, you know, I don't know how many linear feet we have there, but we were a little -- not upset, but just wondered why we weren't approached on the property line and discussed it, due to the fact we did have bulls and cattle out there. I guess our final remarks is we would -- when Brad, the planner, first came forward and said he would -- what they really wanted to do is annex the first portion of that, I guess we hardly agree with that and we have nothing against development, it just seems like without a complete north Meridian plan we are not sure where our property is going to fall in and what we are going to end up going to be zoned like and so our concerns are there. We are not sure if your plan is not have residential property entirely around us and surround us, where does that lead us. So we have deep concerns, you know, two or three years down the road from now. Because currently we are a ranching operation and we don't intend to change that. Borup: Right. But you're wondering what you probably may be zoned in the future you're saying? Greiner: Yeah. Or where you're headed at. I know we have talked to Mike Atkins, who owns this property right above us and he has the exact same comments we have. We are just not sure where Meridian is headed and what -- you know, we can look at all the future maps that you have a lot of our property, but we are not exactly sure what that means. Does that mean -- Borup: Well, that is -- that is the conceptual plan of where it would be headed is on the Comprehensive Plan map. Greiner: So, is the long range plan, then, for a small ranching operation, just to kind of push us out? I guess I'm just trying to figure out where we stand two or three years from now. Borup: Well, you can stay there as long as you want. Greiner: Right. Borup: No one is going to push you out. Greiner: Right. Borup: As far as forcing you off the property. I mean there is -- Greiner: It just becomes not very feasible when you're surrounded by residential homes entirely around you. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 24 of 89 Borup: Yeah. Greiner: You know, I don't think we have a new concern, it's just a concern we have right now. And so we were voicing it, as opposed to the entire property being annexed at this time. And one of the things that I guess -- if it came down to it and if you were going to support the total annexation of it, we would ask if there is any way we could purchase some of the property back from the development and build a berm there and we'd feel a little more safer about having a large berm or a ten foot high berm between our property and the adjacent subdivision. So, that would be one of the things we would ask for or suggest and we would be willing to pay the, you know, fair market value for that. Borup: Wouldn't it be less expensive just to put the berm on your property and not have to purchase? Greiner: Our problem is that -- we can do that, perhaps. Our property goes -- it kind of goes along -- you can't really see it, but it goes along right -- the property is right there and the ditch kind of goes around it inside the property somewhat, so it would take a little bit from our side as well trying to go over the ditch and put the berm on top of the ditch, so there would probably be some engineering involved with that. That's something we can probably think of. Rohm: I think the thing that's most important here is that the developer will be required to put a fence along that line and so there will be a definite line between their development and your operation and -- Greiner: Yeah. I apologize, that just wasn't in the handout that I was given, so I wasn't aware of that. Rohm: Okay. Greiner: That helps somewhat. Those are my comments. Borup: Okay. Thank you, sir. Do we have anyone else? Come forward. Youngberg: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, my name is Mike Youngberg. I live at 5075 North Larkwood, which is the subdivision to the east. I guess I get the responsibility of representing the homeowners association, so, hopefully, we will answer some of your questions and ask some of our concerns as well. When we first were notified about the subdivision, we had several concerns. We wrote a memo, submitted that on November 25th that included five -- five items and rather than read through that, I'm just going to briefly summarize them. The first one was there were four lots -- can we go back -- well, this is probably easier, because they are pretty small on there. There are two homes in our subdivision which are right here and here that come fairly close to the perimeter. Our subdivision is two to three acre lots and so we were concerned about those two homes having a home all of a sudden right on their Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 25 of 89 backside, so we approached Farwest about putting height restrictions on the lots behind them, to which they have preliminarily agreed to do so on those four lots. The other -- Borup: Are those houses that you're concerned about, they are also single level homes, then? Youngberg: The ones that are on our subdivision, those are single level homes. Borup: Okay. Youngberg: We also had as our second, the vinyl fence. We suggested that there be a six foot solid fence, with an additional one foot of lattice on top of that. What came back was a six foot fence, with the top foot of that being a lattice design. We are okay with that. In the report from -- from your staff it indicated our original request of it being white. We have since, then, changed our opinion and would like that to be a natural color, with a light brown, tan color. Again, I have talked to Farwest about that and they seem to be okay with that. In fact, it's probably easier for them to tie in with their wood than it is a white fence. Zaremba: You're still asking for it to be vinyl, but just that color? Youngberg: Yes. That's correct. The third item that we addressed in that memo was regarding the transition between Larkwood and Saguaro Canyon being consistent with our sister subdivision, which is Dunwoody. Can you go to one of the -- Borup: It's across -- Youngberg: Just across Locust Grove. Borup: -- Locust Grove. It's quite a ways away. Youngberg: Well, this is Dunwoody right here and, then, this is Vienna Woods and we are right here. Our subdivision and Dunwoody were developed at the same time with the same covenants. When Vienna Woods went in, they spent a lot of time working out a transition between two and they ended up with the larger lots, as you can see, up against them. They have five of their lots that actually touch buildable lots in the Dunwoody Subdivision and those ended up being 20, 22 thousand square foot lots. Farwest has done some significant changing and have increased the size -- the average size of the lots by about 2,000 square feet between us, with the exception of two or three lots, which I'll address a little later. For the most part we are comfortable -- as comfortable, I guess, as we are going to be with having the development go in. None of us are willing to buy the property behind us in order to keep our view, so we will live with the development. The other thing -- the fourth item was the tiling of any of the ditches that carry water. Those ditches being on the perimeter between our subdivision and their subdivision. If there were going to be a ditch and, then, a fence, it would cause some real problems taking care of that. They are not our ditches, it's just the Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 26 of 89 water passing through our subdivision. They have agreed as well to tile those, so they have been positive in that. And, then, the final request in that original memo was pressurized irrigation. They are going to put pressurized irrigation in theirs and we suggested that it would be nice if we could have access to that and transfer our water rights over to that pumping station and for any of the residents along the west side of Larkwood could tie into their pressurized irrigation and they have agreed to that as well. So, we have had a positive interchange with them. We have -- we have received -- and I don't know whether it was submitted, but we received from them an agreement which outlines those five items that we have talked about regarding the fence and the tiling and so on. So, we would ask that those items be included in the Conditional Use Permit, to have those part of that permit. Borup: Mr. Youngberg. Youngberg: Yes. Borup: Since you have put that on the record, I don't believe we have a copy. Did staff get a copy of that? Zaremba: I don't recognize that. Borup: Maybe if that could be submitted for the -- Youngberg: Sure. Hawkins-Clark: Mr. Chairman, are you referring to the letter of November 26 or -- Youngberg: No. This is January 6th. Hawkins-Clark: Oh. Okay. Yeah. No, we have not. Youngberg: The only -- the only unresolved issues -- when we found out there was a revised plat map, we got a copy of it, they brought it out to us a couple nights ago. We had another meeting last night with the homeowners and there are just a couple of items left that we wanted to address. I have notified Farwest of these, but to point them out to you, one of them pertains to -- right here. There is a walkway path through here. That path comes in and ends at our property. The reason that path was put in there, according to what we have been told, is that's where they are proposing stubbing the sewer that would, then, go on through our property -- or through our subdivision and on over towards Vienna Woods and pick up the property on the other side of our subdivision as well. We understand that there may come a time when that sewer has come to through, but we would prefer not to have a walkway that would give any indication of pedestrian traffic coming on into our subdivision. We'd like that fence to be solid and if the fence is going to be solid along that perimeter, then, it would make more sense to go ahead and incorporate that into someone's lot, if there is any way to do that. I don't know whether there is or not, but -- Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 27 of 89 Borup: Now my plat does not show a pathway. Maybe we can get -- we will get some clarification on that. It shows a landscaped area, but not a pathway. Youngberg: This one shows landscape, but according to what I was told it was going to be a paved path or something similar to that. Borup: We will get some clarification on that. Youngberg: Okay. Then, the only other item that we had was regarding the lots just to the north of that path, 43 through 46. If you look at 45 and 46 -- especially 46, they are very narrow at the front. They are 32 or 40 feet -- Borup: Forty-four. Youngberg: At the front of those and it would be more suitable to allow for the kind of home and the kind of lots consistent with what they have done along the rest of the perimeter, instead of having those four lots right there, if they were to combine those and make those three lots to get rid of those two long, narrow, deep lots. And so we would ask that you consider that as well. The last item was just in general. There has been discussion about the Conditional Use Permit regarding the lots size and the house size and just the subdivision in general. Obviously, you're dealing with this a lot more than we are and we are going to rely on you to make sure that it's consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and that it be a positive thing for our community. We have equal concern that there might be smaller homes -- real small homes and lower values right next to us. With what they have laid out here it looks more positive and if you can keep those -- the smaller, less expensive homes to the other side, that would be very favorable from our aspect. Borup: And that's what they have committed to. Youngberg: Yes. So, that's all we have. Borup: Any questions for Mr. Youngberg? I have maybe just a clarification on the fence. I think I got a little confused when you started talking about the fence height. Youngberg: Originally we were looking at a seven foot -- Borup: Okay. That's -- but you realize that didn't meet the city ordinance. Youngberg: Yeah. The proposal that came in was six and we are okay with that. Borup: Okay. And that is the city ordinance on the six, so that's probably part of that -- all right. So, we are fine with that. Youngberg: Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 28 of 89 Borup: But you still wanted the lattice on top of the six? Youngberg: The five foot solid and, then, a foot lattice. Again, if you look over at the Vienna Woods, Dunwoody, that's what they have done over there and it's very attractive. Borup: It's very attractive, but it gives you less privacy. Youngberg: We have got a lot of -- we have got land in between us and that works. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Come forward, sir. Lee: My name is Grant Lee. I live at 5603 North Locust Grove Road. I own the 30 acres that abuts both Larkwood and the Saguaro Canyon -- right in this area. Larkwood butts to me on one side, Dunwoody buts to me on the other side off of North Locust Grove Road. At the time both of those subdivisions were built they were the first subdivisions that were approved under a new ordinance and they allowed some significant variances in that they were allowed each to have two lots, a building lot and an agricultural lot. Immediately after those were approved, the commissioners decided that they had made a big mistake and that they would not allow any additional subdivisions to be approved with that concept, including my 30 acres. What I would ask tonight is that anything that you approve for this subdivision, that you don't get wishy washy and if I come in with my 30 acres and say, well, I'd like to do what they do and specifically if they are requesting smaller lots, smaller frontages, smaller home sizes, that you don't come back and say, geez, we made a mistake, we wish we hadn't of done that and we are not going to allow anybody else to do that. Borup: Okay. I might just clarify that the commissioners you're talking about are county commissioners. Lee: Yes. Borup: Not Meridian City Commissioners. Lee: Yes. You're better than they are. Second concern, they have got a street that butts into my property and my home is -- can we get a different map up there that shows Larkwood? Borup: This is your property here; is that correct? Lee: Yes. I feel like we are playing Star Wars here. My home sits right here, which would be the next house in Larkwood, if Larkwood continued on. It's a 10,000 square foot house. They have done a pretty good job with allowing larger lots sizes on the homes that abut the Larkwood Subdivision, but by the time they get to my property where I have got an actual street abutting through, the houses on the corner where Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 29 of 89 Totem Pole Street butts through, are pretty small lot sizes and I think that's going to impact my house and any potential there. If and when our property is developed, I think there is probably going to be a mix, which there would have to be to give us a buffer with the size of our home against the smaller houses. I would ask that this property and the concessions that have been made for the Larkwood people, since my property abuts both Larkwood and this, be consistent and extend through my property, as well as through the Larkwood property as far as the size of the lots being bigger and as far as fencing being consistent. I mentioned the name of the street Totem Pole. I have talked to Marty. He seemed to amenable to change that name, inasmuch as if that street ever extends through, I think we would lose our Locust Grove Street address and be required to take a Totem Pole Street address, which I don't like. I suggested the name Saguaro Canyon, which there is no street in the subdivision named Saguaro Canyon. That would be an acceptable name and Marty was going to give that some consideration, but I'd like to have some input whether or not I'm going to spend the rest of my life on Totem Pole Street or something that will have a little more significant value to me. Okay. Those are the four things that I mentioned. The name of the street, being consistent with fencing on my property, since it abuts both Larkwood and the Saguaro Canyon and that any variances that you allow under the Conditional Use Permit, make sure that's what you want to do, because if and when my property is developed, it will probably be asking for similar things. And my concern with the actual street Totem Pole where it butts into my property, dropping down to very small lot sizes on both corners in what comes into mine and it would be a street that would go passed my house, which is the ten thousand square foot. Borup: Okay. Questions for Mr. Lee? Rohm: I think just a comment that I believe the developer had already stipulated that all lots along that east line would be a minimum of 1,400 square foot. Borup: Right. And the lot -- and all of the lots on there are larger than the minimum R-4 requirement. Lee: But there is a significant drop in size once it leaves Larkwood. Borup: There is. Then, I'm going back and thinking back to the statement you made, you want us to be consistent and I assume you also want to be consistent with the zoning ordinances and the Comp Plan and everything else, too? Lee: Correct. Borup: But, then, you're asking us to be inconsistent here where it's against your property, but in the future you want it to be consistent. Lee: It sounds like it's two different things, doesn't it? Borup: It does. Yeah. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 30 of 89 Lee: I have got two different problems. Borup: I understand. Lee: The problems is where I butt up against Larkwood and if and when we do any developing, the same Larkwood people are going to come to me and say we would like you to be consistent with what's already been done. That's my reasoning. Borup: Well -- and I can understand that, but I think it's maybe putting more restrictions on your property in the future than less. Lee: Okay. Borup: I mean at this point, other than just saying you want to increase the size there above the -- above the 8,000 foot on all those lots. Lee: Okay. Borup: Any other comments from any Commissioners? Lee: What you're saying is I should have sent my wife. Borup: No. I don't know. I was just pointing that out. If we made them change and they are in compliance and if we are going to be consistent in the future, then, that would be inconsistent with saying we can change -- change that on your property, too, which is what you said you wanted, so I'm not sure if that's what you really want. Lee: Tell me that one more time. Rohm: I think he's just saying that there is going to be transitional lots within any subdivision and if, in fact, you're asking them not to have any transitional within their subdivision, then, there would be no transitional within a proposed subdivision that you would put together at a later date. Isn't that kind of what you're saying, Mr. Chairman? Borup: I think so. Lee: So put the transitional ones on my side of the fence. Rohm: The transition is still larger than the lot sizes as a whole, so even though it's not as large as they are moving south, they are still larger the minimum lot size for the zoning. Lee: Okay. Borup: We will also see if the developer has any thoughts or comment on that. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 31 of 89 Lee: Okay. Thank you, Commissioner. Borup: We had one more person signed up. Okay. Do you have any -- Zaremba: I would comment -- Borup: -- conclusion, Mr. McKinnon? Zaremba: -- both the applicant and staff -- the mention of the street names made me look a little bit closer. All of the east-west streets are designated as west something. West San Pedro. West Giant Saguaro. This property being east of Meridian Road, shouldn't those all be east? Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner, we don't have any street naming experts here tonight, but the preliminary plat is just that, I mean in terms of street names. I guess I would just say bear that in mind. The actual final street names have to be approved through the Ada County street naming committee, which happens at the time of the final plat for each phase, so -- Zaremba: They remember to look at east and west? Hawkins-Clark: I think they will remember to look at that. But I think you are correct. Yeah. Meridian Road certainly is the dividing line for east and west. Borup: Mr. McKinnon, do you have any final comments? I assume the engineer figured it was east of Boise and that's what counts is Boise. Or west of Boise I mean. McKinnon: I think we can get that worked out. We can just jump right on Totem Pole. We can swap that name with another street name in here. Maybe -- would San Pedro be better? Lee: I'd like the change to meet with them and review a list. McKinnon: Okay. I think we can come up with something on that. It's just a preliminary plat right now and when the final plat comes on hand we can -- we can work with that and we can move Totem Pole around in there. I know somebody liked the name Totem Pole, so if we can keep that, we'd like to be able to do that. I might just make a couple of quick responses. I think it was Mr. Purdy -- is that -- I was really off. There was a little bit of question about fencing and, obviously, there is going to be a fence that we will install there, a specific type of fence that's planned there, but that's something we can work with on that. As far as a berm -- a berm -- having to sell some land would definitely change all of the lots and lot arrangements there, but we'd, you know, prefer to put the fence and have that be the buffer for that. As far as the north Meridian area plan is concerned, it hasn't yet been adopted and the document that's been provided to the City of Meridian and adopted by you and by the City Council that projects the future Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 32 of 89 growth is, of course, the Comprehensive Plan and any questions concerning how it's going to grow in the future, those questions can be answered within the Comprehensive Plan and the Comprehensive Plan map. Mr. Youngberg submitted to you a letter from Farwest, LLC, and it's now of record, it just goes through those five issues that Mr. Youngberg brought up and we have agreed to do those now that it's in the record. There were two other items that were brought up by Mr. Youngberg. I will just address those really quickly. Brad, if you can go forward to the preliminary plat. The small pathway lot that runs out at this location, they said they didn't want a pathway going through there and the City of Meridian sewer line is going to go through Larkwood at some point and that's where they are showing the sewer line going through. That's even better. It doesn't necessarily have to be at this location, but as we discussed earlier, the City of Meridian requires you put a base over the sewer line and what they typically request is gravel -- 14 foot wide gravel base over the top of that and rather than have a 14 foot wide gravel, we'd like to put asphalt in this location. It's a cleaner look, because this will be permanent and the access road itself is temporary and this would be a permanent thing, so we'd like to be able to put asphalt in that location, where ever it goes through, and that's something that can be moved. It just depends on where the City of Meridian determines that the sewer line has to go through. Addressing the -- Borup: Still on that, Mr. McKinnon, but you're not anticipating a gate there, though, at this point? McKinnon: At this point, no. If the City of Meridian -- Borup: I think that was one of their concerns. McKinnon: But we don't want to place just gravel as a permanent item over the top of a sewer line, we'd rather it be permanent and look nice and so -- Borup: But, then, a solid fence through there? McKinnon: Yeah. That's fine. Addressing his second comment that was not on that list was the request to remove one of the lots -- one of the four lots. Let's see. One, two, three, four -- these four lots. Removing one of those lots in order to have larger lots there. Every one of those exceeds the minimum by quite a few thousand square feet, except for this one -- this lot right here. It's just over 9,000 square feet. These lots are in the 11,000 square foot range. We can reduce the width of both of these two lots and, then, add that width to these two lots, so those lots are no longer pie shaped as much and it will add some width to it, so they can bring the house more forward and if the house is brought more forward, it provides that separation that they are looking for. Right now the pie-shaped wedge that they have, that pie shape forces the house to be setback further, which brings the house closer to the back fence, the rear yard. If we can make those wider, they can pull the house more forward. If the house is more forward it's away from those properties and we can keep those four lots. It would just takes some reconfigurement, making these two lots more narrow and widening these Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 33 of 89 two lots. That would create and atmosphere that would be able to bring those houses more forward, rather than having to eliminate one lot to make it wider. The lots are big that are there and they are all going to average over 10,000 square feet in size. Those are big lots and the people that are going to be purchasing homes in that area want the big lots and they are going to be building nicer homes on those lots and, like I said, we have agreed to do the single story homes on the four lots that back up to the two homes that are the closest to that. Those other four lots actually -- the other two lots don't back up to that. So, I just thought I'd point out that that's one way we can accommodate those pie shapes without removing -- Borup: Do you think you could add ten feet to each of those lots? McKinnon: These two lots right here, yeah, if we narrowed both of these two lots, one of them is over 100 feet and the other one is 98 feet and we could take ten feet out and still be around 90 feet each in width and the lots you could add the ten feet to it. Borup: Is that what you had in mind, ten feet out of the lot and add ten to the other two? McKinnon: Just reconfigure it so that they are not as pie shaped as they are right now. We do have some pie shaping that will take place just because of the 90 degree turn there, but we can make those lots wider to accommodate that, rather than removing a lot, and that would allow the houses to be brought more forward. I think that's the responses that I had to the questions that were brought up tonight. If you had any additional questions, I would be happy to answer those now. If you don't have any additional questions, I'll let you deliberate and if you come up with any questions, just holler at me to come back up. Mathes: What about consistent fencing for Mr. Lee? Borup: Continue that vinyl fence further north. McKinnon: If that's what you want us to add, the vinyl fence with the one foot lattice there, we can accommodate that. Zaremba: And you might just do that your whole western boundary -- or eastern boundary. McKinnon: If we are going to do it on that side, let's do the whole east side, then. Zaremba: I guess my question would be some discussion continuing about Prickly Pear, the cul-de-sacs or connection question. McKinnon: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 34 of 89 Zaremba: I kind of lean towards staff's request to have it connect. It certainly looks like it would -- once Joshua Tree is a main entrance from Meridian, it looks like it would help circulation a little bit to have Prickly Pear not be a cul-de-sac. I could be convinced either way on that, I suppose. Borup: I can see from a marketing standpoint there is a lot of desirability to the cul-de- sacs, as far as, you know, customer desirability, such as homeowners. I think that's what Mr. McKinnon said earlier that they were looking at. Cul-de-sac lots are usually the ones that sell out first. You're saying that would give -- that would give people coming in on that entrance an alternate way to get to the -- Zaremba: On the other hand, it might be just as wise to keep them off of Prickly Pear. I mean if Joshua Tree and Red Horse are going to be the major streets and providing them an extra cut through maybe isn't such a good idea. Borup: I like the idea of having the parking in there. That is usually a lot of the problem on cul-de-sacs. So, I think they have solved some of those objections. Zaremba: Well, by having the parking in the middle, it enlarges the turnaround for the fire trucks should they need to come in there. Borup: Okay. Did you have -- did you say you had a couple questions to that? Zaremba: That may have been it. Borup: Anything from any of the other Commissioners? Zaremba: I guess this is still discussing whether the second access -- certainly is a permanent public road, ACHD and staff would like to see that be paved. Borup: You did not address that, Mr. McKinnon, the fact that it's not just emergency access, but it's actually a public access. McKinnon: The request for it to become a public road, again, as the subdivision develops from south to north, whatever asphalt is in here that's put into that public road, it's not going to be built to ACHD standards right now. ACHD standards for a collector wouldn't be constructed. What the city staff is asking for is a 20 foot wide access road, not a typical collector roadway, which is what eventually will be constructed. The 20 foot wide road would allow for access -- typically a two lane road is 24 feet wide, it allows 12 feet of vehicle travel on both sides for each direction. A 20 foot wide road is, actually, not a full width for a two lane road, but it provides for the larger vehicles to travel on. Borup: Mr. McKinnon, do you know about how many lots we are talking about up to that access? Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 35 of 89 McKinnon: That's about half. It's about 200 south of Joshua. Borup: About 200? McKinnon: It may be 175 to 200. I would have to count. But there is 441 additional lots -- 442 if you count the existing home. Zaremba: Well, the difficulty that that identifies is once you start building north of Joshua, you have 200 homes with only one exit to the south. Borup: And that was my concern. Zaremba: North of Joshua -- McKinnon: North of Joshua you have -- Borup: -- you have a 200 home cul-de-sac. McKinnon: We have two access points at that location. You have one out to Meridian, you can come around this direction. You also have one that you come down to this location and still have two accesses. Borup: That's assuming there is a permanent road to Meridian at that point. McKinnon: But if we are dealing with emergency vehicle access -- Borup: Brad, I'm remembering -- and there were probably some others, but I'm thinking back to Woodbridge. They were restricted to so many homes out of 150 before a secondary public access was -- is that correct? Hawkins-Clark: I believe it was more -- a little more than that. It was like 180. McKinnon: One eighty. Borup: One eighty. You were around, then, too. Zaremba: My thinking is before anything is built north of what is currently identified as San Pedro, there needs to be an access north. Borup: Or San Pedro as a permanent road to Meridian. Zaremba: So, San Pedro isn't -- San Pedro is the one that's between the two parks. It's the east-west street, the next one up. That one is San Pedro. And since there is only -- Borup: Okay. I'm thinking this street right here. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 36 of 89 Zaremba: Well, that is the major collector. That's Joshua Tree and that's the major collector. And I can agree that up until we get to San Pedro there are two ways for those people to either get to McMillan or to Meridian. Once we get north of San Pedro, the east-west street San Pedro, which is halfway between the two parks, there is only one way out for all of those people until there is a north access. McKinnon: Commissioner Zaremba, let me see if I follow you here. You're saying that there is only one way out at this point, you have the road that runs north-south here and you have the road that runs north-south in this location. Borup: I think he's saying if this road -- if this road is blocked there is no way out. McKinnon: If this road is blocked there is no way out. Lee: Totem Pole. Zaremba: My question to staff would be how many conditions can we tie to phasing. They can only go so far until there is two accesses, then, they can only go so much farther until there is an access to the north. Can we do things like that? Hawkins-Clark: Sure. That's an option for the Commission. Zaremba: Because I am concerned about the -- how many people might be stuck -- McKinnon: This isn't the only access north-south on San Pedro. There is this access here as well. Borup: There is one there, but still -- McKinnon: There is two accesses on San Pedro. There is not just one. This isn't a center one that's only there. There is this one as well off of Totem Pole. So, there actually is two accesses. It doesn't bottleneck at this location. Borup: I think we were overlooking that. At least I was. So, at some point there needs to be another secondary access, though. Or another main access. Just another pedestrian -- I mean another vehicle access, not emergency. McKinnon: The Uniform Fire Code requires the two accesses and they require the distance of the second access for a subdivision like this to be half the distance of the width -- of the length of the subdivision in this case, because the length is wider than the width -- it's greater than the width, so you have to measure from this point to this point in the subdivision. The secondary access point has to be half of this distance away. Joshua Tree falls right in that location. That's what the Fire Department requires, according to the International Fire Code. It's half the distance. They don't require a third access point beyond that. It's a secondary access point. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 37 of 89 Borup: Right. I don't think there is any question on the fire and emergency access. It's just traffic flow. Is that part of what you were getting at, Commissioner Zaremba? Zaremba: Well, both traffic flow and emergency. Not necessarily emergency access, but emergency exit. You know, what if those 200 homes had to evacuate quickly for some reason? Borup: Well, there is two roads, so -- I mean most of the subdivisions in town that are large are going to have situations like that. We are still back to -- I think what started this -- Zaremba: And I could even be comfortable with the idea that by the time the phasing gets that far there will be an access north. Borup: Brad, I mean you have -- or brought up the point that -- the question was not emergency access, but a vehicle access and, then, at what point do we need to be concerned on the number of homes in there before there is a permanent access to the subdivision? We stated, you know, previously 180 was the number in another subdivision. Hawkins-Clark: I guess two quick responses. One is that was before the city adopted the International Fire Code. We were working the Uniform Fire Code at that point and the International Fire Code does have -- I think it's Appendix D talks about access points and it did get more restrictive than the Uniform and so we do have that as far as the emergency. But there really is not any ordinance in the City of Meridian's code that says X number before a permanent secondary. I think we are relying somewhat on, you know, some common sense here and as well as the -- from the highway district standpoint when they talk about access, they are talking about public access, and they have a standard that says you can't have a cul-de-sac and we do have a planner on staff and he can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's -- a cul-de-sac cannot have more than 400 trips a day, equivalent to 40 houses. So, beyond that -- which is what this would be without a secondary public access, it would be deemed a cul-de-sac. I believe. Now, I'm -- we don't have an Ada County Highway District represented here, but -- Borup: Okay. Mr. Martin, you had a comment? Martin: Yeah. I am Justin Martin with Farwest. My address is 5606 North Ten Mile Road. I just wanted to put a couple of comments in on the paved secondary access. If it's not related to fire or police, who have seem to have given this project somewhat of a good review, which is better than most of the projects that we bring in. We get it from fire and police, because they are usually really concerned about the items. I think -- I think asking us to pave a road, a secondary access, would be relying on Aschenbrenner, the developer who is going to develop out Aschenbrenner, so if I was that developer or maybe not me -- if somebody -- somebody else was that developer Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 38 of 89 that maybe isn't of the quality of the people that are going to develop that property or whatever the case may be, if I knew I had a restriction -- my neighboring developer, my competition, had a restriction of building so many lots and he couldn't only build to this certain point until he had this other access, which was paved out to Meridian Road, well, then, I would simple start my subdivision, build it the other direction, so that was my last phase that got paving out to Meridian Road, because that would hold up my competition. I don't think that's at all the intent of the city of what they are trying to do here, they are trying to do something that makes sense to the city. Two other points. ACHD, obviously, has reviewed a traffic plan for the project. They are content with that collector going up the middle and the traffic loads on that. The Fire Department is okay or content with the secondary access being gravel, such as we got approved in Lochsa Falls and we got approved in Havasu Creek just in the last year, being our secondary accesses in those projects, and, then, the last comment would be is that -- keep in mind we are the first project in the door in this square mile and Mr. Lee's property is going to go soon in the way of -- it's just wide open it somebody has the money to go buy it, it would be developable, the front half of that sewer is already -- I mean if we had the money we would buy that and develop it. Aschenbrenner's property is -- people talked about the school district's over there, plans on building there, and I understand there is an option on the other part to a developer. I mean they are not going to sit on that land, you're going to see those connections. And maybe our plan is five, six years at build out. Nobody's going to sit on developable land out there without bringing something before you, once they see things being approved in a mile section. That's it. I'd stand for any questions. Borup: Questions from any Commissioners? I just reviewing the ACHD report and they made no mention of any other access, so -- Zaremba: Now they mention Lochsa Falls, I remember some discussion in that that ACHD considers that a divided street to be usable as two streets. If there were an accident on one half of it, they could still use the other side, even going the wrong direction. Martin: That divides -- you mean with the -- like the center islands down the middle? Zaremba: The one with the center islands down it, they -- Martin: That's a good point. It would be pretty tough to block both. You would have to jump a 20 foot curb. Zaremba: They consider that usable as two separate streets, because you could go the wrong direction on the other side if it were an emergency. Martin: That's a good point. Zaremba: I don't know if that satisfies staff or not, but I -- the reason that we had a cul- de-sac with only one exist in Lochsa Falls -- I mean not a cul-de-sac, there was a big Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 39 of 89 loop that had a lot of houses on it and only -- it looked like only one road in, but because it was divided, ACHD didn't have an issue with it. Am I remembering that correctly? Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Zaremba, I'm sorry, I do not recall if that's correct or not. Borup: But it sounds logical. Martin: On Lochsa Falls specifically the fire access was the -- was a road that connected on -- on Ten Mile via the sewer line coverage road and we started constructing on Linder Road. Havasu Creek had a similar situation where off-site sewer was brought up to start construction off of Locust Grove and it needed access. Secondary was going to be from Meridian Road all the way to Locust Grove over that -- over that sewer line and I understand that that's -- that's not their concern as far as fire truck access, it's more something else. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, if I could just follow up on one thing Mr. Martin mentioned about the fact that they really don't have control over Mr. Aschenbrenner's property and I think that that's part of the reason that we want to determine when that goes. Again, if that develops in the next two or three years, all this discussion is moot, because likely they are going to have it. I think we are just talking about the worst case scenario, that they don't have control over that, so we do need to consider just this 140 from acres. This is what we are -- I think we really need, for long range planning and good circulation and safety concerns and air quality and I think about 2,000 trips a day traveling on a gravel street is going to generate some dust. You know, there is more than just the emergency issue here, so -- Borup: Well, but it's not intended for the gravel street to be subdivision access, is it? Hawkins-Clark: That's exactly what they are proposing, Commissioner. Borup: I thought it was emergency. Martin: Absolutely. Hawkins-Clark: No. If it's emergency, then, you gate it off and, then, you're back to only one way to get out on McMillan Road, 4,610 trips. Martin: What he just said is worst case -- Borup: Go ahead and get on the -- Martin: Is what we are proposing is one access to McMillan Road. Our reasoning behind that, obviously, is the traffic study we have done, ACHD's approval of that traffic study. The only reason we'd have a gravel road would be fire access. The only reason we would want any gravel road would be access for a fire truck in case of emergency, if Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 40 of 89 one of the roads got blocked. Dave did well in explaining the other options we tried to give to the Fire Department and they explained well to us why those didn't work and why this other option did, the gravel road further north in our subdivision connecting out to Meridian Road, and I guess -- and the only other comment would be -- would be -- I sound maybe a little bit like Mr. Lee, what he was asking for earlier, is that if you can guarantee Aschenbrenner develops his first phase with a paved road to me, then, I would restrict my lots and I know that's not something anybody would want to do. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Had you concluded, Mr. McKinnon? All right. Zaremba: While the Public Hearing is still open, in case they want to comment, maybe revise an idea that I suggested earlier. If we were to say that they could not go beyond 50 houses until there was a secondary emergency access and, then, they could not build north of Joshua Tree until Joshua Tree was a public road all the way to Meridian, would that be comfortable for staff first? Borup: See, I'm thinking that makes a lot of sense, except ACHD did not mention that. ACHD seemed to have no problem with the project as proposed. That's their job. I mean they are supposed to be the experts on -- Zaremba: I have found myself disagreeing with agree ACHD on other items as well. Powell: Chairman Borup, members of the Commission, I did -- I guess this issue came up recently -- when a developer doesn't have things under control, then, the city does get some of the blame for when things go wrong and I think we saw this with the Harris Ranch development when the bridge wasn't able to go through, and that's what our concern was here. I mean, obviously, if you had control over a second access or had control over sewer, then, there wouldn't -- we wouldn't have been talking about these issues, but the point is that he doesn't have control over those and that even though ACHD is just looking at the traffic counts, there is some other issues to consider and I think that you have been considering them, but I wanted to put them in that light, rather than just purely the traffic count light. These are really growth and development issues. Borup: Are there other concerns besides the sewer and emergency access? Powell: Those are the primary ones. Borup: Okay. I mean -- Powell: And I think the unanswered question is, you know, if the preliminary plat is approved out there for all these lots, but there is a cap on the 50 lots, is there some vested approval of the remainder of that, regardless of what we have said. You know, can they take us to court and say, no, you approved us for 460 lots, we don't care that we don't have a secondary access, we are going to go ahead and plot them anyway. And that was part of our concern as to why we wanted to suggest just an annexation of Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 41 of 89 the front portion that would contain the number of lots that could be serviced immediately where roads and sewer services were available. Borup: Can that be handled in the development agreement? Powell: Yeah, that can certainly be handled in the development agreement, but there is just the outlying issues out there and I -- Borup: Well, I understand the concern. I mean that was the same thing with -- I think it was for Sundance that wanted to start developing before the trunk line was in and wasn't that the agreement that you were referring to that said the attorney already had proposed? Mr. McKinnon? McKinnon: Anna just brought up the -- you know, it was an unanswered question. I'll just address that again. We stated a couple of times tonight that we are agreeable to sign, you know, an agreement that says we understand the risks if we don't get the secondary access, if we don't get the sewer, then, we can't develop and we are more than happy to put that into the development agreement for that. If I could just jump back to the idea of only annexing the first 50 acres -- the first 50 lots, just crossing it off right here. We are dealing with two parcels of ground right now. There is basically 70 some odd acres here and, you know, it's basically 70 acres to the north. Borup: You mentioned that in your letter of -- McKinnon: Yeah. If we were to slice it of right here, this property that remains in the county no longer has public street access. RUT zoned lots are required to have several hundred feet of street access. We have done an illegal lot split if that's the requirement of city. We have created an illegal lot, because this would not have legal frontage and I talked with the county about that, they said they are working with their prosecuting attorney to get an agreement as to whether or not that is an illegal split. However, I asked how can I get that sooner, they said ask for a determination from the Planning and Zoning Director, who is an interim Planning and Zoning Director right now and I said, well, how can I get that for tomorrow night's meeting. They said you are not going to get it for tomorrow night's meeting if you ask for it in two weeks. I said give me the answer now, then. Is it or is it not an illegal split and said if it does not have frontage, according to the way we define frontage, a stub street is not frontage enough for them, it's an illegal split. Borup: Well, we like dealing with illegal splits. McKinnon: Right. Rohm: Oh, we do? McKinnon: And just to go back into a little bit of discussion, If Paramount decided that they had had enough and they said, you know what, we are done with the subdivision, Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 42 of 89 we are not going to go any further, you still have a plat that's out there, it's a vested plat. Somebody else could come back in and pick that up and work with that. It's the same sort of thing you have here. If we signed a development agreement that says we won't go further until we have an approved secondary access and until we have sewer available to the rest of this lot, then, the rest of this development remains in status quo until those things get here and we are okay with signing that and indemnify the city from something in the future. I have some concerns -- some valid concerns, I think, when we start dealing with requiring this to be a public street out across Mr. Aschenbrenner's property. That puts us at the risk of having to rely on Mr. Aschenbrenner to develop that out. You know, sewer easements, some things through that, is something that, you know, we can possibly work out, but requiring us to have a public street across someone else's property is something that -- it's very difficult for us to have to go across someone else's property and construct that and have that through them, especially if they are developing it -- and they are going to develop it from a different direction, because they don't have to compete with the homes back in our subdivision and that seems to be an unfair competitive advance that would be granted by the city to another developer. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, could I just address -- Borup: Yes. Freckleton: -- one issue that Dave just mentioned and that is that we are not asking for a public street right of way. In the case of Crossroads, that was a public access easement. The asphalt road was built over a public access easement. That easement gave the flexibility and that was the main reason it was an easement, instead of a public dedicated right of way. McKinnon: Well, just to follow up on that. Borup: A little bit different. McKinnon: We still have to apply for the access easement from the other developer. Freckleton: Well -- and I guess the sewer easement is going to have to be granted in that same location, so I mean that's going to set that location. Borup: Right. Well, once the sewer easement is there, the other is taken care of. Freckleton: What we are talking about is you either build a gravel road over the sewer or you build an asphalt road over the sewer and we are asking for asphalt. Borup: And I'm leaning towards maybe what Commissioner Zaremba stated is when the project gets north of Joshua Tree or somewhere that may be the time that that would kick in. But, again, ACHD has made no mention of it. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 43 of 89 McKinnon: We have a collector street and the reason why this street is built the size that it is is because it's intended to carry all of the traffic for this subdivision. The traffic report that was done by WGI stated that the traffic for this would all be coming out this collector. It wasn't assumed that these would all come out in different locations. This is to take all the traffic here out this collector for right now and ACHD has reviewed that and they said this street is adequate to support that right now. Brad mentions it in the staff report. I think it's the second paragraph on the second page where it talks about the WGI study and ACHD's estimated vehicle trips per day. For this location I think it's 466 vehicle trips at a peak hour and that's assuming the construction of the entire site at build out, which ACHD estimated to be at 2013 or approximately ten, eleven -- nine or ten years from now. Borup: You're still planning on constructing the turn lane on McMillan? McKinnon: Absolutely. Borup: At original of the -- McKinnon: Uh-huh. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Well, I guess my feeling on the -- not building north of Joshua Tree until there is a second permanent public access, actually, has more options than Joshua Tree going out to Meridian. Whatever Totem Pole ends up being named, Mr. Lee might develop his property -- there is three possible north accesses, all of which would satisfy my issue there, and so there is like five different options to satisfy the second public road. McKinnon: Let me ask you about a sixth option. If we are really only dealing with a secondary access to McMillan or secondary access to the subdivision, not an emergency access, if we replaced this pathway we originally had here and put another bridge over the Lemp Canal, there is your secondary access to McMillan. It would separate these two for distances for ACHD -- it wouldn't meet the fire code requirements, but it provides your secondary access to McMillan from within the subdivision. Zaremba: Well, I guess what I'm going for is an access some other direction, whether it's north or east or west, somewhere else besides south. Once we get -- I'm saying at this point once we get beyond 200 homes in there, which is roughly Joshua Tree -- McKinnon: Let me -- okay. I'm trying to -- Zaremba: -- some other option for those people to go somewhere besides south. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 44 of 89 McKinnon: Let me see if I can -- thinking on my feet right here. We have got the Boyack property with the 24 foot easement that runs through here. If this is to be paved and brought up to San Pedro or maybe a future Totem Pole there, if we brought that up at that location and asphalted that, would that be acceptable and that could be a temporary until -- Zaremba: And, then, later abandon it? McKinnon: And sometime later abandon it when one of those others go through. Would that be acceptable? Zaremba: That would satisfy me. Borup: At what point? Zaremba: Before they build north of Joshua Tree. Borup: North of Joshua or maybe even up to the parcel line. Zaremba: Well, yeah. Borup: Maybe up to that point. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: David, I don't know if you heard that last part. We are saying maybe -- maybe have that as the point, north of the -- which would be the parcel line. Zaremba: I mean this is still a two part thing. They can't build more than 50 until there is at least the emergency secondary access and that would run over the sewer line. Well, they can't do it until the sewer is there either, but, then, the second phase is they can't go north of the lower property line until there is another access and that could be satisfied by the easement. Borup: Or any other -- Zaremba: Yeah. Unless one of the other roads is there and, then, that satisfies it. McKinnon: That satisfies it. Zaremba: So, that -- yeah. Like Dave says, that's the sixth option. McKinnon: One other thing to maybe bring up that -- the developer is taking some risk on this making sure we have got the secondary access and getting the sewer over to that. Rather than tie this to prior to final platting, put prior to occupancy of any buildings there. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 45 of 89 Powell: No. Borup: We are just saying prior to anything north of -- Zaremba: I wouldn't even build it. I would build nothing flammable north of -- McKinnon: What about roads and streets? What about streets? Zaremba: Streets I would be comfortable with. McKinnon: And sewer lines. Zaremba: Yeah. McKinnon: Water lines. Prior to building permit. Is that -- okay. I heard some groans. So, is building permit okay? You guys would be okay with that? Prior to building permit? Borup: You know -- and you're talking probably three years before you can get up to here, aren't you? McKinnon: Right. So, just trying to keep options open. The one option would be, you know, getting that access through here, deed restricting this lot, putting the access all the way out to Meridian Road here or going ahead and just saying no building permits issued passed this line or south of San Pedro, whatever line you determine that to be, so we can continue to move forward with that, so -- you know, if we move forward and this road is built during that same time, we could use that. It's just the options game, so there is five options -- it leaves all the options open. And we can continue to build the infrastructure in here. Zaremba: Any one of those being an option. I'm just uncomfortable with none of them. McKinnon: As far as building infrastructure and coming in for final plat, that type of thing, it would be acceptable? Okay. Borup: All right. Are we ready to move along? Zaremba: Early in the discussion Bruce mentioned something -- a report or something that you needed to get before -- something you wanted to study before we moved on. McKinnon: It was the need to get your easements and get that stuff rolling and, then, you wanted -- indemnity agreement. Freckleton: Right. Commissioner Zaremba, what we were talking about was the agreement that if you do elect to approve the entire development, we'd like to get that Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 46 of 89 agreement that we had in place for Sundance and Cedar Springs and some of those other developments that were upstream of the White Trunk as it was being developed, the indemnity agreement. Zaremba: That's a wording that you have available to massage into this situation. I guess my question is do we need to continue this until that is done or can we make that a condition of approval, that they get together with you and do it? Borup: Have it before City Council. Freckleton: Yeah. I'm comfortable with that. Prior to Council that we would have that agreement as a condition. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Then, Commissioner Zaremba, I think that's -- from what we have done now, there is eight different locations that could have access north of San Pedro -- well, yeah, north of Joshua Tree, counting Joshua Tree. With that eighth one that Mr. McKinnon mentioned. So, there is a lot of opportunities that could happen in that time. Zaremba: I only see six, but I just -- Borup: The one up in the right corner has -- Zaremba: -- think there needs to be one. Borup: Up in the top right-hand corner has two. Zaremba: Oh, two ways. Yeah. Okay. Borup: Okay. Does that conclude? McKinnon: I think that's it. Borup: Commissioners, are we ready to close the hearing? Zaremba: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on all three items, AZ 03-027, PP 03-032, and CUP 03-058. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 47 of 89 Borup: Okay. Were there any items that we need to discuss that are in the staff report? Probably the main one on the staff report is their recommendation on annexation. Zaremba: Well, the development agreement and the statement that Bruce needs to get in there, those are tied to annexation and zoning; is that correct? Well, now, is that a separate thing or is that just included in the development agreement? That's going to be part of the wording of the development agreement? Hawkins-Clark: The boilerplate development agreement I don't believe has it. I mean we would need you to be specific on that. But, yeah, in any motion you make on the annexation application I think you need to just reference it. I wouldn't belabor the wording, but we can come up with that, as long as we get what you want the Council to -- Zaremba: Suggest to have in there. Okay. Borup: So, we just need to say something in there to indemnify the city. Page 14, item number eight and nine, was things that the applicant would like to change in the staff report. Mathes: I'm comfortable with just blanking out number eight. Borup: Just deleting that? Mathes: Uh-huh. Zaremba: I'm sorry. What page are you on? Mathes: Fourteen. Zaremba: Yeah, I can go along with that. Borup: And number nine, discussion whether it's a permanent access or a temporary access. Well, they have got vehicle access. It would be emergency vehicle if we go with the request. Maybe also on that page -- I don't know. Would that be the place to add in on the fencing or some point make mention of the letter agreement from Farwest with Larkwood and, then, also they agreed to extend that same vinyl fence along Mr. Lee's property. Would that be in number three? Well, three mentions the fencing. I'm not sure where the other agreement -- because that's more than just fencing. In the planned development. Okay. Zaremba: Okay. So, are we doing that on page 14, number three, or -- Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 48 of 89 Borup: Well, three mentions the fencing. I don't know if -- unless it would be part of the development agreement. Okay. Page 19, number four, mentions that, so that would be to extend Mr. Lee's property. Zaremba: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup? Zaremba: Well, why don't we change that to say the entire east boundary. Construct a five foot vinyl fence with one foot lattice of a wood tone color. Borup: I think they call it almond is the other choice. Zaremba: Almond. Okay. Borup: Unless -- well, other than white. I guess that's up to them to decide. Maybe they had the specific color picked out with the residents. I don't know. Hawkins-Clark: I was just going to offer, Chairman Borup, if you just direct staff to incorporate the agreement that has the five conditions between the Larkwood Homeowners Association and the developer, I think we can incorporate each of these into their appropriate places. Borup: That would be a lot easier. Hawkins-Clark: And it might save you some time in your motion. Zaremba: So, we will substitute that for number four on page 19? Hawkins-Clark: The agreement actually has conditions that relate to both the Preliminary Plat and the Conditional Use Permit, so -- Borup: Why don't we make just that at the end of -- then which application would we want to include that in? The Conditional Use? Hawkins-Clark: Are you referring to the fencing? Borup: No. The agreement. Hawkins-Clark: I think you would incorporate it into your motion for both. Borup: Each time? Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. Borup: Okay. Is there anything else we need to point out? Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 49 of 89 Zaremba: Well, I may be prepared to make a motion, as long as I will get some support and help from others. Ready for a motion? Borup: Yes. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of item four on our agenda, AZ 03-027, request for Annexation and Zoning of 140.25 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for proposed Saguaro Canyon Estates Subdivision by Farwest, LLC, north side of East McMillan Road and east of North Meridian Road, to include all staff comments of the staff memo for the hearing date of December 4th and January 8th received by the clerk January 5th, 2004, with the following changes. On page ten, after -- under annexation and zoning conditions of approval, after paragraph one, add another paragraph that could be numbered 1-A: The development agreement will include a requirement that no more than 50 homes can be built until both sewer and a second emergency access to the satisfaction of the Fire Department are built. Period. And no building permits may be issued for north of the current southern property line -- what we are calling property -- current southern lot -- how are we identifying that? Borup: Right now it's -- Zaremba: Parcel. I'm sorry. That's the word I was looking for. No building permit will be issued north of the current southern parcel until a second public access is available, either connecting to a platted stub street or the temporary use of the easement currently enjoyed by the Boyers. That name isn't right. Borup: Boyack. Zaremba: Boyacks. And if that is the choice, it will be paved and at least 20 feet wide. Still adding to paragraph 1-A. The development agreement will include language supplied by Bruce Freckleton. Borup: Do you mean on the indemnity? Zaremba: On indemnifying the city in case the sewer is delayed by actions of other people not included. Borup: Probably provided from the attorney's office, wouldn't it? Zaremba: I will stipulate it can be worked out among staff, including the attorney. End of Annexation and Zoning motion. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 50 of 89 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Thank you. Next item. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of item five on our agenda, PP 03-032 and this is referring to the revised plat dated 12/18/03, request for a Preliminary Plat approval of 442 building lots, not 461, single family building lots, and 45 common lots, not 43, on 140.25 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Saguaro Canyon Estates Subdivision by Farwest, LLC, north side of East McMillan Road and east of North Meridian Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for December 4th and January 8th, received by the City Clerk January 5th, 2004, with the following changes: On page 14, paragraph eight may be deleted. Paragraph nine will be changed to read: Prior to City of Meridian approval of any final plat, including the 51st buildable lot in the subdivision, a second temporary vehicle access approved by the Fire Department shall be constructed. Borup: Were we discussing vehicle access or emergency access? Zaremba: This is for 51 lots. It's the emergency access. Where did I put that other comment? Okay. Well, I will repeat here that -- Borup: Number three? Was the other one you were thinking about? Zaremba: Well, I said it as part of the development agreement, but let me add it to paragraph nine also, another -- another sentence that -- prior to approval of the final -- well, now, wait a minute. Let's discuss this a second. Can they build a roadway infrastructure before the final plat is approved? I'm comfortable with them building the road -- the northern portion of the roadway infrastructure, just not starting to build flammable. Borup: No. The discussion was prior to issuance of a building permit. Zaremba: Okay. So, the statement that I want to make here is -- is to repeat that they will not be given building permits for anything north -- anything in the northern parcel until there is a second permanent road access. Borup: Yeah. And that's what you stated earlier. Zaremba: Okay. So, that's included in paragraph nine again. On page 15 we will add a paragraph 19 that says: Working with staff they will incorporate the agreement made between Larkwood Subdivision and Saguaro Canyon received by the City Clerk January 8th, 2004. End of preliminary plat motion. Mathes: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 51 of 89 Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: All right. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of item six on our agenda, CUP 03-058, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for reduced requirements for frontages, lot sizes, and minimum house size and permission to have two cul-de-sac lengths exceed the minimum length in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Saguaro Canyon Estates Subdivision by Farwest, LLC, north side of East McMillan Road and east of North Meridian Road, to include all staff comments of their memo of December 4 and January 8th, received by the Clerk January 5th, 2004, with the following changes: On page 19, applicant will work with staff to incorporate the requirements of the agreement between Larkwood Subdivision and Saguaro Canyon. The agreement received by the City Clerk January 8th, 2004, and a second part to that same is that applicant shall constructed a five foot vinyl fence with one foot lattice on top of a color acceptable to Larkwood along the entire east boundary, which will include the Lee property and whatever other property is along the east boundary, so that it's a consistent fence along the east. End of conditional use motion. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. I just noticed that part of the staff recommendation is still talking -- never mind. That's already -- Zaremba: We didn't deal with the west side -- Borup: Well, no, that's already been handled, what I was going to say, because that's part of the annexation, the preliminary plat, which has been taken care of. Zaremba: Okay. I guess my only question on the west side is does the fence want to go across the stub street -- Borup: You mean the -- which stub street? The emergency access one? Zaremba: This one. Borup: Well, they normally do. Zaremba: Okay. All right. Then, I won't -- then I was finished with the motion when I said I was. Mathes: And I would second. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 52 of 89 Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Okay. Thank you. That does conclude this application. Thank you, everyone, for being here. Commissioners, I know this is when we usually take a break. I'm wondering if we couldn't hit the next two items real quickly. They are both clean-up type items. Zaremba: My guess is they will go quickly. I could wait for a break. Borup: Do you need a break, Commissioner Rohm? Rohm: No. No. We will continue. Item 7: Public Hearing: PFP 03-004 Request for Preliminary / Final Plat approval of 2 building lots on 3.775 acres in a C-N zone for Cherry Crossing Commercial Subdivision by Hawkins Companies – northwest corner of West Cherry Lane and North Linder Road: Borup: Okay. These -- maybe just the next two. They both seem to be kind of clean- up type items. Okay. We'd like to open Public Hearing PFP 03-004, preliminary plat final plat, two lots in Cherry Crossing Subdivision. Open both of these hearings and start with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. This is an application for Cherry Crossing Commercial Subdivision. It is a two lot preliminary-final plat on 3.775 acres. The location of the plat is on the northwest corner of Cherry Lane and Linder Roads. This property was originally platted as Cherry Crossing Subdivision. That plat was recorded earlier -- or I guess last year on May 21st of 2003. Then, on June 10th of 2003, there was a revised CUP for Cherry Crossing that was approved by Council. I'm going to flip forward quickly and come back to these. This is the approved revised Conditional Use Permit that was approved in June of last year. In order to accommodate the newly proposed Pizza Hut at this location, they did a lot line adjustment, which created a lot around that that they could convey to that property owner. The subject application simply replaces one of the lot lines that was originally there before the lot line adjustment. This is a copy of the Preliminary Plat. Originally, there was a lot line in this location. The proposal before you tonight simply replaces the lot line in that location. The reason why a plat is required to do that is that they are adding a lot to the subdivision. The original plat had the two lots in the rear with the single larger lot on the front, then, when they did a lot line adjustment they, then, created two lots in the front with a large one in the back. This application would add in this lot line creating a fourth lot in the subdivision. The plat does comply with the revised Conditional Use Permit that has been approved and staff recommends approval of the plat with the conditions noted in the staff report and I will stand for any questions. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 53 of 89 Borup: Questions? Would the applicant like to come forward and have a presentation to make? Zaremba: While he's coming up, I did have one question. Just a clarification, really. On page three of the memo, item 12, does state that this application is subject to all the previous conditions. Siddoway: Yes. Zaremba: There were some cross-access and cross-parking requirements made. Do those carry through, even though we are adding a lot? Siddoway: Yes. Zaremba: So, all four lots are subject to the -- Siddoway: In fact, there is an easement right along this lot line that already exists for utilities that has already been -- the utilities have already been installed and accepted by the Public Works Department and those easements are not affected and the cross- access agreements and landscape plans that were approved with the original final plat are still in effect with this one. Zaremba: Okay. So, they apply to all four lots now. Siddoway: Correct. Zaremba: Okay. That was my only question. Siddoway: I guess this -- another point along the same vein is that they are not proposing any changes to the CC&R's that were approved with the last plat as well. Borup: Okay, sir. Huffacker: Good evening. Brian Huffacker with Hawkins Companies. Staff did a great job of outlining the history and the purpose of our application and to make this short, we concur with their staff report and agree with that and would stand for any questions you may have. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Okay. Thank you. Do we have anyone else here to testify on this application? Seeing none -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move the Public Hearing on PFP 03-004, be closed. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor. Any opposed? Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 54 of 89 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of item seven on our agenda, PFP 03-004, request for a preliminary-final plat approval of two building lots on 3.775 acres in a C-N zone for Cherry Crossing Commercial Subdivision by Hawkins Companies, northwest corner of West Cherry Lane and North Linder Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of January 8th, 2004, received by the City Clerk December 31st, 2003, with no changes. End of motion. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 8: Public Hearing: PFP 03-005 Request for Preliminary / Final Plat approval of 2 building lots on 52.84 acres in an I-L zone for Jabil Subdivision by Jabil Circuit, Inc. – 1303 East Central Way: Borup: The next Public Hearing is PFP 03-005, request for preliminary-final plat approval of two building lots on 52 acres in an I-L zone for Jabil Subdivision. Open this hearing at this time and start with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. This also is a two lot subdivision. However, this one is on the property that the Jabil Circuits building currently sits on. It is the gray and light industrial property that sits just north of the freeway. This is an aerial photo taken a few years back when Jabil was just beginning construction. You can see the building there. It's now built out with parking all the way around. There are existing two parcels, but these are remnant county parcels and we cannot move this line through a lot line adjustment process, thus, the plat being required in this case as well. So, they are proposing a two lot subdivision. This is the existing Jabil building with the surrounding parking. They are proposing to split the lot five feet off the back of the existing western edge of the parking. That location does comply with the landscape ordinance for a five foot buffer on the interior lot lines and, actually, one of the earlier versions of the plat did not have it there and they have already revised it per staff's recommendation. The overall site is just about 53 acres. The two lots proposed are 33 and a half acres for the -- the larger one the building sits on and, then, the one to the west would be about 19 and a half acres. Landscaping improvements were already added to the site when the Jabil Circuits project was developed on the parcel to the west. They have existing soccer fields that the PAL Soccer League uses. I guess it should be pointed out on the record that the plat will make this lot available for development and those soccer fields may not stay. There was no landscape plan submitted with the plat, as landscaping does exist, as was mentioned, along Jabil. Any development that occurs on Lot 2 would be landscaped at Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 55 of 89 the time of development. There are, I believe, four special considerations on this one. The first one is the Locust Grove overpass. When the Jabil Circuits project was originally developed, ACHD purchased right of way for an overpass at Locust Grove going across the freeway. At that time the right of way was purchased without a design having been done. Since that time a design is now done and it was determined that they actually need to purchase some more right of way. Those negotiations are underway and just ask the applicant to address that. One of the questions we had as staff is how does that affect the edge of the existing parking and so they did provide a blowup of this area showing the new right of way location that ACHD is requiring and they show the smallest point here, I believe at about 13 -- 13 feet. So, there is still adequate room with the new right of way adjacent to the existing parking, plus this portion of the right of way would likely be landscaped as the site of the on ramp, which would be centered along the street. Zaremba: Steve? Siddoway: Yes. Zaremba: Any ramping up that ACHD or ITD had to do to gain elevation to cross the interstate, would that be all within their right of way? They don't need any berming -- Siddoway: Yes. Zaremba: -- within Jabil's property? Siddoway: It would be within the right of way and that's the reason why they needed to purchase additional -- Zaremba: That extra space. Siddoway: Yeah. As it goes up they need more room to transition, that's why it's wider as you go further south. We did ask the applicant to revise -- revise the plat, because the one that was submitted and the one that we did the report on did not show the additional right of way. Since that time the applicant has submitted and you should have received a revised final plat that has been corrected to show the new right of way location. Item number two on the special considerations deals with the pathway. There is on the Comprehensive Plan a multi-use pathway shown along the Nine Mile Creek that comes down and stubs at the freeway at this location and it does show it picking up and going on from there, but since there is no reasonable expectation that it will cross under the freeway at anytime soon, we are not requiring the pathway to be built as part of this plat. It will be considered upon development of the lot and we have just noted that in the conditions of approval for the plat. That is site specific comment number three in the staff report. The third consideration -- I have already mentioned this, but it deals with the lot line location. We were just pointing out the place where they are planning -- proposing to split the lot does conform with city ordinances for offsets for landscaping and such. And the last item is the flood plain boundaries. When Jabil Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 56 of 89 Circuits was developed, the Nine Mile Creek crossed across the corner of this lot and it was relocated at that time to be right along the boundary. The FEMA flood maps still show floodway across this lot, so what this item is addressing is that the applicant needs to apply for a letter of map revision from FEMA to get the flood way shown in its current location prior to any building permits being issued on Lot 2. I believe that's all we need to point out, so I will stop there and stand for any questions. Borup: Questions from the Commission. Is the applicant here? Briggs: Hi. My name is Dean Briggs, Briggs Engineering, 1800 West Overland Road in Boise. Staff did a great job in telling you why we are doing this and all the conditions. The applicant has no qualms with any of those and we would take any questions. Borup: Questions from the Commissioners? Thank you. Briggs: Thank you. Borup: Commissioners? Oh, I'm sorry. Do we have anyone else here from -- I was trying to move on a little too fast. Anybody here to testify on this application? Seeing none -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Public Hearing on item eight, PFP 03-005 be closed. Mathes: Second. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of item eight on our agenda, FPF 03-005, request for a preliminary-final plat approval of two building lots on 52.84 acres in an I-L zone for Jabil Subdivision by Jabil Circuit, Incorporated, 1303 East Central Way, to include all -- and this refers to the Preliminary Plat received by the City Clerk January 6, 2004, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of January 8, 2004, received by the City Clerk -- I can't read mine. It looks like January 5th, received by the City Clerk January 5th, 2004, with no changes. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 57 of 89 Borup: Thank you. Commissioner Zaremba -- I mean Commissioner Rohm, did you have a -- Rohm: No. Let's break for a moment. Borup: You'd like to break. We will take a short break at this time. (Recess.) Item 9: Public Hearing: AZ 03-033 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 10.05 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Baldwin Park Addition by Capital Development – north of West Ustick Road and east of North Linder Road: Item 10: Public Hearing: PP 03-038 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 71 single-family residential building lots and 7 common lots on 19.07 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Baldwin Park Addition by Capital Development – north of West Ustick Road and east of North Linder Road: Borup: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, we'd like to reconvene our meeting this evening. We'd like to begin with items number nine and ten, Public Hearing AZ 03-033, request for Annexation and Zoning of 10.05 acres to R-8 zones for proposed Baldwin Park Addition by Capital Development and accompanying that is PP 03-038, request for preliminary plat approval on the same project. I'd like to open both these public hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. The first application -- as you mentioned, there are two applications here. The first application is for an annexation and rezone of 10.17 acres to an R-8 zone and the site is located generally half a mile north of Ustick Road and one half mile west of Meridian Road. The applicant is proposing to annex the subject ten acres south of the original Baldwin Park Subdivision and amend a previously approved preliminary plat for Baldwin Park by adding additional open space and 39 new buildable lots south of the White Drain, which is the second application. Item number ten, Baldwin Park Addition Subdivision, a 71 lot -- excuse me -- 71 lot single family buildable lots and seven common lots on 19.07 acres. This property is designated as medium density residential on the City of Meridian future land use map. The property that was previously annexed by the city is currently zoned R-8 and that's the same zone that the annexation and zoning is requesting for the southerly half of this preliminary plat. The gross density of the proposed preliminary plat is 3.72 dwelling units per acre. The net density of the plat is 4.81 dwelling units per acre. The single family buildable lots within the subdivision range from 6,700 square feet to 11,050 square feet. All the housing types are proposed as single family detached. Five percent of the gross area of the site is devoted to open space. The subject site is currently vacant and used for agricultural purposes. The applicant is requesting, as stated in the staff report, a waiver of the requirement to tile the White Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 58 of 89 Drain, which runs in this location here. This is the White Drain. The applicant has requested a waiver to pipe or tile that, which staff is supportive of. Staff has also received a letter, which I believe the Commissioners also have a copy of, requesting that the fencing adjacent to the White Drain be consistent with the fencing that was approved in the previous phases of Baldwin Park. In the staff report, which is site specific condition number three on page ten, there is language for a noncombustible fence adjacent to the White Drain easement and staff is okay with amending that if the Commission feels that that's acceptable to match into what was, again, previously approved in Baldwin Park. The reason for that is a couple fold. One, it was previously approved and, two, the White Drain lies -- it's a fairly wide easement, I believe it's 60 feet and the White Drain is centered in that, so there is a good distance between the edge of the bank and the back of buildable lots where the fencing would be, so the chances of a fence catching on fire if that -- the drain will burn for irrigation, it's far enough away that we don't believe that it will be a problem. Also, in that letter the applicant would like to modify condition number four on page ten of the staff report. Staff would like to modify the applicant's modification to a condition to remove that first sentence that the applicant is proposing, just state if any buildable lots located within the Settler's irrigation easement, then, the encroachment agreement needs to be submitted to us prior to the city engineer's signature of the final plat. Zaremba: I'm sorry. Which item are you talking about? Hood: That one is condition number four on page ten. The applicant was stating that there wasn't any -- there weren't any lots that were within Settler's Irrigation District easements and on the preliminary plat there is the Coleman Lateral that also runs here and staff believes that there was an easement -- that the Coleman included, so any of these buildable lots, if that easement were to remain, was concerned that half of the buildable lots would be in an irrigation easement and, therefore, wouldn't be able to be utilized with any fencing or, you know, with any structures by those lots, so that's kind of where that condition originated from. So, if they are able to vacate any easements, if there are any that are there prior to that signature, then, that encroachment agreement is no longer applicable. So, just kind of a clean up, if there are buildable lots within irrigation easements we need that agreement. Zaremba: So, tell me the suggested new wording to number four. Hood: If you're looking at the staff report -- Zaremba: Uh-huh. Page ten, number four. Hood: It would be -- if any buildable lots are located within the Settler's Irrigation District easement, submit a copy of an encroachment agreement with the Nampa -- or Settler's Irrigation District, in this case Nampa-Meridian I guess doesn't have an easement there -- for any buildable lots. So, basically, just -- you can work on the language, I guess. I didn't have it written down verbatim, but if any -- if any buildable lots basically is the key there. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 59 of 89 Zaremba: Got it. Hood: Prior to signature. Commissioners, what may be easier is the applicant has some language in that letter, again, dated January 5th on page two of that letter that was faxed over and if you want to use that language, I guess staff would just recommend that strike that first sentence and put an if in front of the -- at leave if, I guess, and remove the final plat is modified with in the second condition, to read -- the condition would read: If any buildable lots are located within the Settler's Irrigation District easement, et cetera. Zaremba: I'm not following you. You're on their page two, their item number four? Hood: Their page two, item number four, yes. Second paragraph. Zaremba: That's in quotes? Hood: Yeah. In the quotes. Strike that first sentence. Zaremba: Oh, the whole first sentence. Hood: Yes. And, then, the condition -- and, then, you also strike: The final plat is modified with and add are between lots and located. Yeah. To replace the existing condition four. And, then, I think the final thing for me -- there was one item for Mr. Freckleton -- I'll let the applicant kind of state his reasoning on that and, then, let Bruce get to that, if that's -- but condition number eight on page ten, I also agree with the application that that condition should be modified to delete Lot 8, Block 19. This is condition number eight on page ten of staff's report. Borup: Eleven. Zaremba: Page 11. Hood: Or, I'm sorry. On page 11. I'm sorry. Borup: That was pertaining to the fencing? Hood: Yeah. In subsection A of that condition it refers to Lot 8, Block 19. There are no micropaths in that lot, so it's a common lot and there are no micropaths, so micropath fencing doesn't really apply there. If they do put some type of a walkway in there, fencing adjacent to that will be covered, but it didn't seem to be applicable in this part of the staff report. With that, I believe that those are the conditions that the applicant had issue with, I guess, and I will sit for any questions you may have. Borup: Questions from the Commission? So, on item number eight you're agreeable with the applicant's wordings of -- of those, then? Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 60 of 89 Hood: Yeah. Their language is fine, just striking in Lot 8, Block 19, of A and adding -- I don't think it's necessary to add the other part to A. If you want to do that, that's fine. And in subsection C adding that is fine as well, per the applicant's Letter. Borup: All right. Thank you. Questions from the Commission? Would the applicant like to do their presentation? Briggs: Dean Briggs, Briggs Engineering, 1800 West Overland Road. I'd like to thank Craig for putting together most of the items for us. I just want to hit the highlights again. We agree with all the conditions as he set forth. The only item that he did not address was on condition number five we are asking that two words be deleted from that condition. It says prior to plan approval the City Engineer's signature on the final plat, we'd like to submit that just instead of plan approval, just have it submitted prior to his signature. And the reasoning for that is the pressure irrigation system sometimes part of that O&M manual is the construction drawing and we'd like to have the first review from the staff prior to putting that O&M manual together, so that we can submit one that they have already seen the layout and put it together in a complete form. Borup: You don't already have a manual together with the previous subdivision? Briggs: We do. We have a manual for the existing subdivision, we just haven't -- we won't have the modifications for this phase of that. Zaremba: Okay. Your point five on your point two says to modify the fourth sentence in the staff's memo -- two, three, four -- Briggs: Right in the middle. Borup: A draft copy? Briggs: Right. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: I get it. Okay. Borup: Mr. Freckleton. Freckleton: In this particular instance where this is basically going to be an expansion of an existing system in the rest of Baldwin Park, I don't have a problem with the request at all. Borup: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 61 of 89 Freckleton: Typically, these O&M manuals are kind of an evolutionary document and when you get to the end of a development is when all of the final pieces are put together and you get one good hard copy with all of the as-builts and everything put into it and so I guess I kind of view this as just an expansion of something that's existing out there right now and so we will agree to Mr. Briggs' request. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Is there anything else? Briggs: No. Not from me. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Okay. Thank you. Briggs: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone here to testify on this application? Seeing none, Commissioners? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that the hearing on items nine and ten be closed. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close both public hearings. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of item nine on our agenda, AZ 03-033, request for Annexation and Zoning of 10.05 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Baldwin Park Addition by Capital Development north of West Ustick Road and east of North Linder Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of January 8th, 2003, received by -- actually, that's -- their memo says 2003, but it's actually the hearing date January 8, 2004, received by the City Clerk January 5, 2004, with no changes. Mathes: Second. 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 item ten on our agenda, PP 03-038, request for preliminary plat approval of 71 single family residential building lots and seven common lots on 19.07 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Baldwin Park Addition by Capital Development, north of West Ustick Road and east of North Linder Road, to include all staff comments of their memo -- which states it's for the hearing date of January 8, 2003, but, really, 2004, and received by the City Clerk January 5, 2004, with the following changes: On page Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 62 of 89 ten, under site specific conditions preliminary plat, paragraph three, the first sentence shall be amended to delete the words noncombustible and add at the end of that same sentence to match previously approved fence. Paragraph four also on page ten shall be changed in its entirety to read: If any buildable lots are located within the Settler's Irrigation District easement, the applicant shall be required to submit a copy of an encroachment agreement prior to the city engineer's signature on the final plat. Paragraph four also on page ten will be modified as follows: In the fourth sentence, which begins a draft copy, the last two words plan approval shall be deleted and additional words added: The City Engineer's signature on the final plat. On page eleven, paragraph eight, subparagraph A, deleted the words: And Lot 8, Block 19. End of motion. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 11: Public Hearing: CUP 03-061 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a dental office in an L-O zone for Gaudry Dental Office by Dr. Robert Gaudry – southeast corner of Millenium Way and Gala Street in Resolution Business Park: Borup: Thank you. The next item is Public Hearing CUP 03-061, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a dental office in an L-O zone Gaudry Dental Office. Open this hearing at this time and start with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. The applicant has requested approval of a CUP for a new 3,300 square foot dental office on Lot 2, Block 1, in Resolution Subdivision. The property is located on the southeast corner of Millennium Way and Gala Street, approximately 300 feet south of Overland Road and approximately a quarter of a mile east of Locust Grove Road. Within Resolution Subdivision the city has already approved CUP applications for a pediatrics facility, two dental offices, an apartment complex, and two multi-tenant office buildings. This is what the site currently looks today and there are some -- or it doesn't quite look like this, this is from 2000. There are some buildings already constructed. This is the recently approved Sagecrest Development. This is the new high school is here. There was another dentist office that was approved in 2003 in this location. This is all one lot within Resolution Subdivision. In 2003 the city approved a resubdivision of that lot into three lots and as you can see here, this, again, was that lot that has the approved dentist office for Dr. Seegmiller. This is a future pad site. This is the subject dental office today. This plat has not yet been recorded. Staff did have some conditions with this second building being constructed on what today is one site, so as a condition of approval for this development that plat will need to be recorded prior to issuance of a CZC, certificate of zoning compliance, on this lot, so that each building has its own lot of record. The applicant is proposing two access points to serve these three lots. One of Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 63 of 89 them is located here, the other is located here, so not -- every lot does not have its own ingress-egress, so there will need to be a recorded cross-access and parking agreement amongst the lots here. The applicant -- I spoke with the applicant today. They have drafted those covenants that is in that agreement. They are waiting for Ada County to record that plat and, then, simultaneously with that they will record the CC and R’s and the cross-access agreement for this development. The timing on that, I guess, is roughly four weeks is what they have been told at the county. That should run pretty consistent with -- by the time this application gets to the City Council and approved by them, if they wanted to turn right around and submit that building permit for this, it should be recorded almost at that same time, so that sounds pretty reasonable. The other thing, I guess, in the staff report that asked the applicant to clarify is I notice that on this future lot they were not showing any dumpster location. They called me this last week and all three lots, as well as sharing the cross-access and parking, they are going to share the one dumpster, which is located right here, and depending how much waste is generated from these three lots, it may need to be picked up multiple times, but the intent is to just have that one dumpster, depending on the size of that dumpster, it would probably be enough to handle all the waste that's going to be generated from these professional offices buildings. So, just to -- I think that was pretty much the only concerns that the applicant had, but any other questions you may have of staff, I will stand for them. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Okay. Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Knopp: Members of the Commission, Larry Knopp, 355 South 3rd. I'm the architect representing the owner this evening on this project. I think the staff has gone over all the items that I wanted some clarification or needed some clarification on. I do have a revised landscape plan they requested under site specific conditions number four to add an additional tree. We have done that. I have a plan here that I will submit to them this evening and to the Commission with that revision in place. I have a copy -- or an excerpt from the CC and R’s for the cross-access and egress-ingress that will be filed with the final plat and recorded and as the staff has gone over the timing on it, right now it's in the County Engineers for their review, Mr. Priester. He feels it's about a three or four week period before he can get it and review it and, then, it should go in for final recording. So, the time frame looks like it works out really well for us, so that we can go ahead and continue with the process, the City Council, develop the working drawings and get ready to submit for a permit in a couple of months. So, I will submit a copy of that excerpt on the cross-access agreements to the staff this evening also. On the dumpster, we covered that on Dr. Seegmiller's when it was through and approved here earlier last year or later last year, I guess. Starting the new year. I have talked with Sanitary Services. The enclosure is designed for -- there are two sizes of dumpsters and they don't have a problem with a shared use. It will accommodate a larger size, so they have got the option of two sizes or they have got the option of multiple pickups a week, instead of one, maybe two, until they know exactly what their demand is. Mr. Gregory at Sanitary Services said that they don't have a problem with that at all. We addressed that earlier, as I said, with Seegmiller and I just wanted to reiterate that Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 64 of 89 again, that instead of putting a bunch of dumpster locations on it, we are just having one. And -- let me see. I think that's probably covered all the site and general conditions that the staff has put together and we are in agreement with it and so I will answer any questions if you have got any at this point. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Okay. Seeing none, thank you. Knopp: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else here to testify on this application? Seeing none, Commissioners? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move the hearing on item 11, CUP 03-061 be closed. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of item 11 on our agenda, CUP 03-061, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a dental office in an L-O zone for Gaudry Dental Office by Dr. Robert Gaudry, southeast corner of McMillan -- I'm sorry. Southeast corner of Millennium Way and Gala Street in Resolution Business Park, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of January 8, 2004, received by the City Clerk December 31st, 2003, with the following change: On page six under site specific comments, paragraph five, can be changed to read that the applicant, in cooperation with SSC, has agreement that all three potential sites will share a single dumpster. End of motion. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 12: Public Hearing: PP 03-040 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 5 building lots on 3.49 acres in an L-O zone for Financial Plaza Subdivision by Idaho Central Credit Union – 2225 East Overland Road: Borup: Thank you. The next item is Public Hearing PP 03-040, request for preliminary plat approval of five building lots on 3.49 acres in an L-O zone for Financial Plaza Subdivision by Idaho Central Credit Union. I'd like to open this hearing at this time and start with the staff report. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 65 of 89 Kirkpatrick: Chairman, members of the Commission, this application, again, is for Financial Plaza Subdivision. This is a preliminary plat for a subdivision consisting of five commercial building lots. The subject property is 3.49 acres and it's located in the L-O zone. The applicant for this application is the Idaho Central Credit Union and they were approved for a Conditional Use Permit for their bank in November of 2003. The property is located within Resolution Business Park Subdivision and the property is located on East Overland Road approximately a half mile east of Locust Grove Road. I'll go ahead and show you the preliminary plat. That's an aerial. Staff recommends approval of this proposed subdivision. Do you have any questions of staff? Borup: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: I do have one. Sometimes it's a case of forgetting things that have happened. This time it's a case of thinking that I remember something that maybe didn't happen. I thought we had already had an application on this property to divide it into either two or three parcels, with a building being approved on the middle parcel and the subject was that they didn't want to landscape the eastern parcel until they knew what was there. Am I thinking of this property or was there something similar on the next property east? Freckleton: Commissioner Zaremba, I'm thinking that maybe the parcel you're thinking of is where Primary Health went in and they are to the east of this parcel. Zaremba: It's across the street east of this? Okay. Then I have no other questions. Borup: Would the applicant like to make their presentation or add anything? Anderson: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Gordon Anderson with Anderson David and Associates, 357 East Watertower Lane, Meridian. I'm here representing the Idaho Central Credit Union. We are in agreement with the staff's recommendations and request your approval. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Questions from the Commission? I think we asked them. Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? Seeing none, Commissioners? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move the hearing on Item 12, PP 03-040, be closed. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 12 on our agenda, PP 03-040, request for preliminary plat approval of Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 66 of 89 five building lots on 3.49 acres in an L-O zone for Financial Plaza Subdivision by Idaho Central Credit Union, 2225 East Overland Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of January 8, 2004, received by the City Clerk January 5, 2004, with no changes. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 13: Public Hearing: AZ 03-034 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 11.31 acres from RUT to R-8 and L-O zones for proposed Razzberry Crossing by Carl and Bonnie Reiterman – south of East McMillan Road and west of North Locust Grove Road: Item 14: Public Hearing: PP 03-039 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 34 residential building lots, 4 professional office lots and 6 common lots on 11.31 acres in proposed R-8 and L-O zones for proposed Razzberry Crossing by Carl and Bonnie Reiterman – south of East McMillan Road and west of North Locust Grove Road: Item 15: Public Hearing: CUP 03-062 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development containing a mix of residential and professional office uses in proposed R-8 and L-O zones for proposed Razzberry Crossing by Carl and Bonnie Reiterman – south of East McMillan Road and west of North Locust Grove Road: Borup: Thank you. That's the way to move things along. I'm not sure that this next one is going to move that fast. Okay. Our last project is items 13, 14 and 15. Like to open the following public hearings at this time. AZ 03-034, PP 03-039, and CUP 03-062 and start with the staff report. Kirkpatrick: Chairman, members of the Commission, this application consists of an annexation and zoning application. There is an application for 8.1 acres of the subject property to be rezoned from RUT to R-8 and for the remaining 3.31 acres to be rezoned from RUT to L-O. There is also an application for a preliminary plat for 34 residential building lots, four professional office lots, and six other lots. And altogether this encompasses 11.31 acres. The applicants also applied for a CUP for a planned development to allow for reduced setbacks and dimensional requirements. The property is located on the west side of Locust Grove Road south of McMillan Road. It's adjacent to the Havasu Creek Subdivision. It's immediately to the south and to the east of Havasu Creek. I want to go ahead and acknowledge that this subject property was -- previously you saw an application for Blooming Meadows on this piece of property and I want to point out a couple key ways that this application is different from Blooming Meadows. Blooming Meadows was -- and I will go ahead and put up the plat here. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 67 of 89 Blooming Meadows had a combination of townhomes and single family homes. There was no commercial components on Locust Grove Road, unlike this subdivision, which has the light office off of Locust Grove Road. Blooming Meadows also did not have any direct access off of Locust Grove Road. Their access points were to the north and to the south off of local roads. So, that's a significant difference I wanted to point out to you all. The applicant is proposing to provide as amenities for their PD -- let's see. 1.42 acres of open space, which consists of 12.5 acres of -- 12.5 percent of the gross land area of the subdivision and a micropath to connect the subdivision to the park in Havasu Creek. Staff would like to see some more amenities added to the subdivision. Potentially they could add some playground equipment to the proposed park or picnic area, I'll let you all discuss that briefly. But I think that they really -- considering the scale of the subdivision, I think they could add more of an amenity than they have proposed. Through the PD they are asking for -- and you will have this outlined in your staff report. They are asking for reduced setbacks, reduced lot sizes -- typically in the R-8 zone the requirement for lot size would be 6,500 square feet. They are asking for a lot size of 5,000 square feet and asking for reduced frontage requirement, the R-8 would require 65 foot. Frontage requirement they are asking for 40 feet. And I want to go through and make a couple corrections in the staff report. When I originally proposed this I thought they were in the Five Mile plain. They are not. So, I'm going to go through and tell you the pages where we need to delete a few of the comments. The first comment to delete is on page four, item I. We want to delete the line that states the subject property is located in the Five Mile flood plain. And the second item to delete is -- we have page six at the very top of the page, the sentence which reads: The subject property is located in the Five Mile flood plain and the subject property will be subject to all applicable flood plain ordinances. Delete that. That's not applicable. Let's see. I have another -- in site specific comments for the preliminary plat, comment number eight, we are going to delete -- and that reads: Each storm drainage lot may have only one rock sump. The maximum dimension of the rock sump may be only five feet. That was a carry over from another project. Zaremba: Did you say to delete that one? Kirkpatrick: Go ahead and delete that. I'm requesting that you delete that. It's not applicable to this project. And I think we have one final mention of the flood plain. If you go to page ten, item I, the last sentence in that paragraph, nearly all of the subject property is located within the Five Mile flood plain area, I want to delete that. So, those are all of the modifications to the report. Staff is recommending approval of the project. Do you have any questions of staff? Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Zaremba: Of course I have one. On page two, the setbacks, the first one that we are talking about, city requirement front setback, 20 feet, proposed setback front, if the garage is not the front, it's setback and something else is the front, the proposed setback is 15 feet, but do we still want to say that the setback to the garage is 20? In Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 68 of 89 other words, if you have the front of the building at 15, you don't want the garage one foot behind that. Kirkpatrick: Let's ask Anna how that -- Zaremba: Okay. Borup: But that's been the understanding. Zaremba: Yeah. That the garage still needs to be 20 feet back, even if there is a living portion of the building that sticks out in front of the garage by five feet, I don't have a problem with that, but the garage still needs to be 20; right? Powell: Chairman and Commissioners, the existing code language is actually more flexible than what's written here, so this would not really be a request for a reduction. The existing code allows a living space to come forward to 15 feet or a side loaded, side entry garage, as long as there is a window in the portion of the garage facing the street can be 15 feet as well. Zaremba: Okay. Powell: So, actually, we need to just reference the existing code. Zaremba: But they still would have a 20 foot driveway in front of their garage. Powell: Because it's L shaped it ends up being, yes, more than 20 feet, that the face -- the side of the garage could be 15 feet, as long as there is a window in it. Zaremba: Oh. Okay. Borup: But it doesn't have to be L shaped. Can't the garage just be five -- Powell: Or, yeah, it could be a corner lot or -- Borup: As long as the -- as you stated, that's already in the ordinance. Powell: Right. I have been trying to get staff to drop this. I'm having a hard time getting them to drop that, because it's already accounted for in the code, so -- Zaremba: Okay. So, I don't need to add the additional requirement that the garage isn't 15 feet. Powell: Correct. Zaremba: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 69 of 89 Powell: We just need to comply with current standards. Zaremba: Okay. That was my question. Borup: That was it? Zaremba: Yeah. Although I do have another observation. On their plat, West Star Lane needs to be East Start Lane. It's also east of Meridian. Borup: Okay. Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Forrey: Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. My name is Wayne Forrey, I'm the owner of Pathway Planners Consulting and I'm working with Carl and Bonnie Reiterman, the owners of this property, to hopefully develop Razzberry Crossing. I have got a few overhead -- or hard boards here I'd like to put right here in front and, then, if the staff could get -- I've got a little concise presentation on the screen here I will walk you through and keep it moving. I'll get the hard boards. Just waiting for the computer screen here. About 80 percent of what's shown here is -- will be on the screen, but there is a few items that are -- Borup: Are they all on that one sheet? Are those the only ones that are not on the screen? Zaremba: The easel over here that says three minutes, if you put it up there it may be able to be turned so that we can see it at the same time. Turn it a little farther, maybe we can all see it. Forrey: Okay. Thank you. Razzberry Crossing. It's an in-fill community, as you will see. If you could go to the next one. Let me just walk through some history on this site. This Commission may be familiar with this. Next. In March there was a staff pre- application meeting with the Reitermans in deciding how they would want to approach development of this property. Next. And, then, in April of last year they followed up with an application. Next. And, then, unfortunately, they went through several engineering changes, just different staff had moved and job changes and so that kind of hampered their project a little bit. Next. And, then, last June a project that staff referred to came before your Planning and Zoning Commission through a Public Hearing and a lot of things were discussed and some negative things were brought out about that project. Next. And your Commission denied all three applications, the annexation, the plat, and the zoning request. And, then, it went on to City Council. Next. And they also denied all three applications. Next. I went back through the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing summary to kind of -- as I got involved -- I was not involved in the initial project, but I wanted to get a sense of where this project had been and where possibly it could go into the future and I noted that there were six items of testimony regarding the need for a neighborhood meeting and that came from both your Commission and citizens. There were five items of testimony that wanted Star Lane to be connected and that came from citizens and the Planning and Zoning Commission as well, five items of Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 70 of 89 testimony on the need for a neighborhood center, and a lot of discussion on that among staff, citizens, and the Commission. There was three items of testimony on light office, that that was acceptable in this neighborhood center concept and that came from the staff, the citizens, and the Zoning Commission as well. Three items of testimony on more sidewalks in this vicinity, in the neighborhood. Some testimony on the townhomes were too dense. In a nutshell, from reading the minutes, it looked like the P and Z wanted R-8 zoning, a mix of lot sizes, office use, and the connectivity with Star Lane. Next. So, we went back to the drawing board, which we needed to do. Next. We followed the advice of the neighbors and the P and Z and we started over. Next. We had some staff meetings with the city staff to sit down and kind of rework and retool and understand the prior project and how to move forward. Next. Carl and Bonnie Reiterman, then, hired an experienced engineering and planning team to help organize the project and put new thinking into this site. Next. We, then, conducted two neighborhood meetings and that was before we ever organized the application. We had a very good set of neighborhood meetings. We learned a lot. We had some good points of discussion and from that we, then, were able to get a sense of how to move this project forward. Next. We met with the highway district, because that was a focus in the first project and also the irrigation district. Next. And we worked with adjoining property owners, which was another item that your commission asked that happen on this site. Next. And, then, we incorporated all of that into some new thinking. Next. One of the things that I always do in taking a new piece of property, I like to look at linkages and transportation and connectivity and if we will just kind of click slowly through here. The one thing that we centered on was Star Lane and making this connection. So, in our new project we have made that connection. Next. And, then, we worked with Mr. Johnson, the owner of the property to the south, to give a connection -- public street connection here as well to the adjoining property. Next. Also, in the Havasu project here there is a public street that is headed south in this alignment and so in our meetings with ACHD it became important that we make that traffic connection as well, public connection. Next. And, then, one more. There are two existing public streets that come out of Havasu Creek and into the Reiterman property, so those were reflected. Next. And, then, this is an existing stub street that comes out of the back end of Havasu and comes in this way as well. So, right now we have one, two, three, four, five, six public street connections. Next. Now, we have created a seventh public street connection, because of working with the adjoining property owner and the city staff. They felt that this would provide -- there is a property line through here, so there are separate ownerships here and so this provides a stub street to a different property owner. And, then, the last thing we did -- one more click. We put a micropath connection, because there is an existing park right here in Havasu Creek and I'll show you that we are designing a park here and so we have a pathway connection as well. So, there is eight points of interconnectivity and that's why I think it's a good in-fill project. Okay. Next. Out of all of that here is the concept that we came up with. Taking a professional office here on the front of the property and taking a PUD residential approach here and the concept -- a lot of the input that we received from neighbors was that this project needed to look nice, it needed to be a value addition to the neighborhood. So, we chose a streetscape concept with separated sidewalks to allow planting strips to get some really nice landscaping through here and Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 71 of 89 here is the park and a separate drainage area, which could also have recreation facilities here. But plenty of room buffering between the office use and the residential use to have a really nice landscape feel around this development. Okay. Next. In the office area, when we had our first and second neighborhood meeting, some of the neighbors said, well, you know, offices are okay, but what's our guarantee that they are going to look nice and blend in and we said that we -- if we chose to come back with an office design, which now, obviously, we have made that decision, we would make this area subject to Conditional Use Permit. So, we did apply for a preliminary or concept PUD for the office portion. So, any of these lots here, these four lots, would have to come back in front of your Commission for specific design review. That would give the neighbors, then, a hand in shaping the design of the parking, the design of the building, the setbacks, the landscaping, all of those things. And there is a substantial 30 foot wide buffer area right here, as well as a traffic calming island here, so that as you come into Razzberry Crossing and you leave the office area, you will know that you have arrived into a different portion of the development. Okay. Next. Here are some of the home styles -- or, excuse me, office styles that -- they look kind of like homes, really. They have a residential look. These are some of the photos we showed at the neighborhood meeting to show that these are the styles of our offices that we would anticipate in this development. Next. This is an existing professional office on Locust Grove Road south of this property. This is Walnut Grove development. And in this office building there is a construction company, I think it's Tahoe Construction, a mortgage company, and a professional medical, I think -- a dentist, I believe. And here is the homes right behind it. You can see how that ties in well. Next. This is that office building. Here is the home closest to the office building and yesterday I was out looking at this, because it's a pretty good example of how homes can coexist next to office and I talked to this neighbor here and he said it's a wonderful neighbor and that's always been my experience in the years of planning, that anytime you can put an office next to some homes, the neighbors always seem to be pretty happy with that. Unlike maybe a Circle K or a gas station. So, I have always professionally tried to encourage my clients to use office an office approach, rather than a commercial approach, just for that reason. Next. On the residential component here, here is the buffer strip, landscape separating the office. Here is our traffic calming island. The nice street scape. Our smallest lots are right in here, right around the park, 5,000 square feet. We have much larger lots. This one here is almost 9,000 square feet. So, we have got a nice mix. But we have made all these nice connections as well and the park here is centrally located and here is the walkway into Havasu Creek. On our landscape plan it does say that there will be some recreational amenities provided and so in the staff report the staff makes the recommendation that we need to provide additional amenities for the park and we agree with that and what Carl and Bonnie Reiterman would like to do in this area is put a gazebo for picnic and in this area they'd like to put a volleyball net, so that you could get in here and play volleyball. Those are the two amenities that they would like to put into the project. Next. We decided we would take a planned unit development approach to get nice open space and, then, use that in offset for these lots. Single family detached, there is no attached residential here, as in the former project. Next. We have a good variety of lot sizes and we feel it's compatible with the neighborhood. Next. These are some of the home styles. These are some of the Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 72 of 89 homes that are on these two boards right here in front. We also showed some of these homes at the neighborhoods meeting and any one of these homes could be built on the lots in Razzberry Crossing. Some are more narrow with detached garage. Some are side entry garages, like these to here, and we will use that in this project to give some nice variety. Next. Let me just kind of click here a little bit on development features. We have made traffic linkages for good in-fill development. We have buffered the residential from Locust Grove. Our park is centrally located. We have got separate drainage and park space. Your ordinance requires ten percent. We are at 12 and a half percent. We have got a nice tree lined streetscape with traffic calming. At the neighborhood meeting and also in the minutes from the last time you heard this project, neighbors said that there needed to be sidewalks along Locust Grove Road and so we are proposing the sidewalk not in front of just the Reiterman property, but to the -- there is an out parcel. I will show you on a different map. But it's, actually, some off-site sidewalk and that's because, again, neighbors asked that we do as much as we could to get additional sidewalks in the area. So, there is several hundred feet of extra sidewalk along Locust Grove Road. there will be strong CC and R’s and architectural requirements. The Real Estate Group, they are here tonight and if you want to talk about architectural and home values, they are prepared to do that, but they envision homes between 140 to 160 thousand to start. So, this is a very nitch, very nice in-fill for this neighborhood. The professional office development would be subject to development agreement, conditional use, and design review and we achieved a nice lot mix. About a third are under 6,000, but two-thirds are over 6,000 square feet in size and a fourth of them are over 7,000. So, it's not just one size lot through this project. Next. We agree with the staff report. We accept the staff report. It's fine. Next. And if you could click one more. We listened and we acted. We resubmitted the application. We have got a mix of lot sizes. We removed the multi-family. We took Star Lane and penetrated to the west. We have got extensive plant and landscaping. I know in the prior project it was proposed to be potted trees, I think, and that's not the case here. We are going to provide some very nice professional office to support your neighborhood center concept. Separated sidewalk, tree lined street, and parks and quality homes sites. And that's Razzberry Crossing. Next. Be happy to answer any questions. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Rohm: Nice presentation. Forrey: Thank you. Zaremba: Yes. And you very thoroughly went through what the issues were before. I like this well enough that I'm sure glad the other one was denied. I think this is a big improvement. The key to it is working cooperatively with the neighbor to the south. There wasn't any other way for you to get access to Locust Grove without using a portion of their property to make Star Lane happen, because it had to align or ACHD would not have approved it, so -- Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 73 of 89 Forrey: Totally agree. Zaremba: The effort involved in working cooperatively with the neighbor is very much appreciated. I think that the end is a vast improvement over the previous offering and I congratulate you. Forrey: Thank you. By the way, in the city file and the staff file there is a letter from Bonnie and Carl Reiterman and also from Mr. Johnson, the property owner to the south, both in writing, committing to jointly approve these road alignments and construct these roads. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Okay. This is the public testimony portion. Anyone like to submit any testimony come forward. Sherer: Honorable Commissioners, planners, madam clerk and city attorney. My name is Steve Sherer, I live at 2090 Star Lane in the Heritage Subdivision, which is across Locust Grove from the proposed subdivision. First, I want to tell you that I'm opposed to this project. I'd pound my hand on this podium, but I'm awfully tired, so -- but I do want to hand you what was provided to us to consider and I'm not going to lodge a formal protest, because I understand this the way this has been done for years and years and years, but I can't read that and when we submit documents to public agencies we are required to make them at least large enough so that they can be read with the naked eye and I fought and fought with that thing and -- with my magnifying glass and it's just -- it's just too hard for me. I guess my eyes are bad enough that the -- I'm lodging a mild protest about that. Borup: This is what was presented at the neighborhood meeting you mean? Sherer: This was what was presented to the neighbors to provide notice of this hearing. Borup: Okay. To provide notice for the neighborhood meeting. Sherer: Right. Borup: All right. Well, that's a whole different thing. Sherer: And, Commissioner Zaremba, you mentioned in an earlier hearing about zone whittling. I see that going on here. We have -- they are seeking an R-8 designation. I'd point out that Havasu Creek, which surrounds us on -- completely on two sides and partly on the south, is an R-4 designation. It was alleged in the materials that it's R-8, but it's always been R-4. The development further to the south, Heritage Commons, was developed as an R-8, because it had a special -- a special development plan. They had detached garages, they had alleys behind the houses and the houses were set closely together, with a large common area. I don't see any benefit in designating residential zones as R-8, R-4, et cetera, if, then, we arbitrarily or uniformly agree to reduce the lot sizes. I can see reducing the lot sizes if there is a compelling reason to Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 74 of 89 do so. I don't see any compelling reason to do so here. And, in fact, one of my compatriots who looked at that drawing saw the frontages were 50 feet, but the reduction, as stated by the planners, is to a 40 foot front. So, already we are inconsistent and we don't know what's going to actually happen here. The traffic issues are addressed by ACHD, of course, but I think they are important. I don't think that they have been adequately addressed as yet. As you will notice and have noted from previous hearings, Locust Grove is a two lane road and it already has three schools and a Fire Department on the -- on the southern reaches between Ustick and McMillan Road. I think -- I think wise planning would consider the fact that that Fire Department is going to -- is going to need free and open use of the road and the more things we put on Locust Grove, the more difficult it's going to be for them to respond in an emergency situation. Part of the objection that we had to Blooming Meadows Subdivision was the increased traffic and traffic is significant on Locust Grove and at the wrong times of the day. The ACHD noted that Blooming Meadows contemplated an additional 496 vehicle trips per day. This development contemplates 570, which is even more. Now, I think you need to be very concerned about the traffic on Locust Grove. Locust Grove is planned to be upon full build out a three lane arterial. Three lane, not five, as most of the rest of the north-south section roads are, but just a three lane. And that three lane expansion is not -- is not contemplated in the five year plan at ACHD. So, it's not going to happen in the next five years. And I think Mr. Forrey tried to make some points about how this -- how this fit into the -- into the neighborhood and was consistent with the surroundings, but Havasu Creek, 327 residential lots on 120 acres. That figures out to less than three per acre and here they are planning 34 on eight acres. They are trying to squeeze in as many as they can and they are trying to maximize profit at the expense of the neighborhood. I really think that that's right. They are not being consistent with the density that's either to the north, to the west, or partially to the south of them with Havasu Creek, and they are certainly not consistent with the density across the street where we have one house an acre and we are very concerned about our one house per acre. That was the density that we determined, as homeowners, that we enjoyed and that we wanted to be a part of and wanted to be around. I understand that development is going to come, we are not going to stop development, but we don't need to cram houses on postage stamp lots, on 5,000 square foot lots, to satisfy somebody's profit motive and I really do believe that that is the basis. These lots -- I mean I don't like the -- I don't like the R-8 designation for this portion anyway, but we have the R-8 designation, we at least have 6,500 square foot lot sizes and 65 foot frontage, so it doesn't look like we are -- like we are just cramming a whole inner city into a suburban and rural atmosphere. It just doesn't work. I don't see that light office is really -- is really going to be compatible with the rest of the area either. The rest of the area is entirely residential and, again, I think if you create more traffic there, you're going to create trouble for the schools, you're going to create trouble for Fire Department, and you certainly have a bunch of neighbors who do not like this. Mr. Forrey's representation that these homes will be worth 140,000 to 160,000 is a nice representation, but, you know, I have heard about cars that get 40 miles to the gallon, too, it's just believe us, you know, buy one and you will see. I feel like I'm being sold. Will they put that in there, that the houses will have a minimum value, minimum appraised value of 140,000 dollars. I don't think they will. They will make that Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 75 of 89 representation here, but I think it will disappear. If they will make that representation, then, I think they are a little bit further ahead. They said that they are going to have really nice landscaping. Didn't really define what it was. Also stated that they had listened and acted and I do believe that this -- that this proposal is much better than Blooming Meadows, but, actually, they acted because the Commissioners and the City Council denied them. It wasn't that they listened. I did not attend the neighborhood meetings, was not informed of them, I didn't live within 300 feet and they weren't legally required to inform me of them, but -- Borup: Wasn't there a notice sent around to all the neighbors? Sherer: I did not received one. Borup: I mean one of the neighbors had sent around letters. I had heard that from -- Sherer: I did not receive notice of a neighborhood meeting. I did find notice of this one in the Valley News. But it's my understanding that at those neighborhood meetings that the neighbors made several suggestions, none of which were incorporated into this design. If things were as represented, I would have problems with it. I don't think things are going to be as represented. The statement of the frontage, 50 foot on the preliminary plat, but 40 feet in the request, would allow them to change and create even great density. Borup: No, that would not allow them to change the preliminary plat. That's -- what's submitted is what needs to be designed and built. Sherer: Okay. I stand corrected, then. Thank you. I have nothing further. It looks like my time is up. Borup: Thank you. Who's next? Ingram: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, my name is Mike Ingram, I live at 4320 North Locust Grove, directly across from this proposed development. I'm not sure exactly where to start on this. Borup: Which way directly across on the -- Ingram: On the corner of Star Lane and Locust Grove. Borup: On the north of Star? Ingram: On the northeast corner. Yes. Borup: Okay. Is your house for sale right now? Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 76 of 89 Ingram: Yep. Still. Originally, Blooming Meadows had a lot of -- had a lot of problems. The developer did not come and talk to us, as it was recommended at the P and Z's request. The day before the City Council meeting where they had an application in to reverse the decision, they had a neighborhood meeting, which did not go very well. Subsequently, the applications were denied. I have a copy here of the City Council meeting minutes from July 1st of 2003. Particularly, Mr. Nary was not kind. I will leave it at that. Basically, it wound up that this whole project was a waste of City Council's time, staff's time, your time, and our time. What I guess I really want to impress upon people here is a sense of honesty, integrity, and a willingness to compromise, which this developer has not been willing to do. I have a number of issues and I'm not sure I attended the same meetings. I attended both of the neighborhood meetings this time. I'm not sure I attended the same meeting that they attended. We asked for a number of compromises on a number of issues, of which we have received none. One of them being is the neighborhood itself did not want access from Star Lane. That was a P and Z suggestion. The neighborhood has never requested that, because of the traffic problems. The issue of safety for the kids is still there. Zaremba: What neighborhood people said to us is they didn't want people from this project coming through their neighborhood. The only alternative is to access Locust Grove. But what they didn't like about it was that the only way in and out of the old project was through somebody else's neighborhood and they were complaining about that. The solution to that is to access Locust Grove. Ingram: Havasu Creek at the time was still under development. There was no houses built in Havasu at that time. There has since been development or homes started and are under construction. I don't know if any are occupied at this time. So, as far as where neighbors came from crossing through there, through their neighborhood, I don't know where that came from, because there were no neighbors to go through that neighborhood at the time. Zaremba: Well, regardless of where they live, there were people that came and testified that they didn't want traffic from this subdivision to access their subdivision. Ingram: Okay. Be that as it may. The original Blooming Meadows had R-15 designation for apartment buildings, which all of us were adamantly opposed to. Traffic. Crime. Other problems. That has been taken out of here. Rohm: So, then, did the developers not listen to you at all there? I mean your comment a little bit ago was they didn't listen period, but if they have removed the multi- family housing, it sounds like somebody is listening to something. Ingram: Okay. Let me go back just a little bit. The neighborhood voiced our displeasure at the R-15. Okay. The project was pulled. They pulled their applications and were told, basically, by Councilman Nary they should start over, which they did. The whole process -- they were told to start with a neighborhood meeting. At that meeting we were presented with, in essence, what you see here tonight. That plan that Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 77 of 89 was presented to -- at that neighborhood meeting has not changed. We have additional comments regarding Razzberry Crossing now we would like addressed that have never been addressed. Does make sense? I mean they are two separate issues as far as what they applied for and came to the Commission for approval of. My concern now is with the current application before you, that did start with a neighborhood meeting, however, in my mind it was an informative meeting only. They told us what they were going to do, as they did the first time. Borup: Both meetings were that same way? Ingram: Yes. Borup: The first and the second? Ingram: Yes. Borup: Do you have any idea why they had two meetings, why they had the second meeting? Ingram: During the first neighborhood meeting for what is now called Razzberry Crossing, we asked them to take our comments, which they appeared to be taking notes, and incorporate those into their proposal that was before us. Once that was done, we asked for another meeting, so we could see conceptually what it was going to look like. The meeting was held a week later and the same proposal was brought to the meeting with no changes. Borup: Okay. Ingram: One of the other things we asked for during that time was that a berm be build on the Locust Grove side of things, so that we wouldn't have to basically look at the light office and the rest of the development and if you will look at your plans now, the berm is there, it's between their homes and the light office, not on Locust Grove. Borup: No. It's on Locust Grove. Ingram: According to the plans -- this is a small copy. I'm sorry. Maybe I'm misinterpreting that. But according to the small plans I picked up from P and Z, it shows a berm in between the light office and -- Borup: Right. There is one there, too. There is both. Ingram: Okay. There, again, I apologize. Borup: But the part on Locust Grove is only 100 feet. Ingram: Right. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 78 of 89 Borup: But it says landscape buffer with earth berm. We don't have any other detail other than that. It does call it a berm. Ingram: We addressed issues of density in here. We have got a very small, long, rectangular lot. As Mr. Sherer pointed out, you're trying to shoehorn 30 some lots into eight acres and I don't think that's going to fit with the surrounding R-4. There is a ten acre lot that's owned by Lonnie Johnson and it is divided into two five acres. He still owns both parcels, to my knowledge. A ten acre lot next to him and, then, five acre lots directly to the south of those ten acres. We, as you know, live in an R-1 subdivision directly to the east of this proposed project. Rohm: Is this property to the -- this side and here, are they both developed currently? Borup: Just to the north. Rohm: Just to the north? This is developed? Ingram: Not to be Star Wars competitive here. This is Havasu here. This is an existing one or two acre, Wyoma? Two acre. It's occupied. This was originally subdivided out. This is a one acre lot with a dwelling on it. It's existing. This is owned by Mr. Johnson. There is actually two five acre pieces that are divided. He owns both five acres. There is a five acre piece that basically comes down here and, then, he owns this one, too, and, then, there is a single ten acre piece adjoining it directly to the south. And, then, everything on the east side of Locust Grove is Heritage Subdivision, which is all one acre lots, with the exception of a couple lots in there, which were zoned half acre. Rohm: Is this R-8? Ingram: It's R-4. Rohm: That's R-4? Ingram: I was a little encouraged tonight on their first application of the -- that you saw tonight for the subdivision over off of McMillan that they worked very well with those neighbors in compromising things. I don't feel that's happened here. Rohm: It kind of depends on how you look at it. From the original development that came before this Commission last year to this development, there is a significant change. Would you not agree with that? Ingram: No. The only thing that's changed in there is they took the upper part there and made it L-O, light office, and took away the apartments. The remainder of the small lot with them requesting reduced lot sizes and setbacks is still there. That hasn't changed. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 79 of 89 Borup: Okay. Did that -- Mr. Ingram, earlier you said there was several items that you had expressed that you didn't think they incorporated. Did that -- did you get through your list? Ingram: I think so. Safety concern is still one of our most paramount things. Locust Grove is a two lane -- Borup: No. And I understand that. How would you want them to redesign to address that -- Ingram: I'd like them to not put this in here at all until such time as we have curb, gutter, and sidewalk put in or some way that the kids can walk to school. That happens on a daily basis. Borup: Kids from this project you mean? Ingram: No. The kids from down at the elementary school. The charter high school. Borup: Right. To walk to this project? Ingram: They walk in front of my house now to where ever they live. I'm not sure where -- but you're adding homes. The kids are going to go to school at the elementary and the charter. Zaremba: Have you put a sidewalk in? Ingram: No. Borup: The sidewalk only goes to Paradise Lane right now. Ingram: Yeah. Borup: Okay. Well, I got down they didn't address the density, safety -- Ingram: And I guess the only part that they didn't elaborate on was if they are going to put sidewalk in there, I guess that was a singular issue that I do agree with. There is a need there for that, just for safety of the kids getting to and from school. Borup: So, your two issues were density and safety, then? And your answer to the density is just not to do the project. Is that your -- okay. Ingram: In essence. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Who would like to come up next? Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 80 of 89 Montaney: Commissioners, my name is John Montaney, I live in the Heritage Subdivision across North Locust Grove at 1790 East Paradise Lane. I'd basically agree with what has foregone my appearing here. The essence of this whole business of objection is the proposed subdivision is completely surrounded by zoning densities of R-4 or lesser. The key differences from the original Blooming Meadows spoken of here are the townhouses have been abandoned in favor of commercial. We pointed out that we all objected to the townhouses, the apartments, including the Planning and Zoning and, apparently, the City Council. There was an obvious misfit of that plan, so it wasn't totally the neighbors' insistence that they remove. Nevertheless, that was the one good thing that came out of the withdrawal of the original plan. The added access to Locust Grove was not a neighborhood request, that was contrary to what we felt was appropriate. What we are doing now by adding the Star Lane access to Locust Grove is we are pitting incoming traffic, particularly in the mornings, attempting to access a two lane highway directly opposed to each other with no turn lane. It's pretty bad as it is getting out on Locust Grove. We throw this subdivision, along with the Havasu traffic that may be added to it at times, because it's an alternative route for them and we are going to have a real problem at that intersection, with no plans future improvements or particularly traffic control. This business of less setback, as is requested, together with the reduced frontages to a minimum 40 feet, all points up the fears that we as neighbors have had of this project all along, by lending itself to economy or starter homes of substantially lesser value than surrounding areas. Further, the citizens did not want the Star connection, did not want the neighborhood center, and certainly did not want the commercial development. Relatively, none of the neighborhood concerns from the neighborhood meetings the last two meetings, which occurred after the abandonment of the apartments, okay, have been incorporated into this new proposal. Neighbors were to have been included in the design committee, to have been consulted at least within another neighbor meeting before we came to this juncture. Hasn't happened. There is also to be some restrictions on this commercial development of single story structures. That has not been addressed. We have got a long ways to go. Nevertheless, the basic problem we have here is a question of density. The two folks that came up prior to my being here spoke of there being eight acres proposed development into residential lots. As a matter of fact, including the common areas, there is only 6.8 acres being allocated for 34 lots. That doesn't come anywhere close to the R-4 maximum density that surrounds this proposed subdivision. In fact, is closer to five per acre. Even if you include a portion of the facility in this corner, which is proposed as a prospective recreational site. If you take a magnifying glass and read that, it says that's a drainage pond. It's going to be interesting to see how a volleyball court is going to work over the top of the drainage pond. We need your help, folks. These people have taken advantage of every commercial opportunity they can find and they are making no concessions whatsoever to the comfort and future well being of that neighborhood, with no concern of what impact they have on adjacent property values. It's your spot, folks, unfortunately, to maintain some consistency in the zoning that we have in that area and enforcing it. That means a density of no greater than R-4. Thank you for your time. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 81 of 89 Borup: Thank you. Who would like to come up next? While they are, questions for staff. Back on this zoning thing. Havasu, if I remember, was that a planned unit development? Because there are 60 foot frontage lots in that subdivision, so I'm wondering if that wasn't an R-4 with some reduced lot sizes. Is that how that ended up? That's not -- no one remembers either. Powell: No, but it is R-4. We do have the zoning map back here, so -- Borup: So, there must have been -- it must have been a PUD. Powell: Or some reduced frontages. Borup: Well, the first several phases most of the lots are 60 feet. Powell: Yeah. Because, otherwise, it's an 85 foot -- Borup: Pardon? Powell: Otherwise, it would have been an 85 foot minimum. Borup: Eighty. Powell: Eighty. Borup: And most of them are in the 60s. That's why I wondered if that wasn't what that was an R-4 with a PUD and it's essentially -- the lot sizes are the same as an R-8 would be. That was just for clarification. Zaremba: Well -- and I would comment on this project, since several people have mentioned the 40 foot frontage, those lots are not 40 feet wide, they are 60 feet wide. The reason that they have a 40 foot frontage is that they are corner lots and the straightaway part of the lot is 40 feet and, then, you add the curve. But every lot has a 40 foot frontage measuring only the straightaway is actually a 60 foot wide lot. Borup: Fifty. Zaremba: No. Look at the corner lots. Lot 41 -- Borup: Oh, you mean those that have a 40? I'm sorry. Yes. Zaremba: There are some that are 50 wide. There are none that are 40 wide. Borup: I think the applicant wished he wouldn't have put that in there. The narrowest lot is, actually, 47 and a half. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 82 of 89 Zaremba: Yeah. And the frontages that are down to 40 are merely because it's the straightaway of a corner lot. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Those are 60 feet wide. Borup: Go ahead, Ma'am. Sorry. Ham: Chairman and Commissioners, I and my husband own -- Borup: You need to -- Mrs. Ham, if you could go ahead and state your name for the record. Ham: Oh. My name is Wyoma Ham and I live at 4415 Locust Grove Road and my husband and I own the property right here, the two acres. And I, too, would like to see the consistency of the R-4, because I do believe it's a safety issue. Number two -- I have three little things I want to talk about. Number two, I can attest to the traffic being backed up bumper to bumper from in front of our place all the way to McMillan Road in the mornings going to work and, then, it gets really busy in the evening, too. So, we do have a traffic problem and it's high use on our street that's not in too good of shape. Number three, I am wondering -- we have fencing that comes up here and up like this out to the road from the other developer and I'm wondering what the intended fencing is for this area. Will it consistent with what is already around us. And that's all I have to say. Borup: Okay. Thank you. We will get an answer on that fence. Ham: Do you have any questions? Borup: Any other questions? Thank you. T.Ingram: I guess I'll say good evening, because it is still evening. Not quite morning yet. My name is Terry Ingram. I live at 4320 North Locust Grove. And as he would say as usual, I think my husband missed a few things, so I came up to fill in. One of the things that -- they are laughing at me. One of the things that was said earlier by the developer was that they chose to came back with an office design and in the neighborhood meeting the neighbors agreed to that office design. I was at both -- in fact, I have been at all three neighborhood meetings and this is my second Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. I give you guys a lot of credit. I don't know how you do this every week. And I went to the City Council meeting. And I will tell you that at the first neighborhood meeting of this project, of Razzleberry Creek -- or Razzberry, excuse me, Creek, they brought forth the office design. I don't know of any neighbor there that immediately agreed with it. Every time we brought up the fact that we didn't want offices across the road from our neighborhood, it was, well, you know, it could be a Circle K or a 7-Eleven. I can't speak for any of the other neighbors, but I almost felt Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 83 of 89 threatened by that statement, like if you don't agree to this we are going to put a Circle K across the street from your house. I don't like the offices. I don't want to look out my beautiful picture window at what used to be a beautiful sunset over empty fields and see offices. I know there is going to be houses there. I'm not opposed to development. I wouldn't stand a chance if I was opposed to development. But this is a residential neighborhood. It's our neighborhood. We don't want offices there. We don't want townhouses or apartments or dentists or mortgage companies or construction companies. They have their place. It's not in our neighborhood. I agree with the safety issues. I'm scared to death that one of these days I'm going to see a child in my front yard. I'm hoping -- we have not seen a plan of the proposed sidewalks. I'm hoping that they extend far enough to get kids to school, because that is an issue with me. Traffic is going to be bad no matter what they put over there, but to me it's going to be worse if you put in offices where people are coming and going all day long. And that's all I have to say. I think everybody covered it. Borup: You'd rather see residential where the offices are? T.Ingram: I would like to see the whole development as residential. I'd also like to honestly see it a true R-4, even a true R-8 where each lot, each residential lot is an eighth of an acre would be great. R-4 would be better. If I could wish it away, I would make it all R-1. I can't do that. You guys probably wouldn't approve and the current owners would probably not approve it. Borup: Thank you. T.Ingram: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else who would like to take this opportunity? Okay. Mr. Forrey, do you have some final comments? Forrey: Yes. Thank you, members of the Commission. In -- let me just -- I made some notes here as folks were speaking. To Mr. Sherer's comments, the Razzberry Crossing is very similar to Havasu and has larger lots than some of them in Heritage Commons. And so from a neighborhood perspective, you have got an urbanizing neighborhood, but you have got a neighborhood across the street that was developed 25, 30 years ago when the standards were different. And this area is in change and so it's very difficult to mix the old with the new sometimes. But that's what we are seeing here tonight. And so when you look at the neighbors around this development on the other side of the street they are large lots, but on the Reiterman's side of the street the lots are very compatible. Some lots in Heritage Commons are 25 feet wide and 35 feet wide and I think ours, as you mentioned, at least is about 49 or 50 feet. And there was a lot of comment both of the neighbors and staff and Planning and Zoning about traffic connections. I read the minutes. Neighbors did say they were confused why we didn't have access -- or not -- I wasn't involved in Blooming Meadows, but at the time they said we are confused why you don't get access to Locust Grove. So, we went and solved that problem. We do have a mix of lot sizes and the landscape plan does, Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 84 of 89 actually, in very detail, show you exactly what the landscape plans are for this project. To Mr. Ingram's comments, again, I was not involved in Blooming Meadows and neighbors did, in fact, want Star Lane extended and when we had our first neighborhood meeting several neighbors came to me and said, well, I can see that makes sense and congratulated us for trying to get Star extended. They weren't happy with maybe some other components, but -- and not everyone is happy with Star Lane, but some were saying, well, you know, that does make sense. At least you got that extended. Borup: So, you're saying the testimony on -- on access to Locust Grove at Star was on the -- it's in minutes? Forrey: Yes. It's in your minutes where a gentleman that's here tonight testified back in June of 2003 that it didn't make sense to not have access to Locust Grove. And now that we have it, there is other issues. As a result of those neighborhood meetings and reading the minutes we took out the townhomes, we provided more sidewalk and I'll use this pointer to show you -- and this came right out of the neighborhood meetings. All we are required to have is sidewalk right here on the frontage that Carl and Bonnie own. But we are taking sidewalk from this point clear to this property. The other lady that spoke owns this. We are taking it right to her property line. There is sidewalk on this from Havasu Creek to her property and, then, we are taking sidewalk from this point here. So, we are putting sidewalk in on property that Carl and Bonnie don't even own, because that came out of the neighborhood meeting. They were very concerned about the safety and having more sidewalks. We did add berming and it's on the landscape plan. On the front, Locust Grove, and also to separate the office from the residential. And we did commit to a value and I will state it again, the marketing analysis, homes will start between 140 to 160 thousand in Razzberry Crossing. And when you take a PUD approach, you do get some smaller lots, but the compromise is you get a park and we have got two parks spaces. And so that's a better way, I think, to look at development and neighborhood scale when you can compromise on lot size, but get something in return. To Mr. Montaney's comments, again, this area is urbanizing. We are trying to comply your Comprehensive Plan for the neighborhood center. The neighbors did ask for better traffic connections. This is not a started home project. There are some starter homes being built in this neighborhood to the north, but this is not, this is a move up nitch market. All of the offices are single story and the photos that I have shown at the neighborhood meeting and here tonight. And our density is about four units per acre. It's 8.4 acres residential, divided by 34 lots and it's right at about just a little over four units per acre. Borup: It's how much residential? Forrey: It's about 8.4 acres. Borup: And your total acreage? Forrey: Thirty-four lots. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 85 of 89 Borup: Okay. Forrey: And that 40 foot is there for side -- the 40 -- the minimum lot size -- or frontage for 40 feet is to allow side entry garages for some of the architectural variety that we have talked about. So, you can have some creative way to get a side entry garage or a shared driveway, that type of situation. To Mrs. Ham's comments, in meeting with the highway district and also, again, out of the neighborhood meetings, the reason we have decided that it's best to take this street and go south and this street and go north is because there is already a stub street here in Havasu Creek and if we make this connection, we will have, eventually, as this area urbanizes, a parallel local street off of the arterial and so it's better to get pedestrians and bicyclists and cars outside of the arterial to be able to go north-south and, of course, east-west and -- Borup: That's assuming the other property develops. Forrey: Yes. That's making that assumption. But the reason we are doing it is because the highway district required it here. And now that Mr. Johnson has that, perhaps when he develops his property you would require him et cetera, et cetera, and it's just leap frogging south and you get into that neighborhood center again and that's part of in the Comprehensive Plan about that connectivity. So, hopefully, it will give you some north-south movement outside of the arterial. And, yes, we would have the same fencing as Havasu Creek, six foot cedar. And Mrs. Ingram raised some issues and there were neighbors at the neighborhood meeting, the first and the second, that said we like the office. Take away the townhomes and the apartments, we love it, and they said you're on the right track with office. Now, not everyone and when I made my presentation I said some neighbors like the office and that's true, some of them said, okay, you know, I'm not happy with it, but it's better than the townhomes. Or some said, well, okay, I can live with it. Not everyone was that way, but we felt we had reached a good compromise here. Borup: That's been consistent with what we have seen before. Most people would rather have office than apartments. Forrey: And, then, again, she talked about the sidewalk and, again, that sidewalk would be across this parcel here. That's actually owned by Mr. Grasmick and I don't think Mr. Grasmick is here tonight. But we agreed with the highway district to make that connection, so those are the issues that all came out of the neighborhood coordination. Be happy to answer any other questions. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Zaremba: Just an orientation question, I guess. Since the Comprehensive Plan designates the area that -- of your property contacts Locust Grove and as the neighborhood center -- Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 86 of 89 Forrey: Yes. Zaremba: -- most of those on the Comprehensive Plan are in the middle of the mile section. So, am I right that Star Lane is the halfway point on the mile section? Forrey: It's not. We are kind of on the northern edge of that curve. That neighborhood center arch comes kind of like this to the south and down to Heritage Commons. So, the center is Mr. Johnson's property right in here, of the center of the neighborhood center. So, we are on the northern edge of the neighborhood center and Heritage Commons is on the southern edge of the neighborhood center. So, the center is yet to happen. We are on the edges of it. Zaremba: I guess what I was trying to guess is that if this was at the halfway point, it would be eligible for a signal at some point, maybe ten years from now, but it may be the closest one to the halfway point. Forrey: Could be. Borup: Or Mr. Johnson's property. Zaremba: There may be another one a little farther south. Well, you would have to offset -- there can't be another street until, what, 300 feet from this one. So, I don't see any way that it doesn't comply with the Comprehensive Plan. It, actually, promotes most of the issues that have been through long public hearings of many people over a couple of years and was adopted after much public discussion and is the instrument that guides us. I see nothing in this that in any way contradicts the Comprehensive Plan. Borup: Any other questions or comments while Mr. Forrey is here? Thank you. Forrey: Thank you very much. Borup: Thank you. Okay. Commissioners, how would you like to proceed? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move the Public Hearing on items 13, 14, and 15 be closed. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the public hearings. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: I think I have already expressed my opinion that this is a vast improvement over what was presented before and that it is in alignment with the Comprehensive Plan as far as I can see. Most of the objections I heard were being made to the previous plan, which is not in front of us. The discussion about whether it should be offices or Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 87 of 89 some other commercial -- in the Comprehensive Plan process this area was designated as a neighborhood center, which means offices or commercial or -- Mr. Forrey is right, it could be anywhere from a gas station to a professional office, would be legitimately approved in an area like that. I personally like the office selection. Part of what keeps traffic down is having professional offices in the neighborhoods. That's the reason that the neighborhood centers have become a part of the plan. People from the residences can walk to dental appointments or maybe even to work if they work there. This may be a small parcel, so I don't know how much it's going to cut down traffic just to have all that, but that's one of the other issues. This is a very small, difficult parcel to design for and, I agree, part of the PUD is to get some open space in there, to get some variety. They can't be required to put sidewalks on both sides of Locust Grove all the way down to the school. They have gone even farther than the city could legally require them to do by doing the next property to the north of them. I don't know. I find myself being in favor of this project. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I concur with Commissioner Zaremba. The issue that seems to be before us is that there is a rural lifestyle that has one residence per acre in that specific location and they would like to maintain that. This -- you're not going to get that. I mean any development is going to have more than one home per acre, more than likely, on this tract of land and from the proposal that was brought before you a year ago, this is vast improvement from that development perspective, because of the multi-family apartment complex moving to 34 lots and four -- is it four commercial lots. I think? Zaremba: Four professional office, six common lots. Rohm: Yeah. And I think that this is a good compromise. It may not be what everybody that's lived there for years would have if they have it their way, but it's a vast improvement over the proposal that came before you a year ago. And, secondly, it falls within the Comprehensive Plan. We are -- that's what our Bible is -- Borup: The Comprehensive Plan doesn't address zoning, it's medium density and that falls within that guideline, I believe. Is that accurate? Zaremba: Uh-huh. It qualifies as medium density. Kirkpatrick: Medium density is R-4 to R-8. Zaremba: And the Comprehensive Plan allows you to step up or down from there as well, so -- Kirkpatrick: Actually, they could have come in and asked for high density, R-15, R-40. They could have requested one step up. Zaremba: Uh-huh. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 88 of 89 Borup: Okay. Commissioner, you were -- Rohm: No. I'm pretty much done. It's just -- I want everyone to know that, seriously, we listen to your concerns and we try to provide a balance as we make our judgments going through this process and it's not that we are not listening to anything that you're saying, it's just from the proposals that we see twice every month, this is working towards that end and it's not that we are not listening to your concerns, but I'm with Commissioner Zaremba, that this is a good compromise from where we were before and it falls within the Comprehensive Plan and I lend my support. Mathes: It's a good in-fill project. Zaremba: I think this is a result of comments already being listened to. Rohm: Exactly. Zaremba: The whole change in the process, the whole change in this project is a result of the objections that were raised before and I feel that this is an answer to most of the objections that I heard and understood. Rohm: From the first proposal. Right. Zaremba: From the previous proposal. Rohm: And I think that, basically, what the folks were saying is, okay, well, now we have generated a whole new list of objections and each proposal that would come before us would have a different set of objections, but to the same end, that they didn't want further development. So, I think that's kind of where I finish out on this. Zaremba: In that case, Mr. Chairman -- Borup: Are we ready for a motion? I'm ready. Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of item 13 on our agenda, AZ 03-034, request for annexation and zoning of 11.31 acres from RUT to R-8 and L-O zones for proposed Razzberry Crossing by Carl and Bonnie Reiterman, south of East McMillan Road and west of North Locust Grove Road, to include all staff comments of the staff memo for the hearing date of January 8, 2004, received by the City Clerk January 5th, 2004, with the following changes: On page four, comment I, the second sentence of the staff comment can be deleted, subject property is not located in the Five Mile flood plain, so that subject can be deleted. Let's see. Are we still on -- that ends the annexation and zoning comments, so end of motion. Rohm: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 89 of 89 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 14 on our agenda, PP 03-039, request for preliminary plat approval of 34 residential building lots, four professional office lots, and six common lots on 11.31 acres in proposed R-8 and L-O zones for proposed Razzberry Crossing by Carl and Bonnie Reiterman, south of East McMillan Road and west of North Locust Grove Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of January 8th, 2004, received by the City Clerk January 5, 2004, with the following changes. On page six, first sentence at the top of the page can be deleted. Farther down page six under site specific comments preliminary plat, paragraph eight can be deleted. On page eight I would add a paragraph eight that a letter of approval from the street naming committee shall be required with a note that West Star Lane should be changed to East Star Lane. End of preliminary plat. End of motion. Rohm: Second. 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 15 on our agenda, CUP 03-062, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development containing a mix of residential and professional use -- professional office uses in proposed R-8 and L-O zones for proposed Razzberry Crossing by Carl and Bonnie Reiterman, south of East McMillan Road and west of North Locust Grove Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of January 8, 2004, received by the City Clerk January 5, 2004, with the following changes: On page ten, comment I, the last sentence of the staff comment, nearly all of the subject property, that sentence can be deleted. End of changes, end of Conditional User Permit, end of motion. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Okay. Thank you. That concludes our meeting. I just wanted the public to know that we do appreciate your input and we do try to take it in consideration. Some of the things we do as a Commission have to go by the Comprehensive Plan and our city ordinances. We are restricted to that more so than the City Council is. Thank you. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 90 of 89 Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move that we adjourn. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second to adjourn. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:55 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED ______________________________ _____|_____|_____ KEITH BORUP - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: _____________________________________ WILLIAM G. BERG, JR, CITY CLERK