Loading...
2004 01-15Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting January 15, 2004 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M., on Thursday, January 15, 2004, by Chairman Keith Borup. Members Present: Chairman Keith Borup, Michael Rohm, Leslie Mathes, and David Zaremba. Others Present: Chris Gabbert, Tara Green, Jolene Robles, Bruce Freckleton, Anna Powell, Craig Hood, Brad Hawkins-Clark, Wendy Kirkpatrick, and Dean Willis. Item 1. Roll-Call Attendance: ___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 regular scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for January 15th . Roll call of Commissioners. Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda: Borup: Adoption of the agenda. Any comments or changes or adopt the agenda as written? Zaremba: As written. Item 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve minutes of December 18, 2003 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: Borup: Okay. The first Item is minutes of December 18th . Mathes: I have something. Borup: Okay. Commissioner Mathes. Mathes: On Page 1 it says that I was here on December 18th and I was not here. Borup: Shame on you. Mine says you were absent. Mathes: Whatever this page is. Borup: Oh, the other page. Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 2 of 125 Mathes: Page 1. Borup: All right. Yes. The cover sheet was correct the other one was not. All right. Thank you. Zaremba: Let's see. I have no corrections to these minutes, but I would only comment, again, for the record that we still have not seen October 6, 2003, and now we have not seen December 4, 2003. If we approve the minutes of December 18th , we have moved passed both of those. We have two of them that are still outstanding. October 16th and December 4th , both of 2003, I have not seen yet. Green: We'll get those to you. Zaremba: That being said and hearing no other comments, Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve the Consent Agenda, which means the minutes of December 18, 2003, as written. I'm sorry, with the one amendment made by Commissioner Mathes. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Powell: Chairman Borup, before you open the first public meeting, can I make a quick introduction from our new Deputy City Clerk? Borup: Yes. Please do. Powell: This is Jolene Robles and she comes to us from, I believe, the St. Anthony area and she is our new Deputy City Clerk, so she will, I believe, start taking over for Tara probably at these hearings. Item 4. Continued Public Hearing from November 6, 2003: AZ 03-025 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 57.84 acres from RUT to C-G zones for Blue Marlin by W. H. Moore Company – northwest corner of East Ustick Road and North Eagle Road: Borup: Okay. Welcome. We do have a -- this was a Continued Public Hearing. We do have a letter in our packet again requesting to be continued one more time. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would move that we continue this hearing to our meeting of February 19th as the next available date. Borup: The question I would have is, staff, has there been any communication with them? Are -- is that adequate time this time or -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 3 of 125 Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, yes, it is. The main reason it was delayed the first time, if you recall, was there was some disagreement with the staff's report and I think there has been some ground made, at least to the point that they're willing to have the hearing now. The problem is that they did not get the property posted 10 days before this hearing, so we could not have -- we could not open the hearing tonight because of the posting issue. Borup: Wasn't it posted the first time? Hawkins-Clark: No, I don't believe it was. Borup: Oh, we couldn't have held the first hearing either. Hawkins-Clark: Right. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: If it hasn't been posted, then, the hearing hasn't been opened, so a motion to continue it is not in order. We should table it. Semantics, but -- Borup: Well, right. Our -- it's been -- Hawkins-Clark: We do have a representative -- Borup: A couple of months ago, it was back in November -- Zaremba: I thought it had been opened at one time and we did continue it. Borup: That's the way it's written is that it's a continuation. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, if it was continued the first time, I think staff would recommend that it be continued again. Borup: Right but if it wasn't noticed -- if it wasn't posted the first time -- it wasn't posted or it wasn't noticed? Hawkins-Clark: Posted. Borup: If it wasn't posted the first time, we never should have opened that hearing either, should we? Hawkins-Clark: That's correct. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 4 of 125 Borup: But it wasn't noticed, so there could have been public -- because we had the paper notification and letters went out and everything else. Okay. Okay. That's a good date. You said February 19th and -- Zaremba: This is just a suggestion. Borup: It's a pretty open agenda and -- Zaremba: We continue it, as opposed to table it. Green: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if it has not been posted, we have to renotice it. It will have to be a whole new Public Hearing. Zaremba: Okay. In that case, I need to move that the Public Hearing be closed? Green: Correct and that we renotice it. Borup: Are we clear that it definitely was not -- Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, could I suggest -- we do have Mr. Seel here tonight representing the developer and they could clarify that on the record. Borup: Mr. Seel, would you like to go ahead and do that. Seel: Jonathan Seel, 600 N. Steelhead, Boise, Idaho, representing W.H. Moore Company. To my knowledge, it's never been opened. We elected to postpone it or -- Borup: So, we tabled it the first time. Seel: Tabled it, but there has never been a Public Hearing, to my knowledge. Borup: Okay. Seel: So, as they say, part of the thing was we were working some details out, we knew that January 5th was the date that we had to notice it. We didn't get it worked out by then, so, obviously, we couldn't have it tonight anyways, but we ask that it simply be tabled anyways. Borup: Well, it may have been opened and continued without public testimony. I don't know if anybody remembers two months ago without checking the minutes. Zaremba: We didn't have a public testimony. Seel: I think I might have a copy of the minutes here if you want to -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 5 of 125 Borup: Well, that's fine. Either way. I don't think it's going to change what we need to do. Seel: We are going to post it. Borup: There is plenty of time to post it and give proper notification, so whether we continue it or table it, I'm not sure -- Zaremba: If I know you're going to post it anyhow, that tells me, I think, how I want to frame my motion. Seel: Okay. We apologize for the inconvenience here. We just figured it was better to have things in order, then otherwise wasting your time. Borup: Okay. Seel: Thank you. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move a two-part hearing -- a two-part motion. One, that if this was previously opened according to -- this hearing on AZ 03-025 was previously opened as found in the records, that it be closed and, second, if it was never opened, I move that we re-calendar it for re-noticing for the February 19th meeting. Rohm: I will second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: That's a wonderful motion. We have never had one like that before. Rohm: I liked it, though. Creative. Item 5. Public Hearing: RZ 03-012 Request for a Rezone of .85 acre from R-15 to O-T for proposed Strickland Subdivision by Roy Strickland – 1125 Main Street: Item 6. Public Hearing: PFP 03-006 Request for Preliminary Final Plat approval of 2 building lots on .85 acre in a proposed O-T zone for proposed Strickland Subdivision by Roy Strickland – 1225 Main Street: Item 7. Public Hearing: CUP 03-063 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a medical office building in a proposed O-T zone for proposed Strickland Subdivision by Roy Strickland – 1225 Main Street: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 6 of 125 Borup: Okay. Actually, Mr. Seel, that really works out probably pretty good for us. We have got a pretty full agenda tonight and the 19th is not near as full. Okay. Next item -- project is Items 5, 6, and 7, and I'd like to open the Public Hearing RZ 03-012, request for Rezone .85 acres from R-15 to OT zoning for proposed Strickland Subdivision. Accompanying that will be Public Hearing PFP 03-006, request for Preliminary/Final Plat approval on two building lots and Public Hearing CUP 03-063, request for Conditional Use Permit to allow a medical office building in a proposed OT zone. Again, I'd like to open all three Public Hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Powell: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, I'm doing a little last minute pinch hitting for Steve, so, hopefully, I can get at least the highlights of the issues. This property is, as you see, located north of Washington Street. It straddles from Main Street to Meridian Road, has frontage on both streets. There is currently a -- currently our pointer is not working. Yes. There is a house on the east side of the property and currently nothing on the west side, as I understand it. The applicant is proposing a two- lot subdivision. As you see here, the house will stay on Lot 2 that fronts Main Street. The Conditional Use Permit that accompanies this application is only on Lot 1 that faces Meridian Road and there is an alley just to the south side of the property. Here, again, is the alley. This is the location for the proposed chiropractic office that will come in as part of the CU and, then, this is the parking lot for that area. This is the detail of that and, as you can see, there are some features to point out. There is a five foot separated sidewalk here with trees in between the sidewalk and the street, similar to what you see on Main Street. There is the office here and, then, the four rows of -- or five rows of parking area and a parking lot buffer before you get to the second lot. That's included as part of the subdivision. These are the elevations of the proposed chiropractic office and so that would be the one that faces -- this is the one that faces Meridian Road. No, this is the one that faces the parking lot. This is the one that faces Meridian Road. Sorry. Then, these are the side elevations. This is what the property owners would see from the north and, then, the alley would intervene between this one. The drive-thru alley goes through there. Just to hit some of the highlights of the applications. It does entail a Rezone from R-15 to Old Town and the Old Town is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation for the area. The Preliminary and Final Plat, they are combined plats, since there is only two of them. As I mentioned before, the street trees are in the -- between the sidewalk and the alley. I'm going to come back to this in a moment, because that was one of the special considerations. The existing house is not being modified by this application, so they are just requesting that it remain in a residential use until such time that they want to have it not be residential and, then, it will just have to comply with the zoning provisions at that time. The site does have more than adequate parking for the chiropractic offices as required by the zoning ordinance. Okay. Now, I'd like to go through some of the special considerations on page nine of the staff report. The Sign Ordinance does not address signs for Old Town, so we need to consider those sign requirements at this time. Steve had asked the applicant to come prepared tonight to show what they wanted to do as far as signs, so that you can review that and make a recommendation along with the application to the Conditional Use Permit application to the City Council. Because we Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 7 of 125 have no standards, it would be appropriate for you all to make that recommendation. Hopefully the applicant will have an update on that. Right of way. ACHD has agreed to a two-way alley in this location, so it would -- it would serve both coming in and out of the property. I know that many of the ones in downtown are one way, but they are proposing for this to be two-way and ACHD has approved that. You will see just a tiny gap here between the property line and the landscape buffer, that's they have dedicated additional right of way for the alley. I believe it's two feet. There seems to be some discrepancy on the trash enclosure that the applicant will need to address tonight. On one of the sheets it seems to be in the sewer easement, on the other one it seems to be out of that. We just need some clarification on where that trash enclosure will be. I seem to be having computer difficulties tonight and I'm not sure why. Okay. There we go. The trash enclosure looks to be in this location here. The parkway buffer -- and that's the area on the west side of the property here -- they have proposed a five foot staff -- five foot sidewalk. Staff is proposing that that be enlarged to 10 feet. What that would do is shift this down five feet. However, they have shown all their parking isles -- or spaces as 20 feet and, then, their parking isle is 24 feet. The City of Meridian requires 19 feet and 25 feet. There is -- they can pick up one, two, three, four feet of additional land by making the parking spaces the required width, but, then, they give up two feet here. It's a net of two feet at that point but, then, in addition to that we do allow 17 foot along here if it overhangs the landscape buffer, which it does in this case, so that gives them another two feet. They can pick up a total of four feet just by redoing their parking layout and that only leaves one more foot that they'd have to come up with. Staff is asking for that 10-foot walkway to be consistent with what's been done on Main Street in that area to kind of continue that kind of streetscape for the Old Town area. On the conditions of approval, Steve has left one that needs to be modified and that's Condition Number 3 in reference to the signs. With your -- with your motion someone will need to address the exact wording of that condition of approval. I think that ends staff's presentation. I will answer any questions you may have or hopefully I can. Mathes: I have a question. It might be for Bruce. Is pressurized irrigation available there or do they hook up to city water? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Mathes, the system is going to be hooked up to city water. Surface irrigation waters in Old Town are mostly on rotational -- the ditches aren't live all the time and it's rotational and unreliable. Borup: Okay. Any other questions? Zaremba: I do. I don't know whether it's a question or a comment, but it's a conundrum, I'll put it that way. Steve's research is accurate that ACHD is planning to make Meridian Road a three-lane and in some places a four-lane road. However, I also serve on Meridian's Transportation Task Force, which every year makes a recommendation to the City Council of what Meridian's priorities in the way of transportation ought to be. City Council approves it or changes it or whatever and forwards that onto ACHD, so that ACHD can pretty much ignore it. For the last four or Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 8 of 125 five years ACHD has had the recommendation from the City of Meridian that they plan on Meridian Road eventually someday being a five lane plus parking. I like this building forward concept, but that would seriously alter the right of way if ACHD ever listened to Meridian's request. Powell: Commissioner Zaremba, Chairman Borup, they haven't been totally not listening, because they are aware of that. We have discussed that if they were to move that way, if the city were to make a strong case for that or insist upon that, then, what they would do is take it on the other side. They recognize the existing constraints on the east side of Meridian Road and their plans would be to take that wholly from the west side. It would basically -- they would buy a lot of little houses there, but they do plan on -- if that needs to be done, it would be done from the west side of Meridian Road. Zaremba: I can accept that. Thank you. Borup: So, it looks like that's something we need to be aware of on future projects on the west side. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Okay. Anything else? Does the applicant have a presentation? Eldridge: Charles Eldridge. I'm with Specialty Homes. We are at 2525 Stokesberry in Meridian 83642. Rohm: I think you will need to speak up just a bit. Eldridge: Okay. Charles Eldridge, Specialty Homes, 2525 Meridian -- 2525 Stokesberry in Meridian. We represent Dr. Strickland as their construction managers and real estate brokers on this project and we are in agreement with all the conditions that have been set forth. We have been working with Steve Siddoway and -- closely and we feel that everything has pretty well been resolved. Basically, as it reviews in the staff report what we are trying to do is the Rezone to Old Town and, then, CUP for the doctor's office and, then, a subdivision to divide the property in two. As far as the monument sign, I do have copies -- or a copy here for you, but we weren't aware that that was a separate application until Friday, so we have been working trying to get that taken care of. We do have one proposal here. I guess I can show it to you. It's not all that detailed. The doctor's still deciding on the colors and things like that. We got rough colors, but -- Borup: I think that's fine. I don't know if -- we need to see what some of the Commissioners want, but I think one of the questions was -- now, you said you're okay with all of the staff's conditions of approval? Eldridge: Correct. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 9 of 125 Borup: Even on the number of signs? Eldridge: Yes. Borup: Okay. That was one of the most -- Zaremba: I was going to clarify that. Staff seemed to think you were asking for two independent signs on Meridian. Eldridge: Right. We are, actually, only asking for one. We are eliminating the north sign that was located on the north side of the site plan. Zaremba: And I think monument signs have been approved pretty easily, so I don't see that being a problem, as long as there is only one facing Meridian. I believe, though, that's in addition to anything that you might have on the building. Although, if you have a freestanding sign you're limited to the size of the one on the building, but you can also have one on the building. Eldridge: Right. Okay. Then, the only other concern that I did have is in discussing that walk -- that walkway, it actually -- my understanding was it was actually a 10 foot parkway between the sidewalk and the building, not a ten foot walkway, and that's the way I think it reads, it says it's a parkway. I just wanted to clarify that, where that had been addressed. Borup: I had a question on that same thing. Zaremba: Yes. I think that's Item Number 10 on Page 11 and it does say the parkway should change from five feet to ten feet. The sidewalk would still be five feet. Eldridge: We are just fine with that. Borup: Okay. Do we need clarification on that? Back to the sign. This is a multi-tenant building is that correct? Eldridge: It will be, yes. Borup: And are you anticipating all the tenants on that same sign? Eldridge: Correct. Borup: So, would it be an adequate size for you to handle that? Eldridge: Yes. There is enough spaces there. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 10 of 125 Borup: That was one of the staff comments, is that knowing the size or the size now would not require a new application for any other tenants coming in because it could all be approved at this time. Eldridge: Okay. Borup: For a multi-tenant. Eldridge: And, then, I guess there is one other thing. Borup: And it looks like size -- did any of the Commissioners want more detail on that sign? Would that in be compliance with the our normal monument sign as far as height and width and size? Eldridge: Well, my understanding in talking with Steve that there are no set specifications for the Old Town zones. Borup: Right. That's correct. I mean for other areas, it looked like it would be similar to what -- Eldridge: Yes. It's well within those parameters. Borup: Okay. It looked like it probably was. I did not see dimensions on it. Eldridge: Yes. It's basically six foot wide by four foot high. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: One of the conditions is reminding you that there is a separate sign permit process, so I'm not sure we need to actually approve the -- just the agreement that you're only planning on one of them is as far as we probably need to go. Eldridge: Right. Zaremba: And, then, you will make a separate plan for design? Eldridge: Yes. What we were attempting to do for that is we just found out that we didn't want to have to go through a whole additional CUP process just for the sign. Zaremba: I think that's a staff level approval, isn't it? Powell: The issue Chairman Borup, Commissioner Zaremba is that we have no standards so it's up to you to decide the number, size, type of wall signs and the monument sign. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 11 of 125 Zaremba: Would you like to make a recommendation that we could say for this property it should be the same as L-O zone? Powell: That would suffice. That would be fine. Zaremba: Is that the right zone? Powell: That would probably work well, yes. Borup: And it looks like what you propose is well within those criteria, so -- Eldridge: And then just one other clarification. The trash enclosure, it just looks like the layers on the drawings got mixed up a little bit, but it will be out of the sewer easement, the trash enclosure. She had addressed that as well. It will not be in the sewer easement, so -- Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Okay. I think that probably answers the questions. Anything else from any of the Commissioners? I think this will be one of the first -- well, no, I guess not. Yes, one of the first new buildings in Old Town in this area. Zaremba: Yes. Borup: Thank you, Mr. Eldridge. Eldridge: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else to testify of this application? Okay. Seeing none -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that these three hearings, Items 5, 6 and 7 on our agenda be closed. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close all three hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 5 on our agenda, RZ 03-012, request for a Rezone of .85 acre from R- 15 to OT for proposed Strickland Subdivision by Roy Strickland, 1125 Main Street, to include all staff comments of their memo for hearing date of January 15th , with no changes. Mathes: Second. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 12 of 125 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 6 on our agenda, PFP 03-006, request for Preliminary/Final Plat approval of two building lots on .85 acre in a proposed OT zone for proposed Strickland Subdivision by Roy Strickland, 1225 Main Street. On the previous item it was 1125 Main Street. Can we get a clarification on that? Borup: Okay. Zaremba: I will continue with this motion. 1225 Main Street. To include all of the staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of January 15, 2004, with the following changes: The -- I take that back. There are no changes on the Preliminary Plat. End of motion. 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 of Item 7 on our agenda, CUP 03-063, request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a medical office building in a proposed OT zone for proposed Strickland Subdivision by Roy Strickland, 1225 Main Street. To include all staff comments of their memo of January 15, 2004, with the following changes. On Page 11, condition of approval Number 3, the first paragraph can be deleted. I'm sorry. The first sentence of the paragraph can be deleted and the second sentence of the paragraph should read: One freestanding sign on Meridian Road will be allowed for the project as presented during the hearing. The second change is on Page 12 to Item 13 and I would amend the first sentence to read all signage shall be in accordance with the standards for an L- O zone set forth in this report and Section 11-14 of City Zoning and Development Ordinance. The second sentence remains. End of motion. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Okay. Thank you. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 13 of 125 Powell: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, we are having some computer difficulties here, so it might just be a second before the next one can -- Borup: Okay. Powell: Chairman, Members of the Commission, we are up and running again. Item 8. Public Hearing: AZ 03-035 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 70.64 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for proposed Settlement Bridge Subdivision by Capital Development – 2205 East McMillan Road: Item 9. Public Hearing: PP 03-041 Request for Preliminary Plat Approval of 266 single-family residential building lots and 34 common lots on 70.64 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Settlement Bridge Subdivision by Capital Development – 2205 East McMillan Road: Item 10. Public Hearing: CUP 03-065 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development to allow single family residential and attached single family in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Settlement Bridge Subdivision by Capital Development – 2205 East McMillan Road: Borup: Oh, good. Okay. Thank you for your patience, ladies and gentlemen. We'd like to continue with Settlement Bridge Project, Items 8, 9, and 10. I'd like to open Public Hearing AZ 03-035, request for Annexation and Zoning of 70.67 from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Settlement Bridge Subdivision by Capital Development. Also Public Hearing PP 03-041, request for Preliminary Plat approval 266 single-family residential lots. Public Hearing CUP 03-065, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development on the same project. Again, open all three Public Hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Items 8, 9, and 10, as you stated, include a request for development on a 70 acre site located on the east side of Locust Grove Road and on the south side of McMillan Road, south and east of an Idaho Power substation, which is located right on the corner here. The site is currently zoned RUT in the county. Just to give you some more bearings, this is the site here. Edinburgh Place is the subdivision here. Vienna Woods is to the north of that. The recently approved Havasu Creek development is here. There are some county parcels here. The city limits -- actually, this is the annexation path for this site here. Then, to the south is the RUT zoned property and the county Heritage subdivision. The area of impact actually goes right along side this property and kind of does this number here and this will be right near the edge of the future city limits. The applicant has applied for Annexation and Zoning, Preliminary Plat, and Conditional Use Permit approval for a planned development for 266 single family residential building lots and 34 common lots within the R-8 zone. The gross density of the proposed development is 3.7 dwelling units per acre. The applicant is proposing to develop the site in six phases, starting from Locust Grove over in this direction. Of the 266 buildable lots, 168 will be single- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 14 of 125 family detached units and 98 will be for single-family attached units. I have included in this presentation a -- excuse me -- a typical or a common elevation for one of the possible units that may -- or what these attached units may look like on those lots. In addition, there is a reference in the staff report to shared driveways, so I thought that would be important to include that, too. This is what a shared driveway would look like. As you can see, they're offset a little bit, but the front porches, there is a little bit of -- excuse me -- variation in the front elevations there and setback for the different units. This is the site, as it exists today. Actually, I was out there taking some pictures. This is the north slough and I apologize for the quality of the pictures. This is -- the Idaho Power Substation is here. They do have landscaping adjacent to the Idaho Power Substation on all four sides. There is a -- the North Slough runs along that north side of that facility and, then, there is another feeder ditch that's on the Locust Grove side of that facility here. A couple of things I guess that I would like point out. There are two existing homes and some other out buildings that are currently on this site near McMillan Road. One of the homes is kind of hidden back here in this neat little area that in the staff report is called The Grove. The applicant is proposing to utilize the majority of that grove area as park, future park area, and the city is working with the developer as well to try to acquire a well site near that park area. That is one of the amenities in the CUP that the applicant has proposed, along with about seven acres of open space, and there are tot lots as well on some of them back here. There is a tot lot on this common lot here. All of the -- and a tot lot on this lot here. This is a common area, some lineal common area throughout the development that way. That grove area is in this location here that was just on a previous picture. There is a micropath that runs here connecting this cul-de-sac over there. I would like to touch on a couple of the other highlights of this subdivision, I guess, and what I think are good design features. On the City's Comprehensive Plan, the multi-use pathway is called for in approximately this location. The applicant is going to be constructing that portion that abuts their site along the North Slough, which is being relocated slightly. In some of these areas, it's being relocated and the 10-foot wide multi-use pathway will be constructed in there. With that, when you get up to McMillan Road in this area here, our ordinance requires a 35 wide foot landscape buffer, because as I mentioned earlier in my presentation, the city limits just start just to the east of this, so this is our Comprehensive Plan. An entryway corridor, gateway street, and in which -- and, therefore, a 35 foot wide landscape buffer is required adjacent to the and outside of the future right-of-way for McMillan Road. With relocation of the slough, that makes -- the slough is gong to be, again, in this location here and the Settlers Irrigation District will require an easement for that and they normally do not like trees in their easements. That makes the applicant -- puts them in a tough spot of putting in trees one per 35 per our ordinance, one for every 35 feet. Staff has recommended alternative compliance for the landscaping requirement on that -- just this section of the roadway and do some low lying shrubs or whatever else Settlers will allow within their irrigation easement for that slough. I'm going to jump on the other side of the road now and on the submitted Preliminary Plat, the applicant is showing 48 feet of right-of-way from the center line of McMillan Road, which will be in the future a five-lane roadway. I believe that project's 12 or 13 years out on ACHD's CIP. The applicant has, since this was submitted, worked with the Highway District and is going to be dedicating 38 feet of right-of-way Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 15 of 125 and constructing the detached sidewalk within an easement provided to the Highway District for the general public to use that. Then, within -- that sidewalk will also be within the 35-foot wide landscape buffer that the city requires. It is a slight modification, because usually our -- the landscape buffers do not include the sidewalk. In this case, staff is recommending approval of that, including a 35-foot wide buffer, including the five-foot wide sidewalk. I will jump to the landscape buffer now on Locust Grove Road. This is -- the applicant is showing a 35-foot wide -- and, actually, this is only a 25 foot wide required landscape buffer. I do want to point out -- and I apologize for the quality of this plat, but Idaho Power -- this is that site again here, but they have a little flag that comes down right adjacent to Locust Grove Road right in this area. The applicant does not have frontage for his last couple hundred feet there on Locust Grove Road in that area and that's one of the applicant's concerns. Actually, in the letter -- I hope you all received that. I think it just got faxed over today. One of the applicant's concerns was the Preliminary Plat condition number four and in the findings it does -- in special consideration it does call that out. The condition got to be a little wordy, so I removed some of that, explaining what was going on there with the Idaho Power property. I do have some language I would propose to the Commission to just kind of clean that up. For any portion that they do not have frontage on, they should not have to be required to construct a sidewalk, that will be done by either Idaho Power or Sheridan Place Subdivision is utilizing this Idaho Power site as a part of their annexation request as well. That was before this board last month, I believe, and will be up again for hearing either the first of February or the second hearing in February, I believe. With that application, anyways, the sidewalks should be required to be constructed to make that whole pedestrian connectivity there. I do have -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, Craig, if I could interrupt for a second. That portion of the sidewalk would be whose responsibility? Idaho Power's? Hood: That is being worked out. Steve Siddoway is actually working on that report. I did glance through his draft of that report and it would be a requirement of the Sheridan development -- now, if they work with Idaho Power on where the funds come from, I don't know how that's going to be worked out. It will be a proposed condition, anyways, of the Sheridan Place Subdivision, because that is part of their annexation site application, so -- Zaremba: Thank you. Hood: I guess I'm just going to just go through some of the points in the applicant's letter. Number 5 deals with common drives. Staff is okay with a modification to that. It's kind of just preference that I have had that those be in easements, rather than their own lots, but if you delete the second sentence in condition number five -- and, I apologize, I don't remember what page that's on. Preliminary Plat Condition Number 5, delete that second sentence. I believe that will clear that up and just not require those two lots to have any frontage. They will use a common driveway lot for access to those lots. Then, Condition Number 12, again, on the Preliminary Plat requires the license agreement with Settlers Irrigation for those shrubs and I guess I want to apologize for Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 16 of 125 not including that in the original staff report. If there does become a snag with the applicant acquiring -- I have talked with Nathan Draper at Settlers. He told me that he doesn't have a problem with low-lying shrubs within that easement, along McMillan Road. However, if the applicant runs into a snag, we would just ask, I guess, that staff be allowed to work with the applicant on coming up with some way to kind of make it look nice out there or whatever Settlers will allow to happen out there. The condition as stated requires them to get that license agreement, but just to clean up, I guess, the worst-case work with staff if you feel comfortable with that. Condition Number 14 is the encroachment agreement on that kind of the same side and I want to point to it here. There are -- 10 feet of these buildable lots are actually within a proposed irrigation district easement and -- which is fairly typical. What we would like to see is an encroachment agreement for any buildable lots that do have an easement and, therefore, take away usable area for those future homeowners that are basically paying taxes on things they couldn't use. If there is an easement there, we want to have an encroachment agreement with Settlers for any area that has that easement over those buildable lots. I'm all right with the applicant's proposed language for number 14 and Bruce is -- yes. Then, Number 15, 16, 17, I'm going to let Bruce and the applicant kind of discuss those before you. I'm not going to waist your time with -- I don't know a lot about what's going on there, so for this one. Number 21 is the pathway easement that's required for the North Slough. There was some confusion in the working of that language. If we just delete the parentheses at the end of that condition, as the applicant has stated in the letter, I think it will clarify it. I think there was some confusion as -- each phase will require that easement to be done not when the first phase goes in you don't have to give us an easement for the whole pathway, it can be done with each Final Plat phase. That was -- that will clear that up if we just delete that parenthesis. Number 23, I'll let the applicant state his case on that one. I just want to give you my understanding of -- the revised plats the City Council usually likes to look at any changes that may be made at this hearing by staff. It's pretty common that they want to see what changes have happened. The applicant's asking that they not be required to submit revised plans to the City Council, that they submit the plans after the City Council will select the final action and not just this body. I'll leave that at that. I would like to add a Condition Number 24 and this is due to the Highway District's action on this plat. I'm going to point again to some -- for lack of a better term, some fingers on the end of streets that don't have turnarounds and in the staff report there is a finger there and a finger here that don't have turnarounds on them and ACHD would like to see turnarounds. Instead of the turnarounds, the applicant has decided to put -- make those private streets. I would just like to add a Condition Number 24. Staff's okay with that. There is I think, six lots that would use this -- six or seven. I can't remember. Four lots. Okay. Four lots on this one and, then, this one has maybe seven or eight attached units that use -- six -- six units up there. That Condition Number 24, if you like that language, those two streets are Sharp Shooter Court and Swift Water Drive. I have drafted a condition. It's really very basic, but construct Sharp Shooter Court and Swift Water Street as private streets in accordance with Meridian City Code. We can -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, Craig, excuse me, again. Even if ACHD would be comfortable with those, simply because they were private streets, how about our Fire Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 17 of 125 Department? They are usually the ones that want someplace to turn around or back up or whatever. Hood: Mr. Chair, Mr. Zaremba, the Fire Department was okay with these as public roadways, because they can still use -- they don't turn around in them, they pull in and do a three point turn and get out and they can still do that with a private street. Zaremba: Because they are short enough? Hood: They are less than 150 feet. That's correct. These are all less than 150 feet and, technically, I don't know all the -- why ACHD required turnarounds anyway, because I thought that sub streets don't require turnarounds if they are less than 150 feet. I don't know the whole history behind that, but the Fire Department is okay with those going to private streets, as long as they can -- they will have their 25 feet of clear still and get in there and back up, rather than turning around within that private road easement, so -- Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Hood: That is, I believe, the applicant's concerns on the Preliminary Plat. Just really quickly on the CUP, there were a couple of issues there. Number 2 was to -- again, it refers to these common driveways that were 25 foot wide common driveway lots, rather than having each lot be flags in frontage down. If you decide to change Preliminary Plat Condition Number 4, CUP Condition Number 2 should also be changed. If the Commission desires that, I have got some language for that and, basically, it reads lots 53 and 54 of Block 1 and Lots 34 and 35 of Block 2 shall not be required to have any front -- any street frontage, because common driveways are being utilized. Then, Conditional Use Permit Site-Specific number three, I'm all right with the applicant's verbiage there to add that sentence. We would, actually -- or I would, actually, prefer that be the multi-use pathway. I guess I'd better back up here. The pathway is on the south side of the slough until you enter their main entrance, which is Schumann, which aligns with Schumann across McMillan. The pathway is on the south side and, then, at this location it jumps over to the north side and serves as a sidewalk and multi-use pathway in this area here. The applicant just would like it to be available that they construct that all on one side and I think that's a good idea myself. It makes the crossing of Schumann a lot easier, rather than having people cross at a diagonal or cross straight across and, then, using the sidewalk to get back on the multi-use path, it kind of lines it up in a little bit better direction. The submitted traffic study showed about 15,00 trips a day on this section of the roadway, so having pedestrians and multiple vehicles crossing there, I think the design could be better if it's all on one side, but I think it could be worked out either way, but I do like the idea of it being all one side. Then, the last one I think was CUP Condition Number 5 and I'm all right with adding that language as the applicant has requested. It's, actually, covered in the Preliminary Plat section with the sidewalks that allows applicant to construct, again, that multi-use pathway in this location, rather than having a 10-foot pathway and, then, a five-foot sidewalk using just that asphalt pathway as a pedestrian pathway. With that I will stand Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 18 of 125 for any questions and, then, I'm going to pass the mike over to Bruce to have him address those earlier concerns. Borup: Questions at this time? Zaremba: I have questions through you about ACHD. Am I understanding correctly, if it's on ACHD's Consent Agenda for January 28th , they are going to approve it without discussion, which means they have no changes that they are suggesting? We don't have a copy of the ACHD report. Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba -- and I have had the privilege of reading the staff report and I did see it was on the Consent Agenda. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that it won't be discussed. Someone from the public could come and ask to testify on it, it gets pulled off the agenda and discussed. However, this application, I don't know there are a lot of issues with the highway district that affect what the City of Meridian does. They -- I don't see any real highway district issues with this plat is what I'm trying to say, I guess. It could be discussed, but on the Consent Agenda, nine times out of ten they do just get approved on the Consent Agenda, so I'll let the applicant -- Zaremba: One of the items you actually brought up and that would be some of the street widths. The other one that I would be curious about is the alignment of the entry road on Locust Grove, why it doesn't align with Red Rock or whatever it is that's right across street from it. Hood: I can help you out maybe a little bit with that. Although, I did not measure, I do have some history there at the Highway District. I'm going to guess that the offset from their main entrance to Red Rock -- and I don't remember if it's north Havasu or south. It's probably 300 feet plus and that's the minimum offset that that street has to be either aligned or you're offset 300 feet. The applicant can verify that and his engineers is here as well, so -- Zaremba: Okay. Hood: -- that's -- if you want to talk about streets maybe a little bit more, I could -- the street sections that you're referring to are these to -- another finger and this T here. Staff has recommend that these be connected. These are 29 foot streets sections with parking on one side and these are the attached units, so you start cutting driveways in there and having cars parked in there, you really can't get around. Then, you're asking these people to -- and I don't remember the exact number of units that are on these dead-end streets, but, you know, you have a couple people over to visit and the streets get blocked and there is no room for people to park. Just for the traffic flow and to add a couple of parking areas, staff has asked that these two be -- streets connected together and the applicant has consented that, too. All the other street sections -- there are -- there are three different street sections that the applicant's proposing, 29 foot street sections back of curb to back of curb, 33 back to back, and the standard 36 back to back. Those -- in the staff report from ACHD -- and I apologize, but they just did get Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 19 of 125 it done and I got an e-mailed copy just this week, Monday, I believe, or maybe it was Friday, but just had a chance to look at it and there weren't anything that jump out at me anyways as being issues for this board, so -- Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Borup: Mr. Freckleton, you had some comments on 15, 16, and 17? Freckleton: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. Yes, specifically items 15, 16, and 17. Zaremba: Tell me the page again, please. Freckleton: Pages 16 and 17. Zaremba: Thank you. Freckleton: No. That's not right 17. Excuse me. It is Page 17. I guess, first of all, I need to talk a little bit about water supply in the northeast corner of our area of impact. It's an area that we've identified as kind of -- kind of being one of our weaker areas around. We have -- we have been discussing for quite some time how we can improve the system in the area. We filed for a water right at our Well 20 site, which is -- which is by our elevated tank -- or, excuse me, our ground level tank on Ustick Road. We filed for a water right to drill another well there in March of this year. Very shortly, after we filed for that water right, a protest was filed by United Water Corporation, which basically put the brakes to well development for the City of Meridian until this issue was taken care of. The protest was withdrawn in the end of December, after a lot of negotiations, but the City of Meridian had been talking with a developer on Locust Grove south of Chinden regarding a well site. Things are going pretty well on that site still. We think that it's going to happen. Our staff engineer has determined through modeling that the site on Locust Grove south of Chinden is a good site. However, the overall supply needed in the area is going to require two wells and so when this project came in shortly after -- shortly after we had our pre-app meetings and everything on it, our City Engineer approached the developer regarding the acquisition of a well site within this development. Negotiations have been going on even as late as this afternoon. We still -- we think we are getting close. There are still a lot of unanswered questions. Can you put up the plat? A site that we have been kind of zeroing in on is right up in the corner of this common lot. What we have talking about is basically carving out a little corner here for a well site. We are kind of to the point with our water system that -- and I think you can tell from my staff report, that we need to get supply on line. It's to the critical point and we need to get either the site south of Chinden or this site into the system before we are real comfortable with bringing a whole lot of houses on line. We have talked about a lot of options for this property. There have been discussions with the developer regarding donation of the land. There has been discussion of offsets in assessment fees, hookup fees, that of sort of thing. Those are issues that we are kind of talking about here in Item 15 and it's something that I don't Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 20 of 125 think that you folks can really address, this is a question that the City Council is going to have to take up, they are the only ones that really have the authority and power to approve of such an offset. Tonight I can't tell you we have a well site. I think we are getting pretty close. Things are looking pretty good. From our perspective, what we would like to have is the ability to get on the piece property and also the piece of property up by Chinden to drill test wells and the purpose of those is going to tell us if we even have a viable aquifer, if we have a decent well in this location. Hopefully, between the two we will have one. It would be great if we had two, but if we could get one good hole, we think we would be in pretty good shape and we could see the first phase of this development going forward. Until such time, the Public Works Department isn't prepared to basically sign on to the first phase moving forward, at least through signature on Final Plat, until we got some supply lined up. I know that kind of leaves you guys hanging a little bit here. Item Number 16 and 17 -- Borup: Well, 15 doesn't really address that problem. Zaremba: That's irrigation. Borup: That's -- I mean -- and the written response from the applicant seems to indicate that they are open to donating the land even. Their question was do they donate the land and still have to pay an assessment fee on the open area that they are donating part of it for a well, so -- and that's what I think they are asking if that can be worked out with the staff. You're saying that's going to have to be really decided by City Council. Freckleton: Correct. Borup: I understand that, but at least it appears from the written response that they're planning on a well on their site and just want some clarification on that, but I didn't see anything -- did you have anything in your staff report on the concern on the water supply? Zaremba: It was in the discussion. I don't think it ended up in the conditions. Freckleton: I got Annexation and Zoning comments. Borup: Okay. Freckleton: Page 14. Borup: Was it on 14? Okay. Freckleton: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I believe where we are -- and the applicant maybe could address this far better than I, but I believe where we are at is it's a donation, but they want the offsets or it's a purchase. We haven't really talked about a purchase price Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 21 of 125 and we really haven't talked about a value of what kind offsets they are looking for. There is a cost either way. Zaremba: And you'd like to test before you even discover if it's worth doing. Freckleton: Yes Zaremba: Let me ask a question that shows my ignorance about water systems, I guess. What would be the end result to this open space once -- if a well does go in there, I assume that there is a big rig that comes in and actually digs the well, but once that goes away, what's the visual impact? Is there any kind of a tank that has to remain or a pump house that has to be above ground? Borup: Yes. Good question. Zaremba: What does it do to their open area? Freckleton: Basically their open area -- and this is one of the -- I mean it's a beautiful area. Large mature trees. What's -- what our intent would be, would to go in and try and build a well house that is going to blend in with the neighborhood and with the subdivision. Zaremba: So, there would be a building above ground? Freckleton: There would be a building above ground. There would not be any tanks. The building would be approximately 15 foot square, 15 to 20 foot square. We would work within the development's architectural control committee as far as material types and that sort of thing to try and blend in with the neighborhood. Excuse me. The landscaping berm and treatments that would go across the frontage of McMillan Road would be continued right across the front. The only thing you would have would be -- we would have an access in off of McMillan Road and the applicant and I have talked about what kind treatment that would be. They are asking that it be maybe grass crete type material, so that it blends in better, you know, so that we still have our access, but that it blends in and it's more attractive. We will investigate that as a possibility and see if that will work. From McMillan Road I doubt you would even know that there was a well there or a well house there. Their berm and their fence and the landscaping would pretty much hide it. It would be hidden back behind the berm. From the interior of the subdivision, this is a common lot that's going to be -- you know, it's going to be grass and it's a real nice park-like setting with trees and that sort of thing. Our well house at least at this point we do plan on having fences around it. The buildings are secure, so as far as usable space around the well house itself, you know, it could be grass right up to where we're going to have to have a little bit of a parking area there by it for when we come in. It certainly is our intent to blend right in and kind of be camouflaged back in there, so -- unless you have any other questions, I will move on to Items 16 and 17. Borup: Please. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 22 of 125 Freckleton: Sixteen and 17 I think there that was -- maybe the way I worded my comments or maybe it was just a misinterpretation of where I was -- of what I was getting at. The applicant was under the impression that I was asking for -- for them to dedicate easements beyond their first phase. Their first phase is out here on the Locust Grove frontage and I believe they thought I was asking them to dedicate easements all the way through, similar to what happened at the Paramount development with their first phase and that wasn't the intent. The intent of this note -- and this is kind of a boilerplate language, was that -- let's say their first phase was up in this corner up here. They're going to have to bring the sewer and water down through the development to connect up at Locust Grove and all this comment is saying is that they need to provide the easements to the City of Meridian across their off-site area to get the utilities to their first phase. I have talked with them about that and we're in agreement on that, so -- that was the intent -- the intent on that issue, so if you have got any further questions, I will -- Rohm: Does that need to be reworded any, then, or are we clarified on that? Freckleton: I guess I'll let you be the judge. I think it's pretty clear, but I was the one that wrote it, so -- Rohm: Well, if you want we could -- I mean it makes sense to me the way you just stated it, so -- Freckleton: Okay. Borup: Maybe the applicant may have a comment on that. Okay. That's concluded. Anything else, Mr. Hood? Any other questions from any of the Commissioners? Rohm: I want to go back to the water supply issue just for a moment if we could. As I understand it, there are two options to supply this subdivision. One would be a new well on the property or two would be a new well off site. Without having either one in hand, how do we move forward with no water supply? Because neither one of those are a given and I have a little bit of discomfort moving forward not knowing how we would serve specifically, so I throw that back to you, Bruce. Borup: I think your written comment says you wouldn't really want to proceed. Did you say earlier passed the first phase or was that just something else? Freckleton: Chairman Borup, I -- what I have got written into my report is that, you know, if we do not get a site, whether it be by purchase or by donation, that I would recommend not approving this development. We do not own the land south of Chinden on Locust Grove. We are in basically the same boat. We are negotiating on it as well. Our comfort level isn't solid. I'd feel much better about it if we had land. As we stand right now, we are negotiating on both sides. I think we are pretty close on the one north. As I stated, I think we are pretty close on this one as well, so -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 23 of 125 Zaremba: Let me ask an off-the-wall follow up if I can. If you did do a test well in this location, part of what they are saying is The Grove, and discovered either that there wasn't water there or it was so far down it was prohibitive to do, are there other options? I mean there is -- I realize it's a different utility that the City of Meridian doesn't own, but Idaho Power Substation is a utility and I wonder if outside of their fence area that there -- there is a lot of open space inside their fence, but I assume they're saving that for expansion for future subdivisions. Outside of their subdivision -- I'm sorry. Outside of their fence is some sizeable area that I wonder if there might not be something worked out. Maybe it's never happened before, but something worked out with them to put a city well in their landscape buffer. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, the proximity of the two would be -- Zaremba: Water and electricity too close? Freckleton: No. No. It's -- it's the aquifer that we are dealing with. I think if you move, you know, from this location to this location, you're probably -- Zaremba: If it's dry one place -- Freckleton: You're probably dealing with the same conditions below ground, being that close together. That is -- you know, getting back to Commissioner Rohm, we have the two sides that we have been working on. Talking with our staff engineer this afternoon it's our hope that we can put together an RFP to go out and do both test wells very shortly within the month. Zaremba: Are you saying that the staff engineer doesn't have a dowsing stick that he can go out-- Freckleton: No. No. What we would need, basically, would be the -- you know, written permission to get on the site to do the test well. Same thing we are doing on other site. The first phase of this development, as I mentioned, is on the Locust Grove frontage. You know, if we do have a good hole here and going to move forward with the production well ahead of the land being platted around it, so that we could actually get a fee simple ownership of the lot. We can move forward with a lease, a long term lease of the lot in the configuration that will be when it's plated, with a lease that would let us move forward with drilling a production well and constructing a well. The time frame, you know, once we -- once we start into this, it could be a year's time before we are pumping water into the system. It takes a long time to put a well on line, so -- Rohm: Are there short-term solutions for say phase one of six that could serve the first lots being brought on line without an additional well? Freckleton: No. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 24 of 125 Rohm: Thank you. Borup: You're saying we are at capacity now? Freckleton: We're there. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I have a little bit of concern about either holding developers, whether it's this development or some other development or, conversely, the City of Meridian, hostage to development based upon a well that's yet to be constructed. If we move forward with this proposal, not knowing how it's to be served, I think that we would be putting either the city in jeopardy or the developer in jeopardy, one or the other, or maybe both, I'm not sure. It seems like that issue has to be resolved before we could move forward with the development period, if, in fact, there is not servable water currently for Phase 1 of six or any portion of it and I wouldn't want to move forward without knowing the answer to those questions. Borup: Well, I think that's a good question. Let's see if the applicant may have -- give us some comments or solutions for that. They may have something that we haven't thought of. Rohm: And, again, I wouldn't want to put the city in a position that they say, well, we'll go ahead and donate. I'm not sure that that's the right solution to -- if, in fact, they donate and, then, we find that the well potential is dry and, then, we still don't have a solution, so I just -- Borup: Well, I think that Bruce was saying they'd like to get it within the month, if possible, to get permission to go on and dig test this hole, which would be before it would be approved by City Council anyway. Rohm: And I suppose probably the best thing is to listen to the developer's proposed solution. Borup: Okay. Having said that, would the applicant like to make their presentation? Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Mike Wardle, 4910 Knollwood Avenue in Boise. Before I begin I just want to note that this is the first occasion that I have had to be in front you for awhile and I express my deep sadness, both from your perspective, as well as mine and the community, for the vacancy that exists on the Commission today. It was a stunning and very sad loss to this Commission and the community. I enjoyed some of the repartee and challenges that we have had over the time as we have discussed these projects. Let me just note that we began the effort to plan this project using your Comprehensive Plan, noting that the land use designation of the medium density residential was the starting point. We had some physical constraints, the North Slough going through the property. We had Comprehensive Plan designations for a regional trail that we factored into it. We, obviously, had the aspect of a substation that we had to deal with. We acknowledge the fact that there is to the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 25 of 125 south probably the last of the one-acre lot communities in the area that was platted at a time when there were not public utilities that would allow the urban densities that the Comprehensive Plan suggested for the area today. Powell: Mr. Wardle, can I interrupt you for a moment? Would you mind putting your boards on the -- over there and, then, there should be a laser pointer, just so everyone can see. Hey, he's prepared. Wardle: Again, just wanted to note that the issues that we were dealing with were the substations, which is fully fenced for that entire 10 acres now. The one-acre subdivision to the south. The noted newer subdivisions to the north along McMillan Road. Havasu Creek to the west. I believe Commission recently passed a recommendation on for a project just south of Havasu called Razzberry, if I'm not mistaken. In previous approvals Champion Park Subdivision to the south, actually, started the process of providing future linkage for the regional trail, which I show along the North Slough in this project in this particular location. We took all of these items into account and particularly the one area that has been referred to as The Grove, which is a very unique area and it led to a number of challenges. How do you deal with a major canal going through an area such as this? How do you buffer against the larger lots to the south? How do you screen and provide a lifestyle opportunity around the substation? How do you preserve and maintain the limited access facilities to both arterials, Locust Grove to the west and McMillan to the north. All of those elements went into our process and, Dave, if you will just pull up the second board, which is actually a colored rendering of the plat itself. There we go. We did -- and one comment raised earlier about the access points, the one to the west does, actually, exceed the separation requirements of ACHD. The one to the north on McMillan actually aligns with an existing subdivision access. We also, then, wanted to -- instead of having a lot of crossings of the amenity, which we believe that the canal provides for that regional pathway, we only have one crossing in this project. It led to somewhat of an isolated, but an interesting area to the north with that grove area, the existing home site, and so we put into a factor a number of thoughts. First of all, we wanted to protect that area, so we created a very unique situation in the way the roadway configures and the one requirement of the Fire Department, which we fully agree with, is an emergency access connection to McMillan Road from this particular location. The stub that was noted here, the stub that was actually noted down here are very similar to roadways, both public and private, in projects such as Hickories, River Run, Harris Ranch, all of which are extremely desirable projects. You wouldn't note the difference between whether it was public or private, but in our discussion with the highway district on the issue in lieu of a turnaround, which the Fire Department did not require because of their length, they agreed that construction of a common facility or a private street was totally acceptable. They have actually put their language such that it's an either provide a turnaround, which interestingly enough, really, only requires expansion of that roadway to a 36 foot diameter, because their concern was maintenance and they can do that. We have already tested it out on projects previously. It's -- the highway district has left the issue up to the developer and that option is there. That solution is on the books, so it can be accommodated in either form. What we did also along the south boundary, obviously, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 26 of 125 one acre lots to the south, most of which have actually extensive open areas at the back, the homes are located up front, we have the largest and the deepest lots along that frontage, ranging from a minimum of 125 to 150 to 175 feet, as I recall those dimensions, to provide a reasonable buffer. Then, you have within the heart of the project more of a typical lot that you would find in the surrounding subdivisions and, then, the utilization of the attached single family concept, which was shown by staff on the graphic earlier, did a couple of things. It, actually, helps buffer -- and we started looking at this around the substation, the grouping of those houses helps buffer the substation from the project as a whole. The character of those homes does not put any living space that looks directly into that substation in any of those homes. Their living areas are all at the ground level and there will be-- and we have had discussions with the power company and so forth about how to utilize the space that they have outside of their fence with their landscape elements with a berm and fencing and so forth. That really helps provide a much more effective buffer, so we really tried to accomplish two things. Provide a lifestyle choice in the project, give a good buffer at the back of those homes, so that those people that are living right adjacent to it are not looking directly into it, but also it helps screen somewhat from the rest of the project as well. We think the solution is actually quite good, because all of the housing now is single family, but some of it attached in a two-unit configuration. The concepts that we have looked at are quite promising. The other concept that the property -- well, the developer, Capital Development, really wanted to do was to embody body some of the characteristics that they have built previously in projects such Bristol Heights, where we have a very extensive and fully connected internal system that goes -- well, it actually links across the North Slough in this location to The Grove. It, obviously, links to the regional trail. It links into the heart of the project and you have visibility as you come in from McMillan right into a concentrated open space area and the same thing occurs as you come in from Locust Grove and all of those extend and provide a pedestrian access literally from east to west throughout the project. We did embody a lot of previous thought and good development technique from Capital Development and, quite frankly, have provided far more open space than you would absolutely have to have in a project of this nature and it's well positioned. It's accessible to many of the property owners, and provides an off-road system for access and connection within that neighborhood. I think most of the planning concepts have been explained. I just want to make a comment, I will turn the time over to Dave Yorgason to talk about the conditions, he has worked directly, and I believe very successfully with staff to resolve any of the issues that were there. Obviously, I would be concerned that the city would take a position at this point, having recently approved projects and so forth, concerning an actual ceasing of project approvals based on the water question. There are certainly options and, quite frankly, there is an option of -- if the city is unable or incapable of providing the resource that is an absolute necessity in urban development, which is the process of your comprehensive planning activity. I believe there are other water sources within the area, namely United Water that could be brought into that area if the city cannot. They are currently serving projects within that immediate vicinity and that's certainly not the city's primary objective. I think the city has opportunities with this development or with the other that was noted to solve that problem. I think if any issue is put on the table, is should be simply not to stop or withhold, but to -- you have the options when it gets Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 27 of 125 down to the Final Plating process, if the resources aren't there and there is no solution to it, the city doesn't zone plats. I think it would not be appropriate for the city at this point to say we don't have the answer today, therefore, we will make no decisions. I think from a legal perspective that would be a very serious decision on the part of the city. Borup: It sounds like you're saying you realize if the water capacity is not there, it's not there the city would not be able to sign on the Final Plat; is that-- Wardle: What I'm saying that rather than sit and hold and table -- Borup: Right. Wardle: -- allow the city to work through the process with this property owner and with others and see if they can find the solution to it and, obviously, decisions would be made by Capital Development and the city as more facts are known, but to say right now we can't make this decisions I don't think is the appropriate action. Borup: The city is prepared, as Bruce stated, to move ahead within the month. Wardle: Correct. Borup: To do the test hole and at that point it would be determined and it would be known and a knowledgeable decision could be made. Wardle: Yes. Well, Mr. Chairman, just to conclude before I turn it over to Mr. Yorgason, I just want to stress that this plan is fully compliant with your Comprehensive Plan, it takes into account all of the opportunities that exist to provide linkage within the broader community and within the subdivision itself. It does take into account the relationships with neighboring properties, appropriate buffering to some of those challenges embodied by the substation, but it also takes great advantage of the North Slough pathway concept that the city adopted in the Comprehensive Plan. I think from the perspective of planning it is a project worthy of approval and I would ask now Mr. Yorgason to get up and address the conditions that he's worked with staff on. Yorgason: Good evening. My name is Dave Yorgason with Capital Development. I'm the vice-president of Capital Development and my father is here as well, Ramon Yorgason, the president of Capital Development, and good to be here with you this evening. I stand before you, appreciate the presentation that has been given so far by staff, both Craig and Bruce and they have done a fine job, as well as Mr. Wardle. I appreciate the team we have put together and all the efforts that have been done so far in the planning of this subdivision. We hope the city is pleased with the work we have done. There was a recent subdivision we have had in the process in the City of Meridian called Baldwin Park, a subdivision we are quite proud of. We think it's a successful subdivision that the community is proud of, but we -- in that same effort we continue with, hopefully, building subdivisions the city is proud of in this location as well. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 28 of 125 We have worked with staff on every item of the staff report and as Mr. Hood has gone forth on each item, I could go item by line, but I don't feel like that's appropriate at this time, given especially how much time we spent so far this evening. Specifically, we agree with everything that Mr. Hood. As you go through each item of the annexation and rezoning, as we have talked back and forth, he recognizes most of comments we have offered so far in our letter that was dated today, January 15th, that they agree with and, of course, you can re-verify that with him. Same with the plat. They agree with all the comments we have made, with the exception, I believe, there is some discussion on condition number 15, as Mr. Freckleton has expressed to you so far. Condition number 15 addresses the assessments and the underlying issue regarding the well. A couple of comments I'd like to share with that, just to give a little bit of history. The location that the Public Works Department has identified is just about right in the same location of the existing house and so one month from now to actually drill where the house is may not be appropriate, but we will continue to work with staff. It's our understanding that the test hole doesn't have to be drilled right where the actual well is, but in the proximity, and so, contractually, we still actually don't own that portion of the property, it's under option. We have purchased a majority -- well, a portion -- we have purchased a portion of the property it's in phasing. We will work with that landowner. We can stay with him tonight, but we will request and work with that owner, his name is John Tulk. In his -- the site of his home -- not next to his home, but we can work with staff to make sure that it's an appropriate location for the Public Works Department to be comfortable, but also work for the current homeowner. Zaremba: Mr. Yorgason? Yorgason: Yes, sir. Zaremba: Sorry to interrupt. Yorgason: That's all right. Zaremba: But you're on the subject. The current home that is there, is it served by a well? Yorgason: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, there are actually two homes. The one that we are referring to is owned by John and I think Lynn -- no, not Lynn -- Jean Tulk. The daughter is Lynn and she lives in a newer home slightly to the east, just for clarification. I'm sorry, could you restate your question. Zaremba: Yes. Is the -- are the current residents, either one -- Yorgason: John -- yes. Zaremba: -- in the area that we are talking about, are they currently served by wells? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 29 of 125 Yorgason: They currently live in the home. It's my understanding they are currently served by wells. I don't know anything about the wells, but -- Zaremba: I have no idea whether a well for one house could tell you whether or not it could serve a whole subdivision or not, but at least there must be water somewhere. Yorgason: My understanding there are actually four wells on the site and some have been used by irrigation, two for the two homes and two for irrigation. One was not too long ago used by the farmer and that's out there for water. I understand there are four wells on the site currently. Zaremba: That gives me some optimism that a solution can be found. Yorgason: We feel the same way, but recognize that no test hole has been done. We will commit again tonight that we will continue to work with staff in working to resolve this concern of theirs. It's my understanding staff brought this up -- and, Bruce, you could help, but it was maybe in the fall around Thanksgiving. It was maybe a couple months ago that this was vaguely brought up, but it has become a -- more and more an issue, if you think about it, the more and more you get into it, the more you realize that you're at or near capacity. I'm not aware of your numbers, but I know you're -- the more you're getting into it, that to 266 homes, plus all the other surrounding developments, you need more well sites, I think, is what you have expressed to us. Freckleton: That's correct. From what I have -- digging through here, we had a pre- application meeting -- I think it was October 16th . Yorgason: That sounds about right. Freckleton: And according to our City Engineer and Staff Engineer, they have told me that it was -- it was a meeting out on the site with the developer's engineer just a few days after that pre-application meeting that the subject was first raised. It was, you know, probably towards the end of October when we first started talking about this. Yorgason: Probably not this same intensity or level of discussion we have had within the last couple days. Freckleton: No. Probably not. Yorgason: I'm sure that's not the case. The city became aware of some needs or some additional needs about that time. That's my understanding, anyway. Freckleton: That's correct. Yes. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, Bruce? Borup: Go ahead. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 30 of 125 Zaremba: Would the knowledge that there is a well serving a single family dwelling there give you any optimistic feeling about the future of finding sufficient well for -- sufficient water for the city? Freckleton: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, existing wells are a good tool, I guess. When we go and start looking at the area, we pull up well logs, driller's reports from the area, and look at those for the profile of the well. We also try and -- you know, if we can determine water quality and that sort of thing. I don't think you were headed towards suggesting that maybe one of these existing wells could help supply domestic water to this development. Zaremba: I can't imagine that it would be big enough, but -- Freckleton: No, it wouldn't be. Zaremba: -- I was just wondering whether it gives you any optimism that you might find what you need. Freckleton: Well, certainly we are optimistic. I think that -- I mean we have not really had problems finding water. Quality is a little bit of a concern. Water quality. From what we do know of the northeast area, there are better areas in town as far as water quality goes. We certainly will be looking at all of the wells in the vicinity when we start into this process. Yes, I mean it definitely helps knowing that they are there and -- Borup: Then, along that same line, Mr. Freckleton, realizing that the well site the city is looking at is where the house is located, any problem to do the test -- the test well somewhere else on the property that still accomplishes the same purpose? Freckleton: No. Mr. Chair, basically, if we can do -- if we can do our test well somewhere within the parcel that eventually will be ours, we are fine with that. We do need to -- for it to be within our site, but we are talking -- from the well head we are talking, a 50-foot radius around the well head would be the bare bones minimum we would need. We'd like to have more room for that in case we have to re-drill the well or whatever. That gives us the ability to move over and re-drill. I don't want to get really nailed down to just a 50 foot radius, but as long as we are within the area for the test well, we can certainly work around the existing trees and the existing home that's there and we feel that we can accomplish the test well without -- without too much difficulty. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Yorgason: Mr. Chairman, maybe another question of staff. As you can tell, we have had lots of discussions since I think about Monday afternoon and continue to have discussions, because we want to keep working with city staff on this specific issue. One question comes to my mind and I don't think we are nailing down exact location for the test hole today, but knowing that the home has a yard -- has, you know, a landscaped Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 31 of 125 yard, the further west this is, as you can see, further out west there is barns and further west there is farm ground. You know, is there a possibility that we can get a further away than the actual site where we know it's going to be, but it's still pretty close and probably the same water aquifer that you would be drilling to gather water for your test site. That's one of the things we will ask staff. I don't know if you want to answer that tonight or not, but that's one of the things we will -- we are going to keep working with city staff to try to find a way to make sure we can work with them and the current people that still live in the home, because we have a -- certainly an obligation to them as well. One thing I'd also like to add is I live in a subdivision that's less than a mile north of this, a subdivision called Bristol Heights, so my home is probably maybe three-fourths of a mile directly north of this location and, no, it's not served by Meridian water, it's served by United Water, but I do know our water is quite fine. In fact, it's pretty high quality water we have over there. Soft water, in fact. It's pretty good water. Just for that reference point. I can talk more about wells. I don't know if you have more questions about wells, but I do have a little question or some more to add about -- there is a question from staff about the value of the land or a valuation, I could probably give a little bit of input to that if you'd like to hear that tonight as well. Would you like to hear that? Zaremba: Sure. We won't be the ones that make the decision on that, City Council does, of course. Yorgason: Okay. Zaremba: But to have it in the record for -- Borup: Well, it looked like the main question was whether -- you know, if the land is donated, then, will there be an adjustment on the assessment and -- Yorgason: That is correct. Borup: And, again, we are not the ones that can make that determination. Yorgason: We just feel it's appropriate -- we recognize -- it's our opinion that some of the -- some of the -- those assessments that are paid, it's our understanding are used for -- or applied towards the amount of common area and open space you have in your development, times a certain dollar amount to get to that assessment. The reason for the assessment is for capacity, among other things, probably, but certainly, capacity is a part of that equation. Well, donating land seems to help eliminate that portion and so if the city is not willing to buy the ground, then, maybe offset the credits is a little easier way to get there. The difference is the same. There is no difference to us, but maybe it's a little easier from the city's perspective and so we offer flexibility to that, if it's a little easier to the city. If they don't want to give us offsets, then, certainly we request payment for the ground. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 32 of 125 Zaremba: My comment would be that I understand the logic of that and appreciate your willingness to work it out. We aren't the ones that make the final decision. Yorgason: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, we understand that. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, we understand. As far as a value of the ground, we don't know exact value today, but we can probably give at least on the record some kind of an idea of what the ground is probably worth. There is probably a couple ways to look at it, really. One is what the ground is worth today. Recognize it's farm ground and we understand that and there is a certain purchase price to the ground. As was stated earlier by -- it might have been you, Commissioner Rohm, that there is a certain impact of having a building in a nice open space we call the grove. It certainly doesn't enhance the open space and certainly takes away from some of the usability, so we do feel like it has a slight impact. That's probably the more difficult to put a dollar amount to that. That's our opinion that there are two factors. One is the value of the land and, two, is the impact. Probably can make an initial estimate to you today. The initial ground as they have given us approximate size, is they have kind of stated today the size of the area, and not the building, but the size of the area necessary. We are probably close to the neighborhood of 20,000 dollars for the ground and, then, the devaluation is probably in the neighborhood of the same amount. I'm sure it's a lot more than that, but the same thing, about 20,000, for a total of 40,000 dollars. Certainly, if we have to take a couple of lots out of production or unable to sell lots if this location doesn't work. Well, buildable lots of that size would be much closer to 100,000 dollars for the total for that size, plus any devaluation, which may not be as much devaluation, since it may look kind of like a house. That would be our opinion. Certainly, that's just off the cuff thinking about it for 20 minutes before I got up here today. That's our first opinion to that. We are willing to give that to your record for tonight. Part of the -- also, the feeling we have to this -- and just also to put on record, is we work with -- in the community as far as competing subdivisions, we may or may not be the first one in in reference to Sheridan Place that's in this similar area, it's probably in the same market, but certainly they have the same use of the water lines that will be out in this area. Directly to the east will be another development that is not too far away, will be -- could be a year, it could be five years, but it's not very far away. The property is already owned by a developer and they will be bringing application to the city at some point. If we give a land site away and they don't have to give land away, then, that doesn't make an equal playing field and so we are just trying to make sure the playing field is even in our -- in the market. That's part of our analysis as well. I'll move on to Number 16 and 17, unless you have any questions about Condition Number 15. Borup: Yes. I don't know if we have any big questions on 16 and 17, if Bruce's assessment made sense to you. Yorgason: Mr. Chairman, it does and we appreciate his clarifying for us. We had some discussion earlier today and, of course, it's on record again tonight, but the conditions are okay as they are written. There is no need for change there. We have got clarification and we appreciate that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 33 of 125 Borup: The only other one I had notation on or a question would be number 23 and that was on the plat revision. Was that the next thing you were going to mention? Or did you have any comments on that? Yorgason: I do have comments, Mr. Chairman. But 21 -- I think Craig Hood identified as a slight modification of number 21 as well. Borup: Right. Yorgason: Twenty-three is correct. We have just a little comment. We are willing to comply with the condition as written. However, it's our opinion -- and we have gone in front of many city councils -- that sometimes if there is lots of changes to a plat or even just a couple changes to a plat, if you could note the versions of plats, certainly by the time it's -- whether it's another meeting here or later at City Council or a third or fourth meeting at City Council, then, when it comes to final approval, which version of the plat are you looking at when it comes to making recommendations for approval and sometimes if -- because the staff report is written based on the initial submittal, maybe it's easier just to list all the conditions as finalized and, then, shortly after, maybe it's ten days or whatever is acceptable to the city, we will turn right around and get a final version of the printed plat that can be used for reference. If that's not the city's preference, then, we will just stay with the condition as written. Borup: The only question I had -- and maybe other Commissioners have some. How many changes are we talking about? We are connecting the two roads next to the substation and are there any other major plat changes? Zaremba: Identifying just a couple of them -- Borup: I was going to ask you that, but I decided to wait until later at this point, but -- Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission that would be the main change. There are some other modifications that I mentioned. The right of way as shown on the McMillan was 48 feet from centerline. If you really study this, there are going to be some changes that you would find that -- the well possibly being shown there. I don't know if that's a condition that Bruce has written up or how that would even be shown on the plat, but the private streets, those fingers will need to be changed a little bit. Again, just looking at it, first glance, you aren't going to notice any major modifications. There are some -- you know, three or four changes to the plat I submitted. Zaremba: I would only say that all the time that I have been on this Commission the requirement to have a plat that incorporates all of the Commission discussion ten days before the City Council hearing has been a standard request. I wasn't aware that it was even debatable. Powell: Chairman Borup, Commissioner Zaremba, they have mentioned if something comes through -- a minor one, even, they do sometimes question it, they being the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 34 of 125 Council, I'm sorry, that why wasn't this changed beforehand. I think it's probably in the applicant's best interest when going to City Council to just go ahead and have that new plat. They do really like to see the revised plat. Borup: Is the McMillan right of way adjustment going to affect street location? Is it going to affect any of the street locations that you're aware of? Yorgason: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to look to my engineer real quick. I think the answer is no. He's shaking his head no. Borup: Okay. Then, with the current CAD programs it's probably not a big change that needs to be done anyway. Hopefully, all the revisions will be dated accordingly. Yorgason: My engineer is shaking his head saying, yes, he will give a date stamp to that. I think the other change, if I'm not mistaken, Craig, is that street names -- there might be a couple of street names that if -- Borup: Well, that's always the case. Yorgason: Yeah. That's correct. Borup: Yeah. You're not going to know that until it gets back from the committee, the street naming committee. Yorgason: Mr. Chairman, I think it has come back from the street naming committee and so we know the answers to those questions. Borup: Okay. Does that conclude the things that you thought there may be questions or clarification on or was there some on the Conditional Use? Yorgason: Mr. Chairman, I think there is one other item of clarification on the Conditional Use Permit, that's condition number two, if I wrote this down correctly. Staff -- Mr. Hood had identified that if you do modify Condition 5 of the Preliminary Plat to allow for our preference, which is common drives to be located on common lots. That he also identified some lots -- and if I wrote them down correctly, they are Lots 53 and 54 of Block 1, and Lots 34 and 35 of Block 2. Did I get that right, Craig? There is one other item of clarification. As there has been discussion about looping -- connecting the two streets over in the northwest corner, as Mr. Wardle has pointed to you. Thank you, Mike. That will affect the little T to the left -- we will call it a little T there. We have come up with a new design and, staff I think you have seen. If not, we can provide a copy tonight for you, where the best way to design that would be for Lots 5 and 6 to also -- excuse me -- five and six. Block 2 would also take access off of a common bond and that would eliminate that little T. Going off to the left there just makes for a 90 degree turn on the street there, a more traditional way of designing the street. We have that design. If staff would like to have a copy, we can present that tonight. If staff's comfortable with that, then, we request just adding to that language that also Lots 5 and Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 35 of 125 6, Block 2, be allowed, just as those other four lots be allowed to take access to common drives. Mr. Chairman, that's the end of my report. I'll stand for any questions you may have. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? I think we have tried to ask them -- Zaremba: We asked them as we went along. Sorry for the interruption. Yorgason: That's okay. Appreciate you being here tonight. Thank you. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question of the applicant? Just a point of clarification. When we were talking value, Dave, I guess if we could -- you talked about predevelopment cost and, then, a devaluation and, then, a post-development cost. I guess -- what are you thinking? I mean are you headed towards offering this if it was for sale to the city at predevelopment cost and is that the number that we should be dealing with or -- Borup: And I don't know if we are going to answer this tonight, but I had the impression it would be predevelopment cost, plus devaluation. Freckleton: I was under the same impression, Chairman. Then, we also talked about post-development cost and developed lots, so I just -- if we could clarify. Zaremba: Well, I think the part of that -- well, you made the statement, but I heard that as being if you couldn't find water there and you had to move into a lot that was platted and salable, there would be an extreme difference. Yorgason: Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Zaremba, I looked to my father for clarification and as we stated earlier, we have had lots of discussions this week since Monday afternoon on this. Specifically, the item of valuation we have had a couple hours, I think, Bruce, to talk about this or less and so, obviously, we are trying to figure out a hard number and that's kind of hard to do tonight, but I think we are pretty close in the ballpark. Commissioner Zaremba, you're exactly correct in that if it's in a common area it has one and if you take two lots out of production, that has a lot different impact to the -- to our bottom line. I think the city would recognize that as well. I think we are all trying to make it work in that grove area, as the best alternative, but that's correct. Zaremba: Thank you. Yorgason: You're welcome. Borup: Any other questions of staff or -- Freckleton: None from me. Thank you. Yorgason: Thank you. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 36 of 125 Borup: Okay. We'd like to take this opportunity now for any public testimony. Those who have anything they'd like to say, now is your opportunity. Ingram: Good evening. Terry Ingram, 4320 North Locust Grove, Meridian, Idaho. I am a homeowner in the archaic one-acre subdivision that requires a buffer and that's okay with me, because buffers go two ways. I have a couple of questions for you tonight. One of them specifically has not been addressed. The southern boundary of this development has a ditch on our side of it that feeds our pastures and our lawns and our subdivision. There has been no mention of what kind of easement that ditch will have. Borup: Didn't you say it's on your property? Ingram: It is. Borup: Then, it wouldn't affect this property, would it? Ingram: Well, it does, as this property is required to put up a perimeter fence. We burn our ditches. Borup: Okay. Ingram: And I'm concerned that if they -- well, not concerned. I don't want them to waste their money putting up a beautiful vinyl fence that is not going to look beautiful after the first burning season. I am concerned that there should be an easement there, an amount of property that gives us access to maintaining both sides of our ditch and that has not been addressed here and it was discussed briefly in the neighborhood meeting that was held, but no resolution was made. That is something that has to be addressed. Another concern of mine is the first phase of this development is -- has been proposed to come off of Locust Grove Road and I disagree with that. Locust Grove Road is in no shape to take the increased traffic from construction vehicles, to take the increased traffic from the first phase of this development. To me a more preferable place to be would do the first phase of this off of McMillan. At least your staff has indicated that improvement of McMillan is at least on ACHD's books. Locust Grove is a nebulous plan out there that I have yet to see them put in writing with a time schedule. Those of us who drive Locust Grove Road at least twice a day know it's not in great shape. Another question that I had was I noticed that this -- the proposal for this is to zone it R-8. When we discussed this in the neighborhood meeting I came away with the feeling -- and I, in fact, talked to three of my neighbors who also came away with the feeling that this was going to be requested at R-4 and, in fact, your staff tonight said it would be 3.7 homes per acre. I'm questioning why R-8 if that number of homes per acre. Borup: Because that's the average per acre. Some of them are smaller that the -- the buffering homes they were doing around the power station are such a lot size it would not comply in an R-4. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 37 of 125 Ingram: Okay. This is an overall? The R-8 would be for the entire development? Borup: They didn't have to do it that way, but the lots along the southern boundary are much -- are, obviously, larger than a minimum R-4. Ingram: I suspected that was the case, but I wanted to make it very clear, because that was not the impression that several of us came away from the neighborhood meeting. So -- and, then, a couple of -- I have two more. One of them is that it was mentioned tonight that Sheridan place a condition on their development on the north side of McMillan was proposed to putting sidewalks around the substation on McMillan and, then, down Locust Grove. If that can be a condition of that subdivision, why cannot sidewalks from this development to Paradise Lane on Locust Grove where sidewalks pick up -- or walking area picks up for the elementary school be a condition of this development? I worry like you wouldn't believe about children walking from 266 homes down a 50 mile an hour road with no shoulders, no street lights, and no way for those kids to get out of the way of those cars and I can tell you those cars don't go 50 miles an hour, they go 70. I would love to see it be a condition of this development that they have put in sidewalks at least as far as the -- it's not really a side walk, it's kind of a segregated asphalt area that picks up at Paradise to get to the elementary school. I'd like you to consider that, because that would keep these children safe. From what I understand, the City of Meridian does not -- or Meridian School District does not do safety busing anymore, which puts these kids on the road. Borup: Do you think both property owners would allow that? Ingram: Well, I'm one of them and I would. Borup: You would? Ingram: Yes, I would. I would much rather see a sidewalk in my front yard than a child's body. My husband is a fireman and an EMT and he feels the same way. He works on enough children. Yes, sir. Zaremba: Your side street to you is Star; is that correct? Ingram: It is. I'm on the corner of Star Lane and Locust Grove. Zaremba: Paradise is the next street. Ingram: Paradise is the next street south. Zaremba: Parallel to Star south? Ingram: Yes. Like I said, that just recently -- and don't know if it was ACHD, I don't know if it was the city. I don't know, actually, if it was that homeowner, but they have put Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 38 of 125 in a walkway with -- I don't know what call it, a little raised area in asphalt from Paradise to the sidewalk that goes back into the elementary school and we do have an elementary school and two high schools there. I drive through that school zone every morning that says -- has these lovely signs and I appreciate the school zone, I do. For a long time we didn't have one. It says 25 miles an hour when children are present. There is no lighting. You can't tell if children are present. It's just something I would ask you to consider. The very last thing was something I really hadn't thought of and Mr. Freckleton over here was nice enough to make me think about this is the well. I really have to disagree with Mr. Wardle. Until you have water online, I can't see approving this or any other submission. I worry that that well is going to be drawing off of the aquifer that our home wells do and that will be drawing down our wells by putting in a well there and that's something that needs to be considered before the city puts in a well there. Borup: Why don't -- maybe others may have that same question and while you're here maybe get an answer from Mr. Freckleton. It's my understanding you're in a whole different aquifer. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. That's correct. Typically, our domestic municipal wells are in the deep aquifers, you know, several hundred feet below ground. Typically, a single family residential well will be very shallow in comparison to the municipal wells, so -- and, typically, these aquifers are divided by huge clay layers and I don't feel that we would be drawing from the same reservoir, if you may, so -- Ingram: You have the knowledge, the engineering knowledge and the knowledge of wells much more so than I do. I can tell you that since the development has started in this area I have had four neighbors have to re-drill -- or drill their wells deeper and -- Borup: I think that started before the development. Ingram: It may have. Borup: It stated with the drought. Ingram: It may have. I'm sure there are people here that could speak to this concern more so than I could. It's a concern to me. Borup: Okay. That's -- I mean what Mr. Freckleton had stated is the same thing I have heard from other meetings and other experts it's a whole separate water source. They are not intermixed. Ingram: I hope so. Borup: Because they are going down several hundred feet. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 39 of 125 Ingram: I hope so. That's all the concerns I have. If you don't have questions for me, I'll sit down and shut up for a change. Borup: Thank you. Ingram: Thank you. Borup: Does that conclude? Okay. Sherer: Of course not. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, and planning staff. My name is Steve Sherer. I live at 2090 Star Lane, which is -- if you can still see, it's right there. That lot right there. Just to the south of this development. Mr. Freckleton, I have a question for you before I get too far. Locust Grove is over here. Is there a water main running down Locust Grove? Freckleton: Yes, there is. Sherer: Okay. So -- Freckleton: We have water main that runs to just short of Chinden. We run all the way up through there. There is also a water main in McMillan Road from the intersection all the way across the frontage of Edinburgh Subdivision. Sherer: Is there excess capacity on the water main running up Locust Grove? Freckleton: Excess capacity? Sherer: I mean can you supply water to more houses? Freckleton: The mains that are there have the carrying capacity, if that's what you're getting at, but you have to have the supply to push through the mains and that's where we are short is on supply. Sherer: Okay. The reason I ask these questions is I understand water experts talking about different aquifers and clay layers. I also know the water got down there somehow, whether it's 600 feet or 80 feet below the surface and that it continues to percolate, however slowly, from one layer to the next. The reason I make that point is that we can have all the expert theories that we want, but if you drill a well up in that corner -- and you said that this isn't far enough away to be in a different aquifer. Well, you're about the same distance away from my property there and if you destroy the wells and we don't have water to even -- to even get from Locust Grove to pump into our subdivision, you're going to have a little subdivision that's madder than hornets and probably have -- be entitled to some significant legal relief. I really think that you guys need to get the water supply issue settled. Mr. Wardle made the point that, well, that shouldn't stop the continuing planning and designing and development, but, actually, if you stopped it now, they have very little reliance cost on what they have done so far. If Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 40 of 125 they are allowed to go through to a Final Plat and invest hundreds of thousand of dollars in this property and, then, get upset when this Final Plat isn't approved, because there is not a reliable water source, they are going to make loud noises and threatening noises, I would expect. Mr. Yorgason mentioned that they wanted an equal playing field. Well, over Sheri Stiles's dead body. I have been before this -- before this body before and if someone else had come in and said we are going to affect the entrance corridor to a city by not meeting exactly the landscaping plan that's required, she would not only chop them off at the knee, she would bite their head off, too. Because that was something that was very important to her and I think it's still important. This is not a level playing field. These people knew what this property was like, they knew about this slough. In fact, they have well incorporated it into their design and now to say they don't want to have to put up trees, which is part of the landscaping plan, doesn't make it an even playing field. If they want to do this, then, they may have to dedicate a little bit of extra property, so that the irrigation company can have its easement and they can put up the trees that are required by the city. It really bothers me to hear them saying, well, we can sell this land for this well to the city, yet they are asking the city, essentially, to give them land that doesn't have to be given to them that should be used for a landscape buffer. They want an even playing field. They have lots in here with no frontage -- no frontage to any road and they call these single family attached dwellings. Well, they are now proposing common driveways they are proposing common walls between the dwellings. Essentially, what they are doing is proposing a duplex divided down the middle onto two tiny lots. That's not in accord with the city plan. They are asking for -- they are asking for a deviation from the standard city plan. They have got substandard streets here. I can see a fire right there and you have got cars parked on both sides here, because they have common driveways, so they don't have any room to park in their driveway, and you can't get a fire truck in there and you can't do what you need to to take care of that place. It's a half-mile away from the fire station and you can watch that duplex burn to the ground. I think for that reason it is poorly designed. I think the street should be a standard width. I think that the houses should have the frontage that is required for an R-8. Borup: Mr. Sherer, I appreciate your comments, but I think the Commission would rather let the Fire Department make that determination. They are the ones that it affects and they are the ones that inspect these -- Zaremba: And the location identified, the applicant has already agreed to connect those two streets, so that isn't a dead end there anymore. Sherer: That's true. That's true. They are still going to have to pass through a street that is 29 feet wide is what I understood them to say. If there are cars parked on both sides and the car is parked a foot away from the curb and the cars are seven feet wide or so, that will leave 12, 13, 14 feet for a fire truck to pass through and that is a concern of mine, because that will affect the neighborhood. When I first heard about this common wall design, it didn't concern me too much, but the more I think about it, it's really no different from an apartment. You have a common driveway you're going to have issues as to driveway use. You have a common wall, you're going to have noise Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 41 of 125 issues and every other issue that you have in a duplex or apartment setting and, you know, Capital Development has been around awhile and they know generally what they are doing, but if you have neighbors that have squabbles here, you're going to end up with a slum and with fights and there is no point to have that. There is not a necessity to have that density and common walls between buildings at this point in this development. The buffer. I think Mrs. Ingram stated the need for a fence along the southern edge. A maintenance easement for the ditch and I think 20 feet would be safe from the edge of the ditch, because I don't want to burn down fences, I don't want to have legal disputes with them about the fences, and I don't want to have any arguments, but I don't see any way, except to grant -- to grant an easement there. The lot sizes on the south, they are bigger, and I think that Capital Development has taken some pains to try to -- try to help us there. I'm a little bit concerned that I will have three neighbors to the north, the way this is drawn out. Borup: Could you clarify the location of that irrigation ditch? Is that right on -- bordering the property line or is it within your property? Sherer: The north edge of the ditch is very close to the property line. Borup: But it's on -- you have a fence there now and the ditch is on your side of the fence? Sherer: There is an old fence there, yes. Borup: Is it a barbed wire fence? Sherer: Yes. Borup: Okay. I take it there are problems now with when the ditch is burned the posts start burning? Sherer: Metal posts. Borup: They are metal post? Okay. Running clear down the whole property line is metal posts? Sherer: Yeah. For the posts that are there. It's not a completed fence. Borup: Some of the lots don't have fences, you're saying? Sherer: I'm saying most of the lots have fences. My fence is broken down in places. Borup: Well, yours is. Yeah. I'm thinking of the property as a whole clear down the whole property. Sherer: Yes. Generally it is fenced with barbed wire. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 42 of 125 Borup: Okay. Sherer: At our neighborhood meeting regarding these southern lots, you know, I would expect at least a six foot privacy fence there somewhere, so that they don't get to look into my backyard and I don't have to look into theirs. The other thing I suggested was to have -- these lots that backup to ours are larger lots and they can well accommodate a larger single story dwelling and that's what I would propose for those lots. We mentioned this at the homeowners meeting and Mr. Yorgason's response was, well, we are not going to deny those property owners the right to build the house that they want to. What they mean is they don't want to be limited in what they can sell those lots for, because the homeowners who buy them will know exactly what they can do with those lots, certainly. I don't think that's an unreasonable request. We have enjoyed a significant amount of privacy there for the past 40 years that the subdivision has been around. Rohm: Are any of your homes two-story homes? Sherer: There are -- I think there is a split entry home that is a story and a half and that's the only one. Rohm: Thank you. Sherer: On that side that I can think of. I think that's a reasonable condition for them to be able to meet. There are three irrigation wells on that property. Well, I thought there were three. I guess there are four. I don't think those -- I think those should be capped and collapsed or whatever you do with abandoned wells, they should be properly abandoned as a condition. Rohm: Why? Sherer: Why? Rohm: Yeah. Just curious. Sherer: I don't know how deep those wells are. I don't know how they would affect our water supply, but I wouldn't want -- I wouldn't want people playing and dropping things down in those wells and affecting our water supply. While the farmer was on them, there was reason for people to go on them and trespassers were easily noticed, because it was out in the middle of the field, so I would like to see those abandoned. I am concerned about the traffic flow. Again, I was here last week and Locust Grove is not the five-year plan for expansion to its three-lane capacity, not the five lanes, and I -- we heard testimony tonight that McMillan is going to be 15 years out. I know my son drives to Eagle High School and he has a heck of a time at the intersection of Locust Grove and McMillan. McMillan is usually backed up from Eagle Road a mile and if you put another subdivision there, it's certainly not going to get any better. Now, I haven't driven Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 43 of 125 the road, frankly, very much since they put in the light at Locust Grove and Chinden, but the traffic continues to be a problem and a challenge to me. The other thing is that this is -- this is kind of a checkerboard annexation and I'm concerned with where this leaves us as a subdivision, especially if we have water issues after the well is drilled. It seems like we have -- we have very little choice but to get together and incur the cost of a local improvement district to run city water to our properties. That's one of the problems with the well on the north, but it's also one of the issues that comes from a checker board annexation pattern, which is generally, to my understanding, recognized as not very good planning. Borup: Now, I'm not going to let you go on with that. How do you figure this is checkerboard? It's got not large existing subdivisions on the north and on the west of it. The only way to prevent that would be to tear down your subdivision and redevelop it. I mean it's not a checkerboard development. Sherer: Well, this is not annexed into the city. Borup: Right. That's what I'm saying. The only way to prevent it from your definition of checkerboard is to annex that subdivision. Sherer: Are there plans to annex our subdivision? Borup: No. The city normally does not force annexation. It's requested. Rohm: So, are you proposing that the city annex you? Sherer: No. Borup: But that's the solution to what you say is a problem. It sounds like that's what you are proposing. Sherer: Oh, no. Borup: Okay. Sherer: Oh, no. Thank you, Commissioners. Borup: All right. Thank you. Do we have anyone else that would like to testify? Come forward. Clapp: My name is Vick Clapp. I live at 2255 Paradise Lane. It's on the other side of Heritage Subdivision. Thank you for allowing me to speak. I just had a possible solution for that ditch. I wonder if you could pipe it, because that's what we did on the other side of Paradise Lane where the elementary school is and where Challenge Subdivision is going in, we are going to continue the piping there. If you put a pipe on that side, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 44 of 125 wouldn't that solve the problem of burning the ditches and so forth? Just a possible solution. Borup: Do you know where the original ditch along your property -- was it on the school's property originally or was it on your property and they relocated it? Clapp: No. It's just on the other side -- well, my property line is about the middle of the ditch, actually. Borup: Okay. Clapp: So, it was kind of in between. Borup: That was a little bit different. Clapp: Yeah. It kind of goes in and out. It's not perfectly straight. That was a good solution there and I'm just suggesting it for this one. Thank you. Borup: Okay. Rohm: Do you flood irrigate south from that ditch? So, you put a headgate in and, then, the ditch fills and, then, it -- thank you. Zaremba: The response from the audience was yes. Borup: Do we have anyone else who would like to come forward? Okay. Mr. Wardle, are you doing final comments or -- Wardle: Mr. Chairman, once again for the record, Mike Wardle. We did have a very lengthy discussion with the neighborhood on all of these issues and it's interesting that the comments and concerns about the ditch in question -- and we have concerns as well about the burning and I appreciate the last gentleman's concept of possibly solving it, because the property owners in Heritage Subdivision noted that they have difficulties with their ditch, that some property owners do a better job than others of maintaining the ditch and they actually asked for an easement on the north side of the property, essentially, down this line, so that they could get access to their ditch when some of the property owners wouldn't allow them access to help maintain their ditch. Obviously, ditches are a challenge and -- but this ditch is not on this property. We have to find a solution to the fencing question, if, in fact, they keep it as an open ditch. There are some options that we have seen in other locations that might be -- this would be, obviously, that the city is going to have to, I guess, consider as well. If the only solution is an open type fence that is noncombustible -- there are some of those types of fencing that could be done and I'm not suggesting that that would be the best, because you have heard these folks indicate that they would like to have some buffering as well. With regard to that buffering, if you look -- and let me -- I'm going to pass this down, so that you can actually look at it, but you will see that there is no privacy area for the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 45 of 125 homes themselves that would be threatened by any homes on the other side of that fence. They basically have the open area storage, some pasture, and limited pasture, there are not that many animals, as we have been down and looked at those properties, but there are some. These are not privacy areas that would be threatened by homes on the other side of a screening fence. My point is that there would be no need for any type of restriction that was never applied to their side of that boundary for either a one story or a two-story home. With regard to traffic, I don't think anybody would say that the traffic challenges don't exist. The transportation entity responsible for traffic and transportation and its capital improvements and planning and directions of traffic, counts, and so forth, indicates that this roadway, Locust Grove Road specifically, at this point in time is not at -- and with this project will not be at or beyond capacity of that roadway. We have similar concerns for safety and one of the solutions that we will be providing, obviously, is that along the frontage that we have and, then, in working with the adjacent issues to the north of what we have control of, there will be sidewalks provided. In the discussion with the neighborhood, they made similar statements about sidewalks along their frontage and we indicated that there are two options available to them today. One is to wait until ACHD does a project in the future. The second one is to ask for ACHD to help them form a local improvement district to make those improvements along their frontage that would tie into this system. That's an appropriate solution to the expressed concerns that these folks have made. It wouldn't have to be a curb, gutter, and sidewalk situation, but it could be a solution to get a sidewalk -- they would have to help provide, though, easements for that sidewalk to be located, because it's doubtful that it would be located within the existing somewhere limited right of way. Borup: Are you familiar with what ACHD did on that stretch that Mrs. Ingram was talking about from Paradise to the school? Wardle: Mr. Chairman, I am not. I have not seen that. I don't know what they did. Borup: Well -- and I'm -- Wardle: And it would interesting to know that. Borup: I'm assuming ACHD did it. I guess we don't know -- Wardle: That I don't know either. It could be -- it made it possible for the folks within that subdivision to, you know, at least have the ability to get -- Borup: And what's I what -- and they did something I haven't seen also where they widened the pavement and put a curbing separating the paved sidewalk from the roadway, so I believe it probably was within the right of way. Wardle: It may well have been. I think that's a solution that would be available to help these folks improve the frontage of their properties for the safety concerns that they have expressed, that we will be providing for the frontages that we do have control of. The landscaping issue along McMillan Road -- could staff put up the last exhibit that you Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 46 of 125 had, which was the overall map? If you look at the existing canal right now, it comes up to this point and, then, drops down through here. What we are proposing is relocation of that canal in a straight line up to the point -- and, obviously, there is going to have to be some decision between ACHD and Idaho Power Company on how to transition in this area. Whether it transitions off this property where we do have control, but there will not be a road right up against that easement, it just gets to the point that the irrigation company does not want trees in their easement and the rest of it will be public right of way. It's not as though we are trying to dodge anything. What we are trying to do is implement a regional pathway system that fits the context of your Comprehensive Plan and your recently adopted parks and recreation plan and these are some factors that happen to come together and we are going to go to a great extent to help that system come to fruition, but it is an issue that is beyond our control, because of rights of way or easements that are controlled by either the highway district or by the irrigation district and we will do what we can, but we are not trying to dodge anything. Zaremba: Mr. Wardle? Wardle: Yes, Commissioner. Zaremba: While you're at that point in the discussion, I will ask either you or staff if we know -- what is the setback on the Idaho Power substation? Do they have 35 feet landscaped beyond the future right of way? Wardle: Mr. Zaremba -- do you have the photograph -- I can illustrate it from the site plan. Yeah. Unfortunately, the aerial photo, I think, was taken a lot earlier than the improvements. There is -- this original fence has been extended on down and so if you were out there today without the snow on the ground, you would see grass in that area. However, the canal runs right along the side of the roadway in that area and you have the large -- you can see the little dots for the towers, the large metal towers in that location and so at some point when ACHD comes to widen that roadway, they are going to have to look at possibly relocating that canal outside of that area or tiling it through there, but at least that area is currently available and open for pathway, canal, or whatever. There is currently sodded area between their fence, which is in this location, and the canal itself. Zaremba: I guess my question was how deep is that sodded area and where I'm going is in other locations where there was already existing structures that already had existing landscape buffers that were smaller than what we were trying the new property to get, it made more sense to make the new property compatible with the old property, as opposed to go the whole 35 feet. My question is do you know -- the reduction that you're trying to do, is that compatible with what's already there next door? Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Zaremba, from the standpoint that if this canal realigns in this location and, then, transitions, there is still about the same equal amount of open space from the existing roadway to that point as it is to the fence along the substation. It's about the same. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 47 of 125 Zaremba: So, it's a consistent appearance. Wardle: It would be consistent. Zaremba: Okay. Wardle: I just wanted to make a comment about the roadway question. That roadway, when it's connected, and as it's proposed, is 29 feet, would be a one-side parking roadway and that actually works, because you have the driveway accesses on the north side and you would have no driveway accesses on the south side, so you would have parking available in that location. It would be through the -- it would be connected and it, actually, does conform fully with ACHD and Fire Department standards with that restriction and that's exactly what will be done. Borup: Would there be a signed -- Wardle: Yes. Borup: A sign no parking? Wardle: Yes. That's what they typically do. Mr. Chairman, Commission Members, I think those address all of the issues. Again, everything that is of concern to the neighborhood -- we will look at the fencing question, but we, honestly, have to express the feeling that the maintenance and operation of the ditch to the south is really the challenge and responsibility of those property owners. Our need will be to not impede or impair the use of our property, but to be certain that whatever we put there does not get damaged or cause them any liability. We will have to work on that question and that's largely a question of fencing, unless they chose to tile the ditch as was suggested by one of the other neighbors. Unless you have questions, I would conclude. Appreciate the opportunity and, quite frankly, I'm pleased to bring this project forward, as I have several others in the recent past that I believe have added to both the integrity and the diversity and let me just state that this doesn't have really any high density elements to it. Even the attached units are still reasonably modest in size and character, but they do add at least a little bit of diversity on a project that otherwise we are trying to maintain complete compatibility with the surrounding area. Thank you. Borup: Mr. Wardle, maybe while you're here, I -- something for staff and I don't know if I had clarification, but the point that Mrs. Ingram brought up and that's on the sidewalk along the power substation property that Sheridan Place is putting in. You made mention of it. I realize that's a whole separate project, but could you clarify that a little bit? Hood: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the difference with that -- and I guess I should have made it a little more clear. The Idaho Power site is actually part of that application. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 48 of 125 Borup: So part of annexing their site? Hood: Correct. That's part of the application. The difference with what Mrs. Ingram referred to is that would be an off-site -- if this applicant had a flag that went all the way down Locust Grove, then, we would be requiring them to construct sidewalk on that property, but they do not -- off-site improvements aren't something that we normally require and that's why the sidewalk is being recommended, is because they are part of that application. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: A little following up or sideways step, I guess, on that. If the Idaho Power substation is part of that other subdivision, including their annexation and all of that, the 22 feet of right of way that is a flag in front of this subdivision, will that be sidewalk at that time by them? Hood: Yeah. Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, that's the idea, that's the condition. It has not been approved yet. That subdivision has not been before this body -- at least the Public Hearing hasn't been opened before this body. That is a condition that staff is working on preparing that would require the sidewalk to be constructed from the terminus of this project to. Through the Idaho Power station and work -- and a condition of the applicant is to work with Idaho Power or whoever is going to be constructing that, on the location of where this multi pathway ties in and being extended, so you don't have, you know, them stubbed in different locations. We need them to tie in together and make sure that those locations match up. Borup: Mr. Wardle, I assume you have -- there has been some discussion with Idaho Power on that little flag piece of property. Is that something they want to keep? Is there -- do they have a use for that? Wardle: Mr. Chairman -- Borup: It looks like it's 13 feet. Is that what it is? Wardle: I don't have an answer to that question. I'm not certain if the Yorgason’s do or not. You will need to come up here if you want to -- Borup Well, maybe it's not pertinent, it was more of a curious -- Wardle: It's just this piece right here. Hood: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I can -- about half of that will be future right of way and the other half will be the sidewalk with a little bit of it being the remaining portion of the landscape buffer on the street. I can't imagine that Idaho Power necessarily wants it for anything. I can't imagine that it would benefit this Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 49 of 125 developer to obtain that for any purpose. I think they would just be required to construct a sidewalk if they bought and dedicated the right of way to the highway district, so I don't know how this lot got in that configuration specifically, but that's kind of what would happen with the -- with that property and the future of that property. Borup: Okay. Wardle: Thank you very much. Rohm: Mr. Wardle, I want to return to this fence issue for just a moment and bear with me. It appears as if they are concerned about being able to maintain their ditch, which is rightfully so, and you're concerned about building a fence that isn't destroyed by the maintenance of the ditch. Maybe this is a time to come up with some solution and, I don't know, maybe a chain link fence is the right answer along that south line of your development, which can't be destroyed by burning of the ditch. Is that -- is that something that we can put in the conditions of approval if we move forward with this? Is that acceptable to -- Wardle: Mr. Rohm, what I would prefer at the moment is to leave the question open for -- to work with staff, because I believe that we do have to address the fencing, but to know exactly what tonight -- I don't know what the distance is between that ditch and their fence. That's something that needs to be looked at. You know, I'm not certain, you know, what the options are. If some of the problems that they have had of getting water down that ditch, maybe it's time for them to consider tiling it, so that that issue goes away and that they have something that is maintained and they don't have to worry about how they get water from one end to the other. I don't know that we can come to that conclusion, but if it has to be a noncombustible, then, I would ask if we could work with staff on solutions. I don't think it's -- you know, the Commission needs to spend the time to worry about exactly what the fence would be, except that there does, obviously have to be some type of a fence and consideration has to be given to the ditch. Borup: Still have a question on that? Zaremba: I would only add, from a regional perspective and other meetings that I attend, that it may not be very long before burning the ditches is not allowed. DEQ is getting very excited about how close we are teasing nonattainment, they will be looking at every single source, and I would suspect that these neighbors may need to tile it that's their solution to the burning problem anyhow. Without our doing anything about it. Just an opinion. Wardle: I don't think we are going to be doing a lot along that boundary initially, anyway, for some time. We are going to be concentrating on coming in and working our way in this direction, as I recall the phasing. That issue isn't the first thing that has to be addressed or a solution decided tonight. Again, thank you. Borup: You still have a question, Mike? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 50 of 125 Rohm: Well, I -- my just general comment would be anytime you have two pieces of property that are adjacent to each other, that these community meetings are generally where you resolve these issues and it seems as if that's still an open issue and I don't feel comfortable making a determination for two parcels of ground that are adjacent to each other that should figure out the resolve to that between the two of them. That would just be my position on that. Wardle: Mr. Chairman, just in response, the developer has agreed that if the appropriate and best solution is chain link that would be agreeable to them. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Borup: I still think it makes sense to work that out with staff. Rohm: Yes. Zaremba: I would express the opinion that I realize a lot of the effort goes into making these plans and it's an odd piece of property, I think they have dealt with it creatively. There are still a couple of issues that I can just hear the City Council saying these need to be worked out before you send stuff to us. Whether the fencing issue is one of them, certainly we have not -- ACHD has not finished their meeting and even if it's just a consent item next week, I think we still need to know what ACHD does. I think for the sake of our Public Works Department we need to know about the water situation. It would be helpful to have further resolution on the fence situation. What I'm saying is -- I understand the desire to move it along, either fish or cut bait, you know, approve it or kill it, one or the other, but I'm inclined to continue this until there has been at least the ACHD report and a test well agreed to. I'm hesitant to pass it onto City Council either way, because they have consistently said they want these questions answered before it leaves here. Borup: So, your main concern is the well? Zaremba: The well and the ACHD report. Borup: And the ACHD -- and the fence -- Zaremba: I think it's very possible that ACHD is going to say it's fine, we have no opinion, other than what they have already expressed through their draft report, but -- Borup: The fence is already agreed to and determined, it's just a matter of material. Zaremba: Yeah. Oh, yeah, there is going to be a fence and that's been agreed to by everybody, but I'm just hesitant to hand it to City Council with the -- a couple of major items hanging. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 51 of 125 Rohm: Can the well be addressed at Final Plat, as opposed to as part of this application, just say we are going to move it forward, but full well knowing that they are not going to receive Final Plat approval until the water issue is resolved. I mean that seems logical. Borup: We have had similar things where the developer went with that understanding, that they were taking the risk themselves. Zaremba: I don't recall ever forwarding anything until we had seen the ACHD report. Rohm: I'm not opposed to waiting to see the ACHD report, but as far as the water issue, I think that at Final Plat that would a good place to either move forward or put the brakes to it. Borup: I think you're right on ACHD as far as major subdivisions. We have forwarded some -- the motion was stated that it was continued upon satisfactory approval of ACHD or something along that line. With the understanding if there was something negative, they would need to come back. That was on small projects. Commissioner? Mathes: Bruce, what's your comfort level on the water? Freckleton: Could you restate that, please? Mathes: What's your comfort level on the water? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Mathes, you know, if -- I think that the developer and my department can work together on coming to an agreement on the -- you know, granting permission for the test well. We can get in there and get that done. Like I said, I think that within a month's time, we can have the well -- or the test well drilled. You know, if you guys -- if it's your desire to move this forward. I think where Commissioner Rohm was going, you know, I would just recommend, maybe, that you put a condition in the Preliminary Plat section, just create a condition of approval that, you know, just simply states something to the effect that we will not sign the Final Plat until supply is there. You're exactly right, the developer is assuming some risks, but I think he's going into it, you know, fully aware of those risks. Zaremba: Would we identify those risks in the Development Agreement? Attached to the zoning? Powell: The risks associated with not having the water -- I think they already went on record as saying that they were willing to take that risk. I think it's more of an acknowledgment. I don't -- we can always rely on that if, for some reason, they were to go back and sue the city, that they acknowledge that they are -- that risk was there. I'm not sure what they'd really be agreeing to in the Development Agreement, other than there is a risk that they might not get sewer and water it's kind of a standard risk that they know they need sewer and water, so -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 52 of 125 Zaremba: Then, let me ask Craig what your comfort level -- having read the ACHD draft report, what's your comfort level that there isn't going to be major changes? Borup: And along with that, I don't know if I -- when was the date of the ACHD meeting? Zaremba: The 28th, I think. Borup: 28th? Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, the staff -- the report -- the draft staff report that I received from ACHD did say the 28th. However, talking with the applicant, I believe that has been moved up a week, but I can't even verify that. It was the 28th on the draft that I saw, the 21st according to the applicant, which may be the case. As I stated earlier -- Zaremba: But having read it, what's your comfort level with -- Hood: And reading that and -- as I stated earlier, I -- the issues, aside from Locust Grove and McMillan and everyone's concern with them being two lane roadways and four way stop controlled intersections, the internal design of this site really does not have any issues for them to resolve, except for the ones as noted and the highway district did have a copy of my draft report with the connection of the two roadways and that should still meet their policy, as well as the fingers going to private streets. I think there was one other issue, they were -- the draft that I saw, there was a stub street that was requested on the eastern boundary of the site, an additional stub street. Zaremba: But I think your comment was any additional stub street to the east would go into what ACHD is going to use as a holding pond right? Hood: There are actually three parcels. ACHD has ownership of the parcel that you can only see a portion of here. There is a property line right here that separates ACHD from this parcel from this parcel. These two parcels are under the same ownership and the distance between -- if a stub street was provided to this -- I think it's about six acres is this parcel. Again, it's under the same ownership. The city looks at those as being the same parcel. There may be a property line there, but when they are in contiguous ownership, they are really looked at as the same piece of ground, so -- Borup: Is that under the ownership of a developer, Mr. Wardle -- Hood: Mr. Amyx owns that. Yes. Correct. Borup: Okay. Hood: So -- and he owns some other properties that go over -- I think he has three or four or five parcels even in this area, that he's just waiting for this to get through and Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 53 of 125 come and see us, but that's why that was an issue for -- in the draft report that you may have seen, that was a stub street, they are requesting that this be extended over there. The block length, then, becomes really short between this street and this street, a stub over there, and I -- another crossing of the North Slough here really didn't -- I think the same interconnectivity can be accomplished with just this one stub here and that's why I did not require that with this application in my staff report, but, other than that, I think ACHD staff and my report jive pretty well, so -- my comfort level is fairly high. Zaremba: Well, I could be swayed not to continue it until those have been resolved. It sounds like they will be resolved by the time it would get to City Council anyhow. That's where I was coming from was to continue it until we had the answers. Borup: Well, yes, there is some concern there. Zaremba: I could be swayed. I would comment -- and this comes up with almost every subdivision, that the traffic on the surrounding streets and particularly the mile section streets, ACHD's capital improvement plan and their five year work program are downstream results of studies that are done by Compass, the metropolitan planning organization for this area. They base their traffic forecasting pretty much on what exists, with some thought about what might be put there. Approving subdivisions actually changes their forecast and the change of their forecast sometimes can change ACHD's priorities. I realize that seems like it's backwards, you ought to have the roads there before you have the subdivisions there. The way the system works, we won't get the roads unless we approve the subdivisions. That changes ACHD's program. I mean, I'm sorry, that first changes Compass's program, who lets ACHD know that they need to do something about it and it's like a discussion we have on another one with the fire station. We think there needs to be a fire station south of the interstate. Well, it won't be there until there are enough houses there for the city to justify paying for it. I realize it seems wrong to keep approving subdivisions when the traffic problem hasn't been solved first. Unfortunately, the way the system is handed to us, two agencies over which we have no control respond to having the subdivisions go in first and the roads won't happen until that does, so that's just my comment on creating the traffic. Rohm: And that's not just Locust Grove, that's any development and so that's -- Zaremba: Everywhere in Ada county. Rohm: Right. Borup: My memory may be off, but I believe Locust Grove was in their long-term plan at one time and they pulled it, because they didn't see any development happening. Zaremba: I think that's true. Borup: That's since changed and it can get back on the long-term plan just as easy, I would hope. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 54 of 125 Zaremba: The capital improvement plan and the five year work plan are kind of floating documents, they do change, and they change because of the impact. Borup: Okay. Clapp: Dick Clapp. 2255 Paradise Lane again. Question. When the Champion Subdivision was approved, when the developer develops property, isn't there some sort of monies held out for ACHD development? In other words, on Ustick Road. If that's the case -- Borup: It's paid for by impact fees, so each builder as he pays for his building permit, he pays for road impact fees. Clapp: Okay. If this is developed, then, impact fees would be there to widen Locust Grove right? Would that influence ACHD to get on the stick? Zaremba: It does to some extent. The struggle we go through is trying to get ACHD to prove it to us whether they are using Meridian's impact fees to build the East Park Center Bridge. We -- ACHD is our only highway department. It's Meridian's highway department, because we don't have any other and it wouldn't be efficient for us to have any other. We need to be friends with those people, but there is always questions about whether the impact fees collected in Meridian are being spent in Meridian and they, actually, don't have an accounting system that can prove that one way or the other. Borup: They have tried. Rohm: But you're exactly right. There are impact fees collected for each development based upon the number of lots within that development and so to your point, yes. Clapp: So, the money would be there, it's just -- Rohm: There is money being collected. Borup: Well, that money has to go towards increasing capacity. They can't use any of that money for maintenance or -- Zaremba: Right. They have a separate budget for maintenance of existing roads. Borup: Yeah. It is earmarked for increasing capacity. Commissioners? You have talked about a couple different options here, so I'm not sure which direction you're leaning entirely, but -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 55 of 125 Zaremba: I have been given a comfort level that the things that I think need to be resolved before it gets to City Council can be resolved before it gets to City Council. That could give me comfort in passing it along. Rohm: I concur with that. Zaremba: I'll make the easy motion. I move that the three hearings be closed. Rohm: I'll second that. I wanted to do that one. Zaremba: No, I'm going to give you the next three motions. Borup: We have a motion. Do we have second? Rohm: Yes. I'll second. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Is there any discussion that we'd like to go through on any of those before forming a motion? Zaremba: Well, unless we want to do it page by page with staff. Rohm: I think we need to do that, because I didn't take notes based upon Craig's changes and if we are going to make a motion, we are going to have to include some of those recommendations as we went through the -- each one of them. Zaremba: Uh-huh. Borup: I think the -- Zaremba: Start on page seven. I don't think there were any changes to the Annexation and Zoning facts conditions. Borup: No. I think we are all fine on those. Zaremba: And the applicant appears to have agreed with all of those. Preliminary Plat, which starts on -- a lot of pages here. Borup: Fourteen. Zaremba: Fourteen. We probably ought to -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 56 of 125 Rohm: I think we needed to add a condition on that at the end to speak to the well being -- approved well -- Borup: Yeah. There is some clarification. I guess the motion could state that -- incorporate the applicant's responses that Mr. Hood agreed with. Except for probably 15, 16, 17, and 23 were the only -- or the only ones that -- is that correct, Craig, that 15, 16 -- the ones pertaining to the well and, then, the Preliminary Plat revisions were the only ones that you had a question on. The others as stated by the applicant were agreeable. Hood: There is other -- a couple of other issues, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. There were a couple other -- condition number four, the applicant just asked for some additional language there and they did not propose any additional language. There are a couple of them like those that I would like to clarify or clean up a little bit. Borup: Okay. Do we want to discuss that right now? That question was because Idaho Power owns 13 feet of frontage between their property and the road, so how would you address -- Zaremba: Wasn't it the other way around? Idaho Power has 22 feet and the applicant is only going to landscape 13? Hood: That's correct. Yeah. They are landscaping the back half. I have some language here if you'd like or if you want to draft your own. Basically, the applicant's fear, I believe, was that we are going to make them construct a sidewalk where they didn't own property. You know, for any -- I have a -- for the portion of this site that has frontage on Locust Grove Road, construct a five foot wide concrete sidewalk. For the portion of the site near Locust Grove Road that does not have frontage, construct a portion of landscape buffer as shown on the submitted landscape plan, but not sidewalk. Borup: Okay. Now, what was the other one that you were -- Hood: Number 5 the applicant didn't propose anything. Just to delete the second sentence there in condition number five should cover his concerns. Number 12 all right with -- Zaremba: Say again on five. Delete the second sentence? Hood: Second sentence, yes. You will have to call out I think -- staff is all right with the changes as proposed to number 12, 14, 21, not 23, and, then, add condition 24, which I read. That's the other one that I wanted to add in about the private streets. I want to go back, I guess, to Site-Specific number five. The applicant referred to a couple of other lots that will be using common driveways. I have not seen that revised site plan, so I have a little bit of reservation just making a condition to refer to lots that I haven't seen Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 57 of 125 how the common driveway works or anything like that. I trust if they are doing the same thing, that the lot and block numbers are going to have to change, because the other ones are lot and blocks. If we refer to Lots 5 and 6, what number is a common lot and, then, that throws every other lot and block numbering off in that whole block. I don't have an idea with them doing a common lot there maybe a better idea is a generic common driveway statement about frontage for lots that share a common driveway, that they don't need frontage or something like that. Like I said, without seeing the revised plat, it's hard for me to really comment on that. Again, I don't have a problem with it, but -- Zaremba: Okay. On page 15, paragraph five, we could say along with making that street connection, applicant will supply new lot and block numbers for any new common driveways. Borup: In their revised Preliminary Plat? Zaremba: Yes. Does that work? Borup: Well, I had the impression the lot and block numbers weren't changing. The configuration of the lots were changing, because part of that hammerhead was disappearing, there was just going to be a curve. Hood: But they are adding a common driveway lot in there, so that throws you off at least one throughout the rest of your count in that block. Zaremba: They are making their shared driveways a common lot, so -- Hood: So, any other reference to a lot further down the line, then, it gets thrown off and the staff report kind of gets -- Zaremba: Yeah. Borup: Okay. Yeah. Zaremba: But can we leave it vague enough to say we know they are going to do that and the lots will be renumbered? We have already said they have do a new plat. Hood: And, actually, the plat that Mr. Smith just handed me does show frontage for that and I don't see a lot number on there. Zaremba: Well, if the lot number didn't change, then, we won't even mention it. If they didn't do the common lot thing there -- Hood: So, the site plan that's -- as submitted, that just is not a lot and block, but it will have to be it by a Final Plat, so -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 58 of 125 Borup: Okay. Zaremba: What is the name of the street that's being connected? Hood: I would call it Stampede Avenue. I believe that's what they will be addressed off of. Yeah. That -- Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I have a possible solution for you. I guess just the lots on the northwest corner of the intersection of Stampede and Territory, rather than a lot and block, you could refer to the attached unit sharing a common driveway at the northwest corner of Stampede Avenue and Territory Court. Zaremba: Okay. I may have that worked out. Let's see. Now, did we want to add a -- let's see. Where do we mention fence. Eighteen is a detailed fencing plan and they are saying a six foot solid fence shall be required around the perimeter of the subdivision, unless the city agrees in writing that such a fence is not required. Do we want to add a sentence on the end that the applicant will work with city and -- to determine the fencing materials along the southern border? Hood: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, I guess I have some of the other concerns that -- I don't feel like -- not being on the other side of that fence, I don't know that I'm capable of taking into consideration what type of fence. I mean I have heard noncombustible, that seems to be the main issue, but for me to work with the applicant on coming up with something that appeases a third party, I don't know that I would be capable of doing that. If you want to make it a noncombustible fence, we can certainly work with the applicant on something like that. Just a design of a fence along a property line, I don't know that I could do something where I would make all 20 some homeowners happy with what design the applicant and myself came up with, so that's -- Zaremba: How about this, if we just delete the word solid. The requirement, as it states, is for a detailed fencing plan, which we still want. A six foot fence shall be required all the way around the perimeter, which is still true, whether it's vinyl or chain link or anything, if we just take the word solid out and it would still be installed in accordance with -- right? Just delete the word solid. If they want something different, then, they get the permission of the city in writing. It already says that. That leaves it up to the applicant to figure out. Am I getting a yea or a nay on that? Hood: Sorry? Zaremba: Will that work? Hood: Yeah. That's good. Zaremba: Okay. Are we ready to move on to Conditional Use stuff? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Mr. Freckleton. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 59 of 125 Freckleton: If we are going to recommend this forward to Council, we had talked about adding a condition number 25. Zaremba: On the plat? Freckleton: Correct. I have just thrown together some wording here. If you want to modify it, feel free, but I just said until such time that additional domestic water can be supplied to the vicinity the city will not sign the Final Plat for any phases of this development. Rohm: Pretty black and white, isn't it? Zaremba: Okay. I got most of that. I have missed a couple of words right in the middle. Until such time as additional water supply can be -- Freckleton: Supplied to the vicinity, the city will not sign the Final Plat. Zaremba: The city will not sign the Final Plat. Freckleton: For any phases -- Zaremba: For any phase of this development. Freckleton: Yeah. Zaremba: Supplied in the vicinity is what I missed. Assuming I can read that again later when I get to it. Okay. Freckleton: Okay. Then, Mr. Chair, with respect to condition 15, this was the one that talked about -- Zaremba: Pressurized irrigation. Freckleton: -- being modified to allow staff the ability to either charge a reduced assessment or eliminate the assessment, depending on the value of the land needed for the well. I would, I guess, respectfully request that we just let Council deal with that one. I don't know if you -- how you feel about just leaving it the way it's worded in the staff report and let Council take it up. Borup: But I'm assuming Council would like to have some type of recommendation or proposal worked out. Freckleton: Certainly and that's your -- Borup: And that being the intention for staff to have prior to Council. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 60 of 125 Freckleton: Yeah. I would welcome that. Borup: I don't think Council wants to iron the whole thing out during the Council meeting. Zaremba: Okay. Powell: Chairman Borup? Zaremba: Just to make sure I'm in the right place, page 16, item 15, talks about the pressurized irrigation system. I don't see how that relates to the city well that we are talking about. Borup: Well, you could add it to 17, that -- the actual comment on a well is not in the -- that's -- is 17, probably, the best place for staff comment? It's referred to previously under -- under special considerations. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, the applicant's response is where it was brought up. On their page three of four, item 15, in both text down there. Their response is to the second to the last sentence I have in that comment. My comment reads: If a single point connection is utilized -- we are talking about the common areas here -- the developer shall be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the Final Plat. What they are after is just some consideration of the value of the land for the well site when we start talking about assessment fees and -- either reduce them or eliminate them to help offset that value. As I stated before, City Council is the only one that can really do anything with that. I don't have the authority to do that. Certainly, a recommendation from you would be welcome. Zaremba: So, leaving paragraph 15 the way it is, not adding their requested modification, but adding one more final sentence that says: Applicant will workout with City Council any setbacks or any offsets to these assessment fees to cover the city well that's been requested. Something like that. Freckleton: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, I think that would be fine. Any adjustments or deletions or something to that effect, that's fine. Shall be taken up with City Council. Rohm: What happens if the other proposed well site is developed and you don't end up with a well on this development at all? Zaremba: They want them both, though. Don't you want them both? Freckleton: It is our desire to have two well sites in the vicinity. If we cannot -- you know, if we can't get one here, we are going to be looking somewhere else in this vicinity. If we get a well site up on Chinden Road and Locust Grove, if we get that well drilled and Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 61 of 125 activated into the system, that's going to give us more supply and it gives us more room to work. Certainly, this development could probably move forward with that one well, but the long-range plan is to have two wells up in this area. Rohm: I guess my point was -- is specific to moving forward with this development isn't necessarily that we resolve the financial impacts, because it potentially won't even come to that. That was my only point. Freckleton: Exactly. Zaremba: So, the sentence I would have is: Applicant may apply to the City Council for offset of these fees -- and we are talking about the pressurized irrigation connection fees -- offset of these fees against a municipal well site in The Grove. Freckleton: I think that would be fine. Zaremba: Okay. Then -- okay. Are we ready to discuss the Conditional Use? Powell: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, I want to just add in one comment on the fence. I think that neither staff nor the applicant at this point would have enough of guidance from you as to what you're looking for in way of the fence. I don't know if you want a noncombustible fence or not. You might -- I'm not sure the applicant knows or even all of the homeowners. It might be appropriate to ask the applicant to try and resolve that issue prior to City Council, so that we can have some recommendation that the Final Plat I don't believe all the homeowners get notice for the Final Plat. Typically, the fence issue is decided -- or often decided, then, but these folks won't get notice of that hearing. There is an issue that needs to be worked out with the neighbors now would -- now would be the appropriate time, rather than the Final Plat. Zaremba: Well, the beginning of paragraph 18 says a detailed fencing plan will be submitted. Powell: Usually they do that with the Final Plat. Zaremba: Oh, yeah. With application of the Final Plat. That -- oh. Well, shall we change that to say prior to the next hearing? Powell: If we had some idea of, you know, what was going on, that would be better. Zaremba: A detailed fencing plan shall be submitted prior to the next hearing. Hood: Mr. Chair -- Borup: How much detail is the fencing plan? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 62 of 125 Hood: And that's what I was just going to tell you. On their submitted landscape plan, they show a six-foot solid fence all the way around this and four foot on their micropaths in accordance with City Code. I guess we will need some more -- and that is just because they know that they are going to have to show it on their Final Plat. If you want to change that to be more specific, that it's six foot chain link with slats or whatever -- you know, I don't know what direction -- and that's why I didn't feel comfortable working with the applicant on coming up with something that he's 15 or 20 -- Zaremba: And I'm trying to give the applicant room to make that decision in their discussions with the neighbors. The applicant wants the opportunity to go out and eyeball the distance of the ditch from the property and make the determination, so -- but I agree, that needs to be worked out before this goes to City Council, not before Final Plat, and the City Council hearing, of course, is noticed. A detailed fencing plan shall be submitted prior to 10 days before the hearing and will specify fencing materials to be used. Borup: Okay. That's what I was going to say, that's probably the only thing that's missing now is material type. Zaremba: Because we have already said it's got to be six foot and it has to be in compliance with MCC, which the four-foot section also is. Borup: And they have got it on their landscaping plan now. Zaremba: Yes. A detailed fencing plan shall be submitted 10 days prior to the next hearing. Borup: And at this point there has been discussion perhaps chain link with slats, but there would be an opportunity for the developer to come up with something different. Zaremba: I'd just say identify materials to be used. That will get it to the hearing before the City Council. I have a lot of notes. Okay. Site-Specific conditions, Conditional Use Permit, which starts on page 22. Hood: I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba. Before you go further, I just want to make sure on the Preliminary Plat -- and Bruce added that condition -- the condition for a private street as well be added, just -- I don't know if you -- the two fingers that we talked about earlier. I don't know if anyone was writing that down in my original presentation, but that -- I would request that that be added as a condition as well and if you have Bruce's as 24 or 25, that -- Borup: Well, yeah, you have got that down as Condition 24, didn't you? Hood: And, then, Bruce's would be 25. Borup: Yes. Do you have 24 down? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 63 of 125 Zaremba: I do have a 24. Yeah. Cul-de-sacs without turnarounds will be made into private streets is the way I put it. That was 24 and, then, 25 is -- Borup: In accordance with Meridian Code. Was that, essentially, what you -- Hood: Thank you. Borup: -- in accordance with Meridian Code? Zaremba: Okay. Okay. Got that? Okay. The only mark I had had that, page 23, the -- what's actually the third bullet of paragraph two that starts on the previous page, they have agreed to construct the emergency access, right, in design and construction with emergency, so I don't really need to make any change there. Let's see if they have any comment on that. Borup: Mr. Hood, do we need to make mention of the pathway moving to the north side of the waterway? Is that -- did I understand that correctly? Hood: I don't believe you need to. It doesn't specify that the path needs to be constructed on the north or south side. Borup: That's what I thought. Zaremba: Okay. They requested that the second bullet be changed and I think we agreed with their suggestion; right? Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, they, actually, didn't have any language, but that was the one, again, that referred to a common lot, so if you still have Lots 34 and 35 of Block 2 and Lots 53 and 54 of Block 1 in the northwest corner, then, I guess in that same bullet the last sentence needs to be removed. Zaremba: Are we talking about paragraph three? Hood: It is Site-Specific number two, bullet two. Zaremba: Okay. Hood: Last sentence in that bullet. Lots sharing common driveways shall have minimum street frontage, because those lots will not have frontage. Zaremba: Delete that sentence. Hood: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. Then on paragraph three their suggested changes were acceptable? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 64 of 125 I think we -- Hood: Yes. Zaremba: And five also. Okay. Rohm: Good job, Dave. Zaremba: You're leaving it to me. Rohm: Yeah. You do so well. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I'm ready to make a motion if we are ready. Mr. Chairman, I recommend we forward to the -- move that we forward -- let me start over. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 8 on our agenda. AZ 03-035, request for Annexation and Zoning of 70.64 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Settlement Bridge Subdivision by Capital Development. 2205 East McMillan Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of January 15th, 2004, received by the city clerk January 13, 2004, with the following changes -- there are no changes to annexation. 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 9 on our agenda. PP 03-041, request for a Preliminary Plat approval of 266 single family residential building lots and 34 common lots on 7.64 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Settlement Bridge Subdivision by Capital Development. 2205 East McMillan Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of January 15, 2004, received by the Clerk January 13, 2004. With the following changes beginning on Page 15, Paragraph 4, as an additional sentence added to the end. That along Locust Grove, the portion with frontage on the road, they will construct landscaping with sidewalk. The portion where a section is actually owned by Idaho Power, they will construct a portion of the landscape buffer without the sidewalk. Paragraph five on page 15. The current last sentence is deleted and we will add a sentence that says similar treatment shall be given to the lots around the northwest corner of Stampede Avenue when the two sections of Stampede are connected as required. On page 15, paragraph 12, staff comments may be modified by the comments provided by the applicant in their moment received by the city clerk January 15th, 2004. On page 16, paragraph 14, they may be modified by the applicant's comment in the applicant's memo of January 15th, 2004 -- received by the clerk January 15th, 2004. Paragraph 15 will be modified as follows: A last sentence will be added that says applicant may apply to the City Council for offset of these fees Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 65 of 125 against a municipal well site in The Grove. On page 17, paragraph 16, may be modified as requested by the applicant in the applicant's memo of January 15th, 2004. On page 17, paragraph 18, will be modified so that the first sentence reads: A detailed fencing plan shall be submitted ten days prior to the next hearing, identifying the material to be used. A six-foot -- delete the word solid -- fence shall be required and the rest of the sentence goes on as is. Paragraph 21. Delete the portion that's in parenthesis and move the period up after the word phase. Still on page 17, we will add a paragraph 24 that says any cul-de-sac without a turnaround shall be changed to a private street in accordance with Meridian codes. We will add a paragraph 25 that says: Until such time as additional water supply can be supplied in the vicinity, the city will not sign Final Plat for any phase of this development. There are no changes to the general requirements, so end of motion on Preliminary Plat. Rohm: I will second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 10 on our agenda. CUP 03-065, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development to allow single-family residential and attached single family in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Settlement Bridge Subdivision by Capital Development. 2205 East McMillan Road, to include all staff comments of their memo dated for the hearing date of January 15, 2004, received by the City Clerk January 13, 2004, with the following changes. On Page 21, at the very bottom of the page, in the discussion about cul-de-sac length, the last -- next to the last sentence as it appears on this page says the key reason for the city adopted -- the key reason the city adopted a minimum cul-de-sac length -- and that word should be maximum, not minimum, was for emergency services. Then, going to page 23, the bullet at the top of the page, which is, actually, the second bullet of paragraph two, which starts on the previous page, but the bullet on the top of page 23, the last sentence, lot sharing common driveways, that sentence can be deleted and in addition to that add wording as proposed by the applicant in their memo of January 15th, 2004. On page 23, paragraph three, can be modified as proposed by the applicant in the applicant's memo of January 15th, 2004. On Page 23, Paragraph 5 can also be modified as proposed by the applicant in the applicant's memo of January 15, 2004. End of motion on CUP. Rohm: I will second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Well, thank you. Appreciate everyone. Would the Commissioners like to continue on or are we ready for a short break? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 66 of 125 Zaremba: A short break would be appreciated, I think. Borup: Okay. We will take a short break at this time. (Recess.) Item 11: Public Hearing: AZ 03-028 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 7.98 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision No. 2 by Initial Point, LLC – 1295 West McMillan Road: Item 12: Public Hearing: PP 03-033 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 40 single-family building lots and 7 common lots on 7.98 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision No. 2 by Initial Point, LLC – 1295 West McMillan Road: Item 13: Public Hearing: CUP 03-059 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for reduced requirements for frontage, lot size, minimum house size and street side building setback in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision No. 2 by Initial Point, LLC – 1295 West McMillan Road: Borup: Okay. We'd like to reconvene our meeting this evening and start with the Cobblefield project. Items Number 11, 12, and 13, AZ 03-028, request for Annexation and Zoning of 7.98 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for the proposed Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision. PP 03-033, request for Preliminary Plat approval, and Public Hearing CUP 03-059, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development on the same project and open all three hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Kirkpatrick: All right. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is an application for the Annexation and Zoning of 7.98 acres. It's currently zoned RUT in Ada County. They are proposing a Rezone to R-8. There is also an application for a Preliminary Plat for 23 single family detached lots and 16 attached single-family homes. Actually, there will be 16 lots. There is also an application for a CUP planned development to allow reduced lot sizes, reduced frontage, reduced setbacks, and reduced home sizes. I will go through and explain the location of this property. It's located approximately a half- mile east of the southeast intersection of McMillan and Linder, and I will put up the aerial and show you some of the surrounding land uses. McMillan Road is located directly to the north of Cobblefield 2. The phase one of Cobblefield Subdivision is located directly to the south. To the east, we have property, which is still located in the county. It's zoned RUT. To the west, we have property that's still located in the county it's rural residential and zoned RUT. I also want to point that this is an area with a fair amount of development. Baldwin Park was recently approved and it's located to the south and Paramount Subdivision is located to the north of this property. I'll put the plat up. Let's see. Probably the main issue I want to go through -- and the applicant, I know, is going to address this, because there is some changes, I think, that came up relatively Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 67 of 125 recently, I just found out about in the hallway. Cobblefield 2 includes a replat of Lot 1, Block 1 of Cobblefield 1. There was a space lot and in Cobblefield 1 there was a proposed -- or, actually, approved micropaths and there was workout stations. The applicant is -- and I will have to see their new version of their plat -- was proposing to reconfigure this open space lot. Part of this open space lot was going to include the backyards of several homes, so they were going to cut into this open space lot. This entire lot was -- from Cobblefield 1 is going to be incorporated into Cobblefield 2 and staff, in my staff report, I recommended that the amenities that were required for Cobblefield 1 include the micropath and the workout stations. That the applicant be required to keep those amenities when this lot was incorporated in Cobblefield 2. I know the applicant has another proposal that they are going to explain to you this evening. Staff recommends approval of this project. I don't know if you have any questions and I will probably want to speak after the applicant submits their new proposal for dealing with the open space. Are there any questions of staff? Zaremba: I only have a question on numbers, actually. All of your materials, as you stated, 23 single family, 16 single family attached, that adds up to 39, as you said. On our agenda it says 40. This is Item 12. Are we sure it's 39 or 40? Kirkpatrick: The applicant's application stated -- well, actually, the notice that went out to adjoining neighbors says this was 39 single-family lots. Zaremba: Okay. Kirkpatrick: And the applicant's application says 39. I'm not sure where 40 came from. We will ask the applicant about that. Zaremba: Let's say that it's a typo on the agenda. Borup: Okay. Any other questions? Zaremba: Just another typo. Under application -- this is still on the first page of the staff report. Kirkpatrick: Okay. Zaremba: Under application summary, the second paragraph, the last sentence says: The other lots include six, parenthesis, and seven. I would change the parenthesis to six. Kirkpatrick: That would be a typo. Zaremba: All right. Six is correct? Kirkpatrick: Actually, let me -- let me check. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 68 of 125 Zaremba: Well, now that I notice the agenda says seven common lots. Kirkpatrick: And the notice says seven common lots. Actually, I want to have the applicant clarify that and I will go through the original application. Zaremba: There are seven common lots, six of them landscape lots and one of them is the park. Kirkpatrick: I think that it is six landscape lots and one park, but I want to have the applicant verify that. Zaremba: We will make it six for now, unless we hear otherwise. Kirkpatrick: Okay. Zaremba: Those were my only questions. Borup: Okay. Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Ralphs: Members of the Commission, my name is Rod Ralphs, I'm here on behalf of Initial Point, LLC, in regards to the application for the approval of the Preliminary Plat and annexation for Cobblefield Crossing. This is our second phase of this project out here on McMillan Road. I want to just clarify a couple of things. We went through and we counted the lots and we have 40 lots. There are seven, which would be six landscape lots, and, then, the park, as you have described. I'd like to point out that we have had revisions to that plat after we have conferred with ACHD and I would point out that right here where I'm indicating -- so it would be on the far northeast -- that lot no longer exists and that is actually a stub street that ACHD has asked us to put in. We keep the roundabout here and I know in meetings in the past with either the -- the members of the Planning and Zoning or with City Council, a roundabout is a wonderful tool to help slow down traffic and keep that from becoming a drag strip. We did keep the roundabout feature there, but there is a stub street there to the north. I wanted touch a little bit on the -- Zaremba: I'm sorry. Eliminating that lot, does that put you back to 39 or 40? Ralphs: No. We are at 40. Zaremba: Still at 40. Ralphs: We picked it up. We picked it up. Zaremba: Okay. Ralphs: I wanted to talk a little bit about what we have got here. Close to schools and it ties immediately into Cobblefield 1 there to the south. We are going with the same type Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 69 of 125 of construction design in this subdivision, so we are going with the smaller homes that we approved Cobblefield 1, but we wanted kind of a neo-classical type of look with what we would find typically in a Boise north end and I have got a layout of the architecture here that I would show the Commission. The same types of color schemes. You see we have a little bit of a higher pitched roof and more of a front porch neighborhood type feel and this is exactly what we have got over here in Cobblefield 1 and we are just going to continue that on. I wanted to talk a little bit about -- staff had indicated some questions about our amenities. When we came in originally and proposed Cobblefield 1, we were going to use that large flag lot to put in a meandering path and workout stations and we are going to continue to keep the meandering path, but when we started looking at the marketability of this project and, as staff pointed out this evening, they haven't seen workout stations since the '70s, we dropped the workout stations and we put in a pool, more of a neighborhood feel for that. We have put the neighborhood pool in Cobblefield 1. Let me give you a context. I know we are here for Cobblefield 2, but Cobblefield 1's pool is in this area right here. We have a green area here, catch basin, the pool lies here where I'm indicating to the very southeast portion here of the drawing you have got. As far as the amenities with the amount of green area that we have, we actually have ten percent of our property or our project is in green space and we are only required to have one amenity, but we have got the two. We have got the pool and, plus, we have the green space, or the meandering pathways. Now, going now to Cobblefield 1, the amenities that we have to offer there. We are adding some additional walking paths to access the same meandering pathway from this subdivision. We have got it here and it widens up, so people are able to take advantage of this space. The access to the pool is going to be available to Cobblefield 1 well. One of the things that we have really liked -- and we were discussing this today in our preparation meetings. This space right down here ties into the common park space of Cobblefield 1, but this space right here that I'm indicating is a very large, rectangular piece of green space and what we are proposing to put in there for our other amenity is to put in a soccer field. It's a mini soccer field it's 200 feet long by about 85 feet wide. It's certainly not regulation, but certainly big, enough to keep the young ones entertained and whoever else might want to enjoy that space. Then, we would have the meandering paths that would tie in from that park over to the pool and they would wonder on out to McMillan. Keeping in mind that with Cobblefield 2 we have also exceeded the green space that's required and we would really only be required to go with one, but that and the walking paths that are a transition from this subdivision over to the flag lot, with the meandering path on it, along with the soccer field, we think we would have that covered. I wanted to point out a few other things that we had -- let's see. I have covered the amenities. I want to talk about the agriculture concerns. We did have a neighborhood meeting and we have got the English’s and the Converse family here this evening and one of the concerns that we have got with this particular project is for years they had a system of irrigation that enabled everyone to really be able to make full use of the different properties. They worked in rotation with Settler's Irrigation so that they were actually able to have a delivery that exceeded the recorded water right. Now, as developers we pride ourselves on making sure that we work well with the neighbors and that is our intent here as well. We have spoken with Settler's Irrigation about the means of preserving that and Mr. English and Mr. Converse and -- as Mrs. English will Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 70 of 125 comment on this, but the delivery system to these two properties -- and, Wendy, could we go back to that one that shows the -- just to kind of get some context. That's fine. Right now these are the two properties. We have this property under option right now and this pasture is in seed alfalfa. These are the two properties. This is the English property and they have a horse arena here and, then, back here in the back is where they have an alfalfa crop. Pasture. I'm sorry. Over here we have the Converse property and there is kind of a ditch that ran right along the back here and supplied -- this is where the water delivery system was for all of these. Of course, we are not going to deal or alter in any way with the delivery point, but the biggest concern that we will have here tonight is the delivery rate. Now, speaking with Settler's, they have indicated to me that nothing would change with what they had historically. Now, historically means different things to different people and so I will be very candid with you tonight, my take on historic is exactly what these neighbors have worked out for years and the letter that I received from Settler's also indicates historic flows, but, unfortunately, to our disappointment, as well as to the neighbors, the letter wasn't more precise and so we do intend on going back to Settler's and nailing that down to make sure. Right now that's flood irrigation. We have had discussions with the neighbors this evening about different things as far as going with a pressurized system as well. We are very anxious and we are very willing, as always, to work with the neighbors to make sure that they have adequate for the different needs that they have always had. We don't want to interfere with that in any way and Settler's has indicated the same thing to me. I wanted to address a couple other things in the staff report. I wanted to address the setbacks. Let's go to the plat if we would, Wendy. We have got some townhomes in here. I'm going to hold up this illustration again one more time to give you an idea. The townhomes that we are putting into this project are not the standard typical townhomes. Again, keeping with the theme that we want to have in Cobblefield, and so the types of townhomes that we are going to be putting on these lots right in here and, then, also in here from the front are not going to strike you that these are duplexes or townhomes. These are going to be twin units’ adjacent properties attached single-family residences and they will have a common lot line. The setbacks that we are running into -- and you will see this in the report, that we have asked for an eight foot, instead of a 15 here on the back, and because we have got this piece here under option in the back, we can address some of that as far as mitigating it when we come back to you here in a few months with that other phase of Cobblefield 3. Other than that, I'm open to any questions or comments from staff for any kind of points you might have. Powell: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, I think we have a number of issues here that may require you to re -- or to close the Public Hearing for now. One is that it was only noticed to the surrounding property owners as 39 buildable lots. For them to add a buildable lot at this stage would -- Ralphs: We had 39? Oh. Okay. Let me strike the 40. We would be at 39. Powell: Okay. That's the one issue. The second issue would be that the removal of an amenity from a previously approved Preliminary Plat may require that we go back and reconsider that plat. I'm not sure that you can do it just under the guise of this one. I Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 71 of 125 think we need some time to workout whether that needs to be done and it would also give staff just the opportunity to evaluate your new road design. With the stub street going through it has even more impact on the first Preliminary Plat, which concerns me. We may need to at least table it for those issues. The primary one was the 39 versus 40 lots. I guess if that one is resolved, maybe we can workout some of the other ones, but until staff gets the time to get some answer on the question about how it affects Cobblefield, we can't probably move on it just yet, I don't think. Chris might have something to say over there. Excuse me. The attorney might have some words of wisdom us. Gabbert: And this regarding -- were we talking about the pool amenity? I'm sorry? Zaremba: Clarify again what amenity is being lost from Cobblefield 1. It's the workout stations? Ralphs: The workout stations. Borup: Originally -- Zaremba: I thought those were a good idea. Borup: But the pool was not an original amenity, was it? Ralphs: No. The pool was added. Borup: So, you're saying that you have -- rather than eliminating an amenity, you changed from a workout station to a swimming pool? Ralphs: Exactly. Zaremba: But the legal question is that's not part of this development. Powell: Application. Zaremba: On the previous application they want to substitute a pool for the workout stations. Borup: But now they are eliminating the workout station with this project. Zaremba: Well, the workout stations are on the flag of the old -- Borup: But part of that flag is becoming building lots in this; is that correct? Some of them? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 72 of 125 Ralphs: They are going to have dual access to that, but I would just point out where we are with the green space, we need one, and that's what we have done with the soccer field. Then, we keep the -- Borup: You mean one additional, because you have got ten percent -- Ralphs: Right. Borup: Which is one there. Ralphs: Correct. Borup: All right. Zaremba: Well, the question -- the open question isn't whether we would like the change of the swimming pool -- Ralphs: Sure. Zaremba: -- better than the other, the question is it isn't this application that required the workout stations, it was another application, and can we change that? Is that the right question? Borup: So, you're saying it should have been an amended application on the first -- Powell: Or a miscellaneous app. It gets so messy, because they are re-plotting -- or replatting the open space lot associated with that first one, but it's tied to the Preliminary Plat. Ralphs: Chairman? Borup: More of a legal question. Ralphs: What I would suggest, as opposed to just -- if I may, just -- we can visit with staff about that, as far as their feelings on what we do with Cobblefield 1. For all intents and purposes tonight, we keep it a Cobblefield 2 and just point out that we are taking about a soccer field with amenities and with wandering paths that access another wandering path system. Borup: But still, your design tonight eliminates one of the amenities for Cobblefield 1. Ralphs: We can address that in another -- for another meeting with it. The design tonight is for Cobblefield 2. Borup: Right. That design encroaches on the approved amenity for Cobblefield 1. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 73 of 125 Ralphs: The -- actually, the plat -- and maybe I'm misunderstanding, but the -- we still keep the flag lot that remains with Cobblefield 1. Borup: Right. It's just smaller. Ralphs: It's -- I think it was always 25 feet. Was it 25 feet? Borup: Oh, it's not smaller? Then, I misunderstood. I don't know if there is any -- I mean I think a swimming pool is a much better amenity than a workout station for the neighborhood. Zaremba: I could be happy with that change, but the legal -- Ralphs: I understand that. Zaremba: -- question hanging. Hood: Commissioners, I'm not aware of what the preliminary -- I'm sorry, the previous approval was for. I would have a problem with the noticing requirements needed to change a previous decision if they weren't noticed upon this hearing and you were affecting another -- well, even though they are linked, but it is a separate development. Then, I would reserve changing those amenities without proper notice. I don't know if that helps. Powell: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, I suppose you could leave the requirement as written, that they amend -- that they provide the amenities as required in Cobblefield No. 1, unless modified through a miscellaneous application as approved by the City Council. That gives you a little wiggle room and, then, we can renotice the miscellaneous app. Zaremba: Well, there isn't anything to stop them from putting in a swimming pool, because that's an additional amenity. What we are saying is for the time being you also still need to put in the workout stations, unless you make a separate application to the City Council to be relieved of that. Powell: Correct. That would get him on his way. I need to correct myself. Apparently, the project was renoticed when they added a lot. That's why we have some that say 39 and some that say 40. If you only want 39 lots, that's fine, but we are back to 40. Yes. Zaremba: We don't care whether it's 39 or 40. Well -- and even so, might that fall under the not a significant change? Powell: Not if you're adding lots. If you add lots, it's my understanding -- I'm not the attorney, but my understanding is that if you add lots it is a significant change. If you're not adding lots, then, you're okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 74 of 125 Rohm: But it was noticed at 40. Powell: It was -- yes. It was noticed a second time. It was 30 -- it was actually noticed at 39 and at 40, but the 40 was the last one, so we are okay there. Zaremba: Let's see. Are we -- I think one of the questions I had is are the two subdivisions -- and maybe even the third one, are all going to be one homeowners association or are they going to have separate homeowners associations? Ralphs: As they come on line, they will initially be separate, but what we anticipate being is they would be under one subdivision homeowners association. The CC&Rs will all be the same, as far as the similar type of architecture. The application on Cobblefield 3 we haven't finalized yet, but to the extent that it's single family residential, then, the CC&Rs will be the same and it would -- Zaremba: The reason I'm asking that is that you're talking about the common lots and -- Ralphs: Correct. Zaremba: -- usage and cross-access and all that sort of stuff. Ralphs: It would be certainly more simply to have it as one. Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: Any other issues? Zaremba: I think that's all I had. Borup: Okay. Was there anything else that -- Ralphs: No. Thank you, Mr. Chairman? Borup: Okay. Do we have anyone else that would like to testify on this application? Come up if you do. English: Hi. I'm Margi English. I reside at 4650 North Linder Road. Would it be possible to get that aerial photo back? And I think one thing you can notice from the aerial photograph is the dark color of that back third -- two-thirds portion of our property, pasture. That's because that property is maintained to be used as pasture and to harvest crop off of. I'm going to submit some photographs of our land to you today and I understand that you will want to keep them for records, but we are very very concerned about the impact that the subdivision will have on our ability to continue using our property as we have been. Now, I did submit -- my husband and I submitted a letter to you, which I understand you have. Do you? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 75 of 125 Borup: Yes. English: Do you have our letter? In there, I tried to outline our concerns and I appreciate what Rod said and we were just presented tonight with this short letter from the irrigation district. I don't think we are all talking on the same page. We did not ever receive more than our irrigation right. What we had was a shared system, shared rotation on the ditch. Our property's irrigation right is five miner inches per year. Some of the larger properties on the irrigation right had larger head miner inches, but everybody's ditch was sized to 39 miner inches in the flow and you can see the size of our ditches in those photographs. When this letter says that an option would be to continue to use the existing irrigation system based on a rotation system of other properties within Settler's Irrigation District at the same historic flows, that doesn't give me a lot of comfort, because we have talked to the irrigation district people and they have said that, yeah, your historic flow, your five miner inches, continues. However, the properties that have already been approved, their flow has already been taken off your ditch. They have created a new headgate, so this year there won't be -- if you didn't approve this phase two -- phase one is already approved -- just subtracting out phase one subtracts that miner -- their miner inches from our flow, so there is the 15 miner inch, 37 percent reduction in the flow, the best that we could get when our ditch would start flowing this year. Now, several years ago in the middle of our big -- our worst drought, we had 19 miner inches in our ditch. We couldn't get water all the way across our property within our one and a half day irrigation cycle, you had to irrigate one half of the property one cycle, the next cycle 12, and a half days later you would irrigate the other part. We can't irrigate by flood irrigation with five miner inches. It won't make it out of the ditch. 24/7 is what the irrigation district said. You have -- you know, you won't have to rotate you can five miner inches 24/7. That won't help. We won't be able to maintain our use. I tried to lay all this out in a letter to you. I haven't heard a solution. Just in the hall today for the first time Rod and C&D folks were talking about, well, maybe we could put you on a pressurized system. That could work -- could work, but I'm worried, because I don't have ay guarantee -- I don't have anything in here that says it will happen. Tonight's the first that we have heard -- that we have entered into that discussion. I guess what I'm asking you to do is to insure that our existing -- our two properties can continue to maintain our use. That's why we moved here and I don't want to have a dry lot, because the properties around us are developing. I know that engineering wise it's possible, but we are not there yet and I would not like to see this go through, get approved, and kind of leave us in a lurch. I want to be able to maintain my land and have my animals out there on pasture and be able to continue harvesting hay. We already had some impact, if you notice in photograph seven there, as you're passing it around. We didn't know -- first go around on Cobblefield 1 we didn't realize that they were going to be taking -- putting in a new headgate and taking water off our ditch, else we would have been more on the ball with comments the first time around. What you will see in the Number 7 is our ditch always has water in it now, because Cobblefield 1 terminated the end. It doesn't drain. Already right now last summer we had a real hard time getting rid of the weeds, because normally what you do when the ditch drains and it's dry and the other portion -- the back portion of the property -- of the other two properties were irrigating, you could go out there and you could spray Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 76 of 125 Roundup. I can't spray Roundup like that. It's always wet. It doesn't make it out of the ditch. They terminate at the end. There are some issues here that really do need to be addressed and just going forward with the next phrase without these, I think is really unduly impacting our property and the Converses'. I guess that's -- other than what I have already written, I don't know what else to say here. Borup: Thank you, Mrs. English. Any questions from the Commission? I do have a question. It sounds like you're saying the irrigation district really has not giving you a satisfactory answer on what they feel the solution should be? B. English: Excuse me, Commissioner Borup. Can I answer that instead of -- Borup: Go ahead. B. English: My name is Brian English, 4650 North Linder Road. I have been -- I was the water master on the headgate 28, which comes off about halfway down that green field there to the east of the 40 acres that's irrigated. When I called Nathan Draper down at Settler's Irrigation, his response was, well, you're changing the way you irrigate. You're going to have to put in sprinklers if you're going to irrigate. For me, our power is on the road, it would cost us 19,000 -- on the order of 19,000 dollars to put in sprinkler irrigation for our property. Allen Converse would have to do the same. The alfalfa field, which, you know, they now have under contract, would have had to do the same. My understanding is that under the zoning rules one of the reasons why they put the mitigation clause in the CUP is for this circumstance. We have talked to Nathan he was the one that told me our historical flow was five inches. The 15 inches that were going to the land that was Cobblefield 1 are now off the headgate 28 on a headgate between 28 and 29, the new one that was installed that has the pressure pump in there. It's at the end of their walkway -- or if it's going to be a walkway. Borup: So, that was their answer is you're going to have -- B. English: That was Settler's Irrigation's answer. As a result, we had contacted Cobblefield as early as last fall, tried to workout a resolution to this, and tonight was the longest discussion. We heard in December that they had an agreement with Nathan that was different than ours, but we saw the letter for the first time tonight and we'd like to just make sure that we are protected and if it comes to pressurized irrigation, we are willing to work with them. We have willing and ready to talk since October. Borup: And that's what I was going to ask, how does that solution sound to you? B. English: I would like an engineer on my side to look at it and -- what they are proposing and make sure. I have done a little bit of talking to engineers. Our water right when you convert it from miner inches to gallons per minute is 45 gallons a minute. Standard -- a lot of these farm irrigations run about 50 gallons per minute for the standard hand line pipes, but we don't know whether we would want to go with hand lines -- with the way they want to set up the properties for future and for what works -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 77 of 125 what works for me might not work for Mr. Converse and so we -- and we are willing to make concessions where I wouldn't irrigate if Allen was irrigating or Allen wouldn't irrigate at the same time I was, so that we wouldn't overdraw pressure on the system, because we know there is homeowners there, too. Borup: That would be the two of you to coordinate that. B. English: Tonight's the first discussions happened, so it hasn't been coordinated, it's not a done deal, and so we are asking that that be a condition to get approval, that this issue be resolved. Borup: Okay. B. English: And whether -- you know, when that happens. I think that's all I have, other than I reiterate that we did not exceed water rights. As a matter of fact, in the sharing rotation that we had, the five-acre properties actually took less than their water right. We took about -- each time we irrigated we got about 18,000 gallons less than what we were supposed to on our -- off the right. It meant we had 36 hours, rather 37 hours and 20 minutes, which, when you set up a schedule -- and I have one from last year where we -- I take a calendar. We started on May 1st last year, so many days on this property, so many days and just rotate through and it worked. The reason why it was a 12 day cycle, that was long enough to flood irrigate and work it worked even in number of days and hours, so that you either started at 7:00 in the morning before you went to work or started at 7:00 at night after were home. Those were the two start times for everybody, so it worked out. Borup: Thank you. That makes sense. Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? Okay. Response from the applicant? Ralphs: I would agree with the English’s. We have been in discussion with Settler's for some time and thought we had a level of confidence that was acceptable to everybody, but the letter that we got back just indicated historic flows. We, obviously, need to have that clarified and we do, we want to make sure that they have the water they need, whether it's via pressurized or some other means. What I would suggest, then, is that you make it as one of the conditions that we work this out with Settler's and the Converse family and the English’s to make sure that the water is not interrupted. We certainly can't do that by law, but the issue isn't so much the water right, as the delivery rate and being able to do, you know, what they have historically done and we want to make sure that they can keep doing that as long as they are there, so if you want to make that as one of your conditions, that would be perfectly all right with us. Borup: How would we determine when the condition is met? Ralphs: We would have -- I guess we would be looking for something that's signed by everybody. You would have the two property owners, the Converses and English’s, that -- and, then, maybe a letter from Settler's explaining the wherewithals to make sure the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 78 of 125 water is there. If we come into an agreement with a pressurized system, that we get fairly specific -- I mean specific is what's going to make everyone comfortable here, making sure that the water is provided, so that they can take care of it. If we come with a letter that was signed by everybody that says that this is the proposal and this is what works for everybody, then, I would say that that would satisfy that condition and we can move on. Borup: Yeah. If the English’s sign the letter, then, that should answer that. Ralphs: Make no mistake, we have got a lot of ground to cover, we understand that, but we will do that and, then, we will have everyone's autograph on it and we will be able to go forward. Borup: So, do you feel -- well, at this point are you leaning one-way or the other? Does it look like the pressurized irrigation is feasible? Ralph: You know, it is feasible and, actually, that's one of the suggestions that Settler's had made, but, really, it is going to take some discussions with some engineers to make sure that everyone is comfortable with the engineering that is available and moving forward, but pressurized would certainly be a good way to go. Borup: Okay. Rohm: Sounds good. Ralph: Thank you. Borup: Does that really -- any other issues we think we need to cover? That mainly was it, isn't it? Freckleton: Mr. Chair? Borup: Yes. Mr. Freckleton. Freckleton: If I can maybe weigh in on the pressurized irrigation concept a little bit. Typically -- well, the City of Meridian requires a backup source of irrigation water for a pressurized irrigation system. If they do not have an alternative surface source or a well source, it leaves very little choice, other than hooking into the city system. We want people to exhaust all other options before they come to us wanting to hook into the city system. Where I am headed with this is that if that is their backup source, the city system, we can't be watering someone's alfalfa field with city water, so, please, take that into consideration when we are talking about this. Borup: That makes sense. Ralphs: Certainly. I think if we -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 79 of 125 Borup: I'm assuming there could be a valve that you could shut off after the irrigation water is out of the ditch. Ralphs: Yes. Borup: Does that sound reasonable? Is that -- something like would work or does someone need to monitor that? I assume shut the valve off and lock it or something like that. Freckleton: I guess, theoretically, that could work. I don't think it was clear in the application whether this system is being proposed as a private homeowners association system or whether it's going to owned and maintained by Settler's. Ralphs: Settler's. Freckleton: It will be Settler's? Okay. Okay. Certainly we could work with -- work through the details of that. Mr. and Mrs. English need to understand that what that means and what the implications are and that is that in these drought years when water goes out early, basically, you wouldn't have a backup source. They would just shut it off -- Rohm: That's where they are now. B. English: So you understand, in the letter we ask that we have the discussion and you be involved, because we understand some of this stuff. We also in the discussions out in the hall were saying that if it made the system work right, we are worried about taking too much pressure off the system. We would be willing to work that both of us weren't trying to irrigate five acres at the same -- while everybody else was trying to do a rotation. I mean these are things we can work out and we are willing to be reasonable. What we are not willing to be is dry lotted. I can't afford to go out and put 19,000 dollars in to put a sprinkler system in from my lot and Allen have to go out and do the same thing there and he's being helpful, he's sitting in the back and saying go, you comment. We are willing to work and we -- you know, I got news for you, Bruce. October comes around, I'm glad the water is out of the ditch. It's work. You know, we are not looking to go longer. Usually, a pasture that gets irrigation the first of October is fine until the following spring. Freckleton: Two years ago it was August when the water went out. B. English: September 11th. I happen to remember that date. That was the day they turned the water off. Freckleton: That's right. They did extend it to September. That's right. It was early. Very early. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 80 of 125 B. English: Yes. They shut us down to 50 percent water on June 30th and that was when we went to the half, because -- Rohm: Same water I got. Borup: Any other questions from the Commission? Ralphs: Thank you very much. Borup: All right. Thank you. Rohm: That changes it all. Borup: Well, other than this resolution of the irrigation. Zaremba: Other than requiring the water issue to be resolved and I don't think there were any other changes. Borup: Other than -- Powell: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, I want to want to you remind that staff has not seen the site plan that you're being asked to approve tonight. We have had no chance to review it. Borup: Yeah. That's what I -- I was thinking that earlier. I'm not counting 39 or 40 lots on the plat we have either, so -- Kirkpatrick: And Chairman, Members of the Commission -- Zaremba: And the flag piece changing Cobblefield 1 is an issue, too. Kirkpatrick: I mean I just want to point out that part of the staff is I go through and I make sure all the lots have adequate frontage, meet all dimensional requirements. I haven't had the chance at all to even look at it, let along thoroughly go through and make sure everything meets standards or meets the PD request that they have tonight. I don't feel comfortable recommending approval without having a chance to thoroughly go through the plat and look at everything. I'm also concerned about the loss of open space in Cobblefield 1 and I wanted to make sure that that's compensated for in Cobblefield 2. I definitely -- I have some strong reservations with recommending approval without having thoroughly gone through the revised plat. Ralphs: My understanding that the packet's actually been here for about six weeks and so we can go with the review, but that's what I'm hearing, is that the packet, in the prepared or ready form, has been here for quite a period of time. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 81 of 125 Borup: But the new revision showing the stub street has been here? Were they delivered at separate times? How many plans have been submitted? Clayborne: My name is Nathan Clayborne I'm an engineer with Leavitt and Associates. The third or fourth week of November, we had a meeting with ACHD, which required us, as a condition of approval from ACHD on Cobblefield 1, to provide a stub street to the east to the 40 acres. We --Brad Hawkins-Clark was -- attended that meeting with us at ACHD, we discussed the changes at that meeting, and we submitted back to city the additional prints the third week of November of the new site plan and the new application. That is where we get the Variance between numbers is the new application was updated and the new Preliminary Plat was submitted. Rohm: So, the Preliminary Plat was submitted in November? Clayborne: November -- I want to say the 20 -- excuse me. I want to say the 15th. Zaremba: The letter I'm holding has the engineer's stamp dated 11/12/2003. Clayborne: It was -- that is a current one in your hands right there. That one right there is the current plat. Zaremba: I don't know when it got to the city, but -- Clayborne: It was right around -- Zaremba: It was finished by your engineer on the 12th. Clayborne: And I could see the stub street right there. That is the current plat. Zaremba: And it has the stub street. Clayborne: That's correct. Powell: Chairman Borup, Commissioners, I apologize, we thought the applicant was bringing in a new one today as proposed. Unfortunately, planning staff did not receive a copy of that plat. It is not in our files. The engineering staff, however, did. He's probably checked the dimensional standards. We do need to check the open space calculations, but given that this is not the applicant's fault, we could do that prior to the City Council hearing. Borup: Can you give a summary on the open space calculations? It originally was -- Clayborne: We calculated it this afternoon, just to verify in our -- Borup: You lost where a stub street came through; is that correct? That's the open space that's been lost? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 82 of 125 Clayborne: That is correct. Borup: Okay. Clayborne: That's precisely what's been lost. The lot configuration around the stub street -- around the original cul-de-sac, you can see on that previous -- on the next slide, changes some of the stub street as well. Borup: But is that -- did that still come in at ten percent? Clayborne: We are above ten percent, yes. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Just repeat for me -- I think it's already been said, but the dimensions of the flag lot, with the exception of cutting the street through it, there is no other change in the dimensions of the flag lot. It's not now narrower than it was or shorter than it was? Clayborne: It is on the very north -- the very northeastern property goes into the flag lot. Now, one thing to note is when we laid out this Preliminary Plat -- in Cobblefield 1 ACHD required that we dedicate right of way of that platted lot on McMillan. Now, the original right of way, I believe, is 25 on this property and they required on Cobblefield 1 that we dedicate up to 48 feet of right of way. They have reversed their decision on this, because they do not want the Lemp Canal in their right of way. We have provided the landscaping strip on the northern property line per city requirements, 25 feet, I believe, it is. Plus, the additional 23 feet that we had anticipated for right of way for ACHD, which will be also landscaping. Because of that, our landscaping area has increased. If that makes sense to the Commissioners. Zaremba: The street buffer portion you're talking about? Clayborne: That's correct. Borup: Okay. Is staff comfortable with that now, then? You're saying you still -- you still did not -- you did not get a copy of the one showing the new stub street? Kirkpatrick: That's correct. As Anna said, because this is not the applicant's fault, we are comfortable with going through and especially because Public Works is done with their review with the plat, we are comfortable with going through and doing our analysis between P&Z and Council. The applicant just stated that they have actually increased their open space. That was one of my primary concerns. Zaremba: Thank you. Clayborne: Any other questions? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 83 of 125 Borup: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that these three hearings be closed. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Okay. The two issues that we have to put someplace are agreement with the two neighbors about -- and Settler's and everybody about the water delivery. The rights have been established, the delivery is the question, I think. The other issue is changing the amenities of an application that's not before us, so -- and we can solve both by making a statement that they need to work together and have a resolution before it goes to the City Council on the water issue and that staff will review the legal requirements. If they want a Variance application on the previous issue, that's a separate thing that goes to the City Council, not us anyhow. My question is where do we put those two statements? Is that annexing and zoning or is that the Preliminary Plat? Borup: Well -- and the question I have is on the irrigation issue. Does that need to be resolved before City Council or before approval of plat? Rohm: I think it should be resolved before it goes to City Council. Zaremba: I think before City Council. Borup: Okay. Rohm: But where do you put it? Zaremba: Yeah. Borup: Under the Conditional Use. Freckleton: Mr. Chair, if I could maybe try and get just a little bit of clarification on what you're expecting for agreement on the irrigation. As I sit here I kind of believe that the agreement is between the property owner and the irrigation district and the developer and I guess I would anticipate that they would bring to us a signed agreement to whatever the resolution is. Borup: That's what we were -- Freckleton: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 84 of 125 Borup: I think that's what our -- Zaremba: I may not have stated it precisely that way, but that's what I was thinking. Borup: My only question is is prior to City Council, is that enough time to accomplish that? Rohm: I think they are all in concurrence, it's just getting it on paper. Zaremba: Is resolving a water right issue an annexation subject or is it a plat subject? Freckleton: Plat subject. Zaremba: Okay. Freckleton: And we would recommend that maybe prior to submittal of the Final Plat that the resolution of that issue was submitted to us. Zaremba: Okay. Rohm: So, that would be condition eleven? Zaremba: Site-Specific number 11. Borup: That can be a condition, so if that was a condition and you did not receive a signed letter, then, you're saying the plat would not be approved? Freckleton: We wouldn't accept their application. Borup: Yeah. Freckleton: So, when their Final Plat application comes in, we are going to want to see the resolution to the irrigation issue as part of their submittal. Borup: So, the sooner they resolve that the better, it sounds like. Zaremba: So, the neighbors are the English’s and, I'm sorry, what's the other neighbor's name? Freckleton: Converse. Zaremba: Converse. Thank you. Settler's Irrigation right? All of them need to agree. Rohm: Does Settler's? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 85 of 125 Borup: Do you have additional comment? Ralphs: I know you closed the meeting, but -- Borup: Well, we either need to open it or you can discuss that with staff and they can -- Rohm: The issue on the amenities does not necessarily have to be made part of this approval process. Is that the conclusion we came to? Zaremba: No. Because if we approve it as is, it seeks to change something that's not part of this application. We do need to address -- Rohm: So, how do you do that? Zaremba: The way I would state it is that unless and until the applicant applies for a Variance, the original exercise stations on the flag are still required. Borup: But isn't that flag lot -- Rohm: That's in one. Borup: The flag lot is part of the -- Rohm: It's not part of this -- Mathes: Doesn't Number 2 stand by itself? Rohm: Yeah. See, that's what I'm saying is sub number two doesn't -- it has its amenity in that soccer lot. Borup: It's showing on this plat, but it's not part of -- but it's not part of the plat. Rohm: Right. Yes. I think that the issue would be between the zoning staff and their development of sub one, not anything to do with sub two. Zaremba: Well, as long as their drawing doesn't show the absence of the amenity and by approving it we -- Mathes: But their drawing is for Cobblefield No. 2, not No. 1. Zaremba: But it does show that flag lot. It has one lot that -- it does show the flag lot and it has one building lot that extends into that flag lot, as well as the absence of the amenities. Borup: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 86 of 125 Zaremba: Well, I would just make it a note 12 that says any change to Cobblefield 1 is not a part of this application. Rohm: Okay. I could concur with that. Borup: That works. Our attorney agrees with that? Zaremba: And, again, that's an issue for the plat; right? Those are the only issues as far as I know; right? Borup: Does staff have anymore input or can go with our motion? Powell: The issue of concern is that whether or not Settler's Irrigation needs to be involved with that negotiation and I think that -- they just don't want to have to get specific sign off for the agreement that they get. They understand that Settler's Irrigation will have to be part -- review and approve the solution, but they don't want them listed as having to be on the same letter, perhaps, as one signed by the developer, landowners. Borup: You're saying just maybe eliminate Settler's from that -- Settler's Irrigation doesn't seem to care much either way. Rohm: That was my point. Zaremba: Okay. Rohm: Just between the property owners. Zaremba: Done. Gabbert: Commissioners, Chairman, I would just add that that's probably appropriate, since Settler's is not so concerned with it and it's a matter between the parties and the more parties you bring into it, the more difficulties you will get and the more veto power you will have out there from keeping this project from moving forward. Borup: And you're saying both -- all three parties would rather just do it among themselves without Settler's, is that -- Powell: I think Mr. English understands that Settler's would still have approval of the final irrigation system and I think he's okay with that. Yes. Borup: Okay. Yeah. They are going to own the system. Where English’s have to sign off, then, he's got control of that. Zaremba: Uh-huh. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 87 of 125 Borup: Okay. Powell: Would the Commission like suggested wording for that condition of approval or have you already written it out? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba did that. Have you got it? Zaremba: If what I say alarms you, then, we will revise it, but I think I have it. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 11 on our agenda. AZ 03-028, request for Annexation and Zoning of 7.98 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision No. 2 by Initial Point, LLC, 1295 West McMillan Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of January 15, 2004, with no Annexation and Zoning changes. 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 12 on our agenda. PP 03-033, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 40 single family building lots and seven common lots on 7.98 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision No. 2 by Initial Point, LLC. 1295 West McMillan Road and this is in reference to the Preliminary Plat with the engineer's stamp date -- engineer's stamp dated November 12, 2003, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date January 15th, 2004, with the following changes: On page seven, under Site-Specific comments for the Preliminary Plat, we wish to add a paragraph 11 that says the applicant and the neighbors, the English’s and Converses, to provide a letter of agreement regarding water delivery prior to signing on the final -- prior to signage of the Final Plat. Add a paragraph 12. Any change to Cobblefield Subdivision No. 1 is not a part of this application. End of motion. Rohm: That's accepting the plat or -- staff accepting the plat, not signing the plat? Zaremba: Signing -- before signature on the Final Plat. Freckleton: Mr. Chair, what we had suggested was that prior to submittal of the Final Plat application. Before the Final Plat is entered into the process, we would like to see the resolution. Zaremba: Oh. Okay. Borup: That would be part of the submittal. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 88 of 125 Freckleton: Correct. Zaremba: I thought I heard it a different way. Okay. I will amend -- everything else I said is -- still stands, but I will amend the statement for paragraph 11 on page seven to read: Applicant and neighbors, the English’s and Converses, shall provide a letter of agreement regarding water delivery prior to submittal of the Final Plat. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: And I already expressed a new paragraph 12. 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 13 on our agenda. CUP 03-059, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for reduced requirements for frontage, lot size, minimum house size, and street side building setback in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision No. 2 by Initial Point, LLC, 1295 West McMillan Road and, then, again, the CUP would be applied to the Preliminary Plat with the engineering stamp dated November 12, 2003, to include all staff comments of the staff memo for the hearing date of January 15, 2004, with no changes. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 14: Public Hearing: CUP 03-064 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for two buildings on one lot in a L-O zone for Capital Christian Center by Capital Christian Church – 2760 East Fairview Avenue: Borup: Thank you. Before we go to the next one, I might want to just mention pertaining to Salisbury, we are -- the hour is getting late, but people have been here and stuck with us, so we are not going to cancel it. Because of the number of issues, it looks like it will probably be continued. I thought I'd just mention that at this point. We will still open the hearing and I guess maybe we will determine at that time whether to do an abbreviated presentation or what we may want to do, but I just wanted to mention that before we proceeded on. The next item, Public Hearing CUP 03-064, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for two buildings on one lot in an L-O zone for Capital Christian Center. Like to open this hearing and start with the staff report. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 89 of 125 Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, this is an application for a Conditional Use Permit and a planned development. The applicant is here with a planned development, because they are requesting to construct more than one building on a single lot. They are also requesting a modification of dimensional standards. The zoning district, which they are located in, which I believe is L-O, has a maximum building height of 35 feet. They are proposing structures -- one that will be 75 feet in height and a second one which will be 44 foot six inches in height. I'll go through where the property is located. It's on the north side of Fairview and just to the west of the northwest interchange or intersection of Eagle and Fairview. Some of the surrounding properties. To the north we have the Packard Subdivision. To the south -- actually, directly to the south we have Fairview Road. To the south of Fairview Road, we have the Treasure Valley Business Park Subdivision. Eagle Road is located to the east. Actually, the property that's directly adjacent to the property to the east is still zoned RUT and located in the county. To the west we have -- actually, to the northwest we have the Dove Meadows residential subdivision and directly to the west we have the Angel Park Subdivision, which is zoned C-G and that's like where Louie's Restaurant is, just to kind of give you an idea where this application is. I will run through their proposal and here is an aerial. Let's see if I can find a better site plan. Currently there is an existing sanctuary, which will be converted into offices and a fellowship hall. The new structure that they are proposing to construct include a 33,732 square foot sanctuary and I'll just go ahead and show you what the structures are going to look like. This is the proposed sanctuary, which they are also proposing 75 -- a modification of dimensional standards to have a 75-foot tall structure. Again, the sanctuary is 32,000 -- almost 34,000 square feet. They are also proposing a prayer center, which will be 11,344 square feet in size. Let me see if I can go back to the original site plan. They are also proposing an enclosed plaza, which will connect the existing church to the new sanctuary, and you can see the existing church is kind of the square there and the enclosed plaza, which will connect the existing church and the sanctuary, will be 10,559 square feet in size. I'll go through a couple of the -- the issues that have come up. The sanctuary will have 2,480 seats. The applicant -- they are actually removing some parking and, then, adding some additional parking. They will end up having a total of 550 parking spaces, which is adequate parking for the sanctuary. I'm asking the applicant this evening to give us some further clarification on the prayer center, which is the pyramid building. It's going have 496 seats, in addition to some office space, and I wanted to get some more clarification from them on exactly what activities are going on in the prayer center, what the hours of those activities are, to see if there is any conflict or if there is a potential to have -- I guess it would be almost 3,000 seats being used at one time, because that would change the parking standards. I also wanted clarification on what exactly the uses are, so we can decide whether we would apply the sanctuary parking standards, which would be one parking spot for every five seats or if there is any type of other use, like a professional use, then, the parking standards would change. I want to get a good idea of what's going on in that building. I think the applicant's prepared to give you that this evening. I will go back to another modification the applicant was asking for and probably your plans that you have will give you a better idea of this part. They are asking for a modification of the parking standards and Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 90 of 125 they are asking -- this is actually in the northern part of the new parking that they are proposing. They are proposing to leave out the landscaping islands, which are required for every 12 park spaces you put in and staff is not supportive of this request. There really aren't any site constraints which would restrict them from putting the landscape islands and the applicant hasn't really made a good case for why they -- why they would need that request to be met. I will go through kind of some of the height issues. They are asking for the modification of the maximum height standards for the L-O district. Both the prayer center and the sanctuary are over height. I also want to point out -- and I will go back to the site plan -- that neither of these structures are going to be immediately adjacent to any residential property. The property that is to the east is undeveloped and the property to the west is the Angel Park Subdivision, which is zoned C-G. The closest residential subdivision is -- I believe it's Dove Meadows, which is there to the northwest. You can see the parking, actually, is sort of a buffer between these two over-height buildings and the residential subdivisions. Staff is supportive. We think this is an innovative project. We are excited to see kind of unique buildings going on in Meridian and we are supportive of the Variance from the height restrictions. Do you have any questions of staff? Borup: Questions from the Commission? Zaremba: I do have a question. The church that's on Chinden and Meridian, I think it is, Catholic church, which is actually in the county, so you may not know this answer. Do we know what the height of that is, just for perspective? Top of the dome or whatever. Kirkpatrick: I don't. Borup: I think that's taller than this. I notice from the plans here that the square part of the building is 41 feet and, then, the dome goes some above that, so -- Powell: Chairman Borup, Commissioner Zaremba, the Ada county building code, as well as own building code, do allow exceptions to the height standard for steeples. Is that the high part that you're referring? I'm not -- Zaremba: I'm just trying to visualize the size of this building at 75 feet. I agree, as Chairman Borup pointed out, that the occupied part of it only is 41 feet and, then, all the rest of it is open dome that is not accessible or occupied. I supposed it can be cleaned, but it's not for use, but I was just trying to visualize as you drive down Fairview is this going to be roughly the shape of the -- roughly the height of the Catholic church that's on Chinden. That's not in the city, so I'm not surprised if nobody knows that answer. I guess my comment on the height would be the Meridian Fire Department does not have a ladder company, which means they don't have the capability of emergency response to a very tall building. On the other hand, that part of the building that probably exceeds their capability is not occupied, so I'm not sure that would make a difference to them or not. I'm sure they'd require sprinkling and -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 91 of 125 Borup: The rest of the building is stucco with no windows it appears, too. There is no place for a ladder to go, other than on the roof. Zaremba: Yeah. That's true. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: I think it's a neat idea I just want to make sure that there can't be an emergency sometime that can't be solved. Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, we did actually have a letter from Joe Silva from the Fire Department and there is no mention of any concerns about height of the structure. Zaremba: Yeah. I noticed that. Borup: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? Marsden: For the record, I'm Al Marsden, 5636 South Alyssum Street in Boise, Idaho. I represent the client in this particular project and we are here to ask for your approval of this unique project. We were very excited about its design and its capability to serve the public and this is a church function, so I need to describe what the church function is, basically. We have the existing auditorium that we currently have has about 1,200 people coming to services every Sunday. We need to have one facility that we can operate one service every Sunday and the purpose of the auditorium is to accommodate that and that is also for what we have on the lower floor and a balcony, which is within the dimension requirements of 35 feet. The issues of height should not be a concern, because primarily the only height is really the outside dome and the reason for the dome is to make sure that we have a free span of 150 feet, so that we don't have any columns inside the sanctuary area. The purpose behind that -- we don't want to block any visual reviewing of the activities in the sanctuary. The basic purpose of the project is simply that. The secondary purpose of the project is to create a prayer center and a prayer center by -- probably you have never been familiar with that concept. It basically allows people of the church to have 24 hour, seven days a week or any combination of that time, to come and pray for -- to God for the purposes of taking care of situations that they have to take care of. We have a call center in the basement of that building and the purpose for the call center is simply to allow people in the community, Meridian and Treasure Valley, to call in if they have problems and we know that people call in at all times, because we have counseling or response to situations they are dealing with. For example, if somebody got -- one member of the family died or if a person is having a very serious problem emotionally or they have problems with their children or if they have problems with anything, they can call in and have counseling, as well as talk to people about these situations and take care of these situations if you can. That's the purpose behind the whole prayer center. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 92 of 125 Borup: I think staff's questions on that -- would the prayer center be fully occupied at the same time as the sanctuary would be? Marsden: I would say the prayer center would be 98 percent of the time empty, except for a few people. They are already attending the church at the same time. The issue was how many people we have at one time versus any other time it will be all the same people. When people come to the building facility, they will either go to the prayer center as one occupant -- maybe one child will go to the children's classes, you know, for classrooms, another one will go to the gymnasium, an adult may go to the prayer center to pray. Borup: The question was how do we calculate the parking -- Marsden: The parking is still one car coming to all members of the family. The idea is is that you have multiple functions in this particular function, like, for example, we have a kitchen. Sometimes we have kitchen functions and that is at a separate time when the church is operating and the prayer center is operating as kind of maximum capacity is at a different time when the church is not operating, because people go to the sanctuary when the service and they are not on prayer center. That's the way -- Borup: Does that answer your question? Zaremba: Let me ask the same question a slightly different way, maybe. Do you anticipate a time ever in the growth of Meridian and, hopefully, the growth of your church where you would have the sanctuary full and the prayer center used as an overflow -- Marsden: No. Zaremba: -- during a sanctuary service? Marsden: No. Zaremba: Okay. They would never -- Marsden: We don't anticipate that ever to happen. Zaremba: Okay. I think that's helps us with the parking. Marsden: If we have a need for more space, we will build a new building and the location with make more facility for the people all at one time. Zaremba: Okay. Marsden: It's not intended to have that kind of activity all at the same time. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 93 of 125 Borup: Okay. Any other questions from the Commissioners? Marsden: Basically, the conditions of approval that you have outlined -- or staff has outlined are fine with us, except for a couple of clarifications for your -- Borup: Okay. Why don't you hit those items? Marsden: Item No. -- I have got to put my glasses on, so I can read it. Excuse me. The parking -- the only reason why we have asked the standard be modified -- can I get my site put up on the wall? Right there that is the only additional parking we are adding and that's the only standard that we are asking for modification. Okay. The reason for that modification simply is this: We have provided over 470 trees on that site. We have extensively landscaped the property extensively. We didn't think that that made any different in regard to the city in regard to having buffers or a situation provide any additional amenities, because we provided trees all the way around it, all the way around the property. We have got a total of 470 totally on the site and with that, plus all the landscaping elements -- and we just didn't think that the addition of putting a little space every 12 spaces was really going to make any effect to the whole property, so that's why we asked for that Variance. We don't need to, in our minds. If you require it, we will have to do it, but beyond that point that's what our request is. That's item number four. Item number five says we should have trash enclosures. We already have those installed on site and they are currently being used. They are already installed. Borup: Were they indicated on the plan? Marsden: Yeah. They are all right there on the plan. Borup: Are they indicated on the drawings? Marsden: They are already built. It's already built as part of the first phase. Borup: Right. The plans don't indicate where they are. Isn't that the staff question? Marsden: I don't know what the staff question is. They are existing right there. They are right there currently. Borup: Okay. There is no way of knowing that looking at the plan, because they don't indicate it. Marsden: That's -- okay. They are already there in existence. The second thing is -- the next thing is that the irrigation ditch -- it says that we have to have all these irrigation ditches -- we don't have any irrigation ditches on site. Borup: Okay. Maybe just while we are on that, Wendy, the existing plan does show them on the very first sheet we have, it says existing site plan. Oh, the new one shows it, too. It's just hard to read it. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 94 of 125 Kirkpatrick: And Chairman, Members of the Commission, anytime there is a large expansion of -- we assume that there could potentially be a new trash enclosure, so we go ahead and renotice Sanitary Services. Marsden: I'm just telling you what it is. Borup: Okay. We are okay there. You were saying -- next? Marsden: The only -- and the irrigation -- I'm just saying the irrigation ditches, there is none on the site. Borup: Okay. Yeah. I think that's kind of a standard -- another standard comment. Marsden: I just wanted to clarify the issue. The last one is that I would think that you would add a condition 16 or say that the height modifications are approved. That's what I would suggest to you, because it's not listed in the conditions anywhere. Now, the purpose of that height restriction is simple to be able to get the dome and to be able to have a free stand for the whole distance so that we can get that accomplished. Borup: Can the height -- was that going to have to be approved by City Council or can we make a recommendation from here? Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, we assume that this would be a part of the PD application, so it would also be approved by Council. Borup: Okay. It's not them only. We can do that do here, too. Kirkpatrick: Correct. Borup: Okay. Marsden: We have -- to answer the final statement on there all the other conditions are fine. We have no trouble with any of them and I think I have explained our reasons for the two buildings and the reasons where we have occupancy and the parking requirements. Is there anything else? Any further questions? Borup: Anything from the Commission? All right. Thank you, Mr. Marsden. Marsden: I thank you very much, because -- and I think our project is really a wonderful addition to the city. By the way, the size of this auditorium is about equivalent to the size of the Morrison Center in downtown. The number of seats. Only because of the number of seats. The idea here is that this community is growing and so we have to grow meet the -- this part of the needs of the community. Borup: It's a unique building and it will make a nice addition to the city. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 95 of 125 Marsden: A really nice addition. Zaremba: Let me just clarify one thing, if I can. I think I understood some of the drawings that we were given. The prayer center has an entry level and a lower level. Marsden: Yes. Zaremba: Entry level is at ground level? Marsden: Ground level. Zaremba: And the lower level is a basement? Marsden: Is a basement. Zaremba: Okay. Then, let me ask staff -- that means a whole story below ground for that building and the sanctuary building -- actually, the drawing -- the floor of that building was -- Borup: It was down like five feet. It that what you're referring to? Zaremba: No. It's nine feet three inches, plus another six feet. It's something like 17 -- or the total of 16. Total is 15 -- the floor of the occupied sanctuary space is 15 feet six inches below ground, plus whatever foundation is below that. My question is do we need a water engineer's study to make sure that we are above high water level -- high underground watermark? Freckleton: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, I would say yes. We are going to want to see -- we are going to want see a ground water investigation report by a soil scientist establishing that high ground water mark and they are going to have to do a lot of groundwork as far as their foundational analysis for the structure itself. I would assume that they are going to be entering into a contract with someone to do that work, if they haven't already done so. Borup: I'm sure that's something that we have probably looked at, unless you want to -- Marsden: We have already hired them. Zaremba: But do we want to make it a condition that they supply that report? Marsden: As part of the building permit process. Freckleton: You certainly can. It won't hurt a thing. Zaremba: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 96 of 125 Freckleton: Probably be a good idea. Zaremba: And that would be prior to the building permit; right? Freckleton: With the building permit application. Zaremba: Okay. Freckleton: Yeah. Borup: Okay. Any other questions? All right. Thank you, Mr. Marsden. Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? It looks like not. I think everyone else here must be for something else. Rohm: I wonder why? Zaremba: Gee, what do we have left on the -- in that case, Mr. Chairman, I would move that we close Public Hearing No. 14. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close that hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Oh, I'm sorry, I probably should have asked this before we closed it, but, staff, on the parking requirement, are we satisfied that the prayer center doesn't add any additional need for parking? Kirkpatrick: Yes. Actually, the applicant has, I think, 50 additional spaces over what they are required, so -- Zaremba: Okay. Then, addressing the parking lot north end, it looks to me, if I'm interpreting the display correctly, that there are a lot of trees along the parking area. Can that be considered alternate -- alternate compliance, as opposed to actually moving the trees in between the cars? I think the idea is that a parking lot should have a lot of trees and they are on the end of the stalls, instead of between the stalls. Borup: I have always thought that the other reason for that is just visual impact from the public and passer-by. The visual impact from Fairview is not going to be any different with the amount of trees they have here. Powell: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, the intent behind the trees within the parking area is to soften the appearance of the kind of sea of asphalt that you often see in parking lots and to also provide some shade for those vehicles that are Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 97 of 125 parked there and to reduce some of the heat load and -- they kind of have different purposes than the other trees that are proposed. My only other concern would be that as the church expands they are likely to look to those areas for their expansion and, then, you can't go back and add to the -- I mean that's a different application. That's looking way down the road. I think you miss the opportunity to provide that amenity for that -- for that group if it -- if it goes away now. Rohm: Well -- and the applicant said that if -- stipulated they would provide, so -- and there is plenty of room to add those islands, so I don't see any reason why we don't -- I don't think we should waive it. Zaremba: Well, certainly, the shade issue -- this month it's not an issue, probably, but there are times of the year when it would be an issue. Okay. We won't do that. All right. The hearing has been closed; is that correct? Borup: Yes. Zaremba: All right. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 14 on our agenda, CUP 03-064, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for two additional buildings on one lot. We will have a total of three buildings; is that correct? Two additional buildings on one lot in an L-O zone for Capital Christian Center by Capital Christian Church, 2760 East Fairview Avenue, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of July -- of January 15th, 2004, with the following changes: On page seven we will add a paragraph 16 that says we are recommending that the building heights be approved as submitted. We will add a paragraph 17 that says an engineer's study of ground water elevations shall be submitted with the building permit to consider the sanctuary occupied space at 15 feet six inches below ground level and the lower level of the pyramid entry is below ground as well. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 15: Public Hearing: AZ 03-036 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 19.7 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Salisbury Subdivision No. 2 by Earl, Mason, and Stanfield, Inc. – south of West Ustick Road and west of North Meridian Road: Item 16: Public Hearing: PP 03-042 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 72 single-family residential building lots and 2 common lots on 19.7 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Salisbury Subdivision No. 2 by Earl, Mason and Stanfield, Inc. – south of West Ustick Road and west of North Meridian Road: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 98 of 125 Borup: Thank you. Next item, Public Hearing AZ 03-036, request for Annexation and Zoning of 19.7 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Salisbury Subdivision No. 2 and Public Hearing PP 03-042, request for Preliminary Plat approval on the same project. As mentioned, we will open the Public Hearing at this time and maybe some input from stuff on how much you would like to go into the presentation tonight. I notice from the staff recommendation, they recommend continuing it until we have a final report from ACHD, which I understand is coming very shortly. Then, there is also five findings that you -- that's been mentioned that you would like to have resolved also and I'm not sure the progress on the resolution of those findings. Mr. Hawkins-Clark, do you want to -- Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, I -- as far as the ACHD report, we did just receive a draft one today, so I guess it's really up to the Commission on that. If you want to just rely on staff to basically tell you what their report says -- you know, when we submitted our staff report, the assumption was that we weren't going to get that, but it, essentially, is final from them. It's stamped draft, but I was told by Andrea Tuning, their staff planner over there, that it basically is final, so I -- you know, certainly we are open, if you want -- if you want me to just touch on the highlights and just take testimony and -- I think that probably there are enough key issues that it would be worth waiting. We were given two options by the applicant, two different -- Option A and Option B, which are largely identical, except for a stub street issue, so, you know -- but I think there probably are enough issues to warrant, you know, some -- foreseeing that it would continued and we could go into more detail at your next meeting. Borup: How about the other findings? Are they all -- were those some of the options you were talking about was under findings A, E, and J and A and D? Hawkins-Clark: Right. Yeah. We had -- I mean I think those would all get discussion as a part of the hearing. Borup: But those are not resolved at this point? Hawkins-Clark: Right. Well, those are largely just going to be, I think, the Commission's decision. I mean I don't know if there is really much resolution. We got a written response from the applicant and, as you could tell, they are in substantial agreement with what staff's recommended conditions are. There is only, you know, two or three issues on that, so I think -- Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Brad? Hawkins-Clark: Sorry. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 99 of 125 Zaremba: Did you see -- we don't have the ACHD report, of course, but did you see anything in the draft that you got that would lead you to believe that the plat needs to be majorly revised? Hawkins-Clark: Well, there is one issue and that is that the Ada County Highway District is -- has a condition that is requiring them to provide a new stub street that is not shown on either Option A or Option B. It's not a recommendation to the City of Meridian, it's, and actually, a condition that ACHD is putting on them. Zaremba: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: They are saying that it would not go to ACHD commission for a Public Hearing, so I think the public here tonight should be aware of that, too. I mean they are just -- this is ACHD's staff level approval, because they think that it's all policy and there is nothing that varies from ACHD policy, therefore, they don't require a Public Hearing, So, I think some of that is up to the applicant to tell us tonight if they intend to oppose ACHD's condition for a stub street, then, obviously, that would mean you would want to continue this hearing. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Borup: So, I don't know if we have resolved how we want to continue with a full staff report at this time or -- Hawkins-Clark: We have a two and a half hour presentation ready. I'm just kidding. Borup: Well -- Zaremba: I'm suspecting that there -- I think the next question is for the applicant, because if the applicant is going to agree with ACHD's requirements, we need to see a new plat anyhow, and staff needs the opportunity to make a new recommendation sheet. Hawkins-Clark: Right. Yes. I think because of the public interest we want to make that available for a certain amount of time for them to have access to that revised drawing. Zaremba: So, if -- the question of the applicant, I think, is the next question, rather than having staffing go through a presentation. If the applicant is going to go challenge it, we need to continue it until that's resolved. If the applicant isn't going to challenge it, we need to continue it until we have seen a new plat and staff's remarks. Borup: So, it sounds like it may be appropriate to start with the applicant first, unless there is something else that you feel that you would want to bring up -- bring out before they came up. Hawkins-Clark: I think that's -- that's fine. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 100 of 125 Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Comfortable for me. Borup: Okay. Stanfield: Good evening, Commissioners. Scott Stanfield with Earl, Mason & Stanfield Engineering out of Caldwell, Idaho. We are the project engineers for this project. Chairman Borup, Commissioner Zaremba, you're correct, I'm stuck in the middle, so, regardless, we are going to keep going. I don't have the answer to that right now. It's a moot point, because no matter what my answer is, we have to keep going beyond tonight, but I will give you a little history. To my knowledge, short of any additional public testimony from the audience you may hear tonight, there is really only one outstanding issue and that is the City of Meridian wants a stub street to the west to Venable Lane, which is a 40 foot private strip of land owned by Mr. Venable in fee simple and it's designated as a collector road. Mr. Venable doesn't own any other parcels in the area and the adjoining landowners don't even own it. ACHD's contention is how is a collector ever going to get built on that little quarter mile stretch, period, when the adjacent landowners don't even own that strip. So, ACHD's emphatic about they do not want the stub going to Venable. The City of Meridian staff is just as strongly wanting the stub street. I'm stuck in the middle. I don't care if we -- where the stub street goes, to be honest with you. ACHD wanted a stub road to the north, in lieu of the stub road to Venable to the west. That's where the northerly stub road came from, to get to the city's future commercial neighborhood center. I'm kind of in a quandary here as to what to do, but, you're correct, the dilemma goes both ways. Zaremba: We can ask staff, but my assumption is that staff is concerned that even at the beginning of the building process there be a second access, other than Salisbury Lane, to this project and the most logical is Venable. If you can supply another second access -- Borup: There are two accesses now. Zaremba: Well, Salisbury is the only one that's built. A roadway exists there through an existing subdivision. Borup: Oh, you're talking about Sedgewick. Zaremba: Sedgewick. I'm sorry. Sedgewick. Stanfield: Chairman Borup? Commissioner Zaremba? Borup: Yes. Indian Rocks isn't in yet, is it? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 101 of 125 Stanfield: Correct. Indian Rocks isn't in yet and there are a maximum number of lots that we could funnel through to the northeast approach. It's my understanding that they are into DEQ and Mr. Freckleton may even know more of that status. Put him on the spot. I think they have been through the city's process, but they are -- they have indicated to us they are going to build this year and real soon there will be two accesses going to the east. In the event that miraculously we get on board before then, there is a cap number of building permits that we could get off that one access and I believe that would be 50 lots, according to ACHD. Ultimately, we assume there will be two. There are two approved collector streets that stub to this. I'm going to add that on the one through Indian Rocks -- and I believe the project name is Clearbrook Subdivision. I can't remember. The street is Indian Rocks in the southeast corner. The Preliminary Plat -- excuse me -- the Final Plat for that subdivision doesn't even go to our west boundary. Years ago when Lansbury and Salisbury were developed, apparently, the landowners got into a squabble, and he reserved a 30-foot strip north to south to block access. This project is split into two parcels, one north, and one south, roughly in the middle. He was upset that the previous landowner put a strip access there to land lock him and he truly was landlocked until about a week ago, until my client, the developer, who owns both of these parcels finally came to an agreement and paid a rather large sum of money for that 30 foot strip. That Preliminary Plat you see there, he went ahead and purchased it to punch the street through. That's kind of the history behind the southeast. The original application did not even have that, because it looked as it that agreement would never come to fruition, but it is now and that's why you see that little stub to the southeast and those two little common lots sucked in. Zaremba: Let me reconfirm with staff. Is Venable a make or break matter or is just a second access during the construction process the -- Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, Commissioner Zaremba, for us it is very important. I mean the two big reasons. One, ACHD -- the 2025 functional classification map that's been adopted by the highway district, actually shows Venable as an urban collector. You have a map that's been adopted by the two main transportation agencies in the valley that says a collector or should be there, as well as we have on our Comprehensive Plan a future neighborhood center that's immediately north of this and I think an urban collector serves the neighborhood center better and that you don't have front-on housing and it, you know, can care more traffic and it better serves as a signal in the future on Ustick and Venable. Zaremba: And I think you indicated in your notes that this is the halfway point in this mile section. Hawkins-Clark: Right. Zaremba: That Venable is. Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. It lines up with Venable -- more or less lines up with Venable on the north of Ustick as well, which was recently approved for Cedar Springs Subdivision. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 102 of 125 So -- and there is also an elementary school there. I think for us it's pretty -- you know, it's pretty important. We see it as -- now I don't -- when I say that, I think that the way that the applicant has showed it, that this Claire stub street -- I think we could all agree that it wouldn't be necessary to continue Venable to their south boundary, since the stub street that comes up from Waterbury Subdivision is about 550 feet over to the west. There will -- ultimately, the Waterbury stub will come up, will cross the South Slough, and, then, will somehow come and hook up with Venable at this point. So -- but there are still five buildable lots that are impacted. Borup: But you're saying at this point this design answers the concerns? The design they have here. Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. It doesn't -- Borup: As much as the applicant can do. Hawkins-Clark: As much as they have control over. Correct. Correct. I think, you know, Mr. Stanfield's point that they don't own it today and it would be an off-site improvement that really would do. I think it's -- they have provided for a ten foot landscape buffer along an urban collector and that much they have provided for. Zaremba: And assuming the future right of way of that collector, they would not need to give up any right of way or the applicant to the west would have to -- Hawkins-Clark: Correct. I think it would -- it would involved a pretty substantial shift of the Flack Drain, which runs north and south. It's fairly deep. Because ACHD will not accept a collector unless it meets their minimum 60 -- I think it's 60 feet of right of way and this only has 40. It would involve this subdivision giving up on those five lots about 20 feet. More than what they are showing. In a sense it impacts it, but -- Stanfield: Chairman Borup? Borup: Yes. Go ahead. Stanfield: I'd like to expound on that regarding the construction traffic. The parcels in this area have used Venable Lane for ingress and egress and there are documents in place to use that for ingress and egress, providing that it's maintained. The construction vehicles, again, providing that they are maintained, probably have a right to use that. They'd have to watch dust control and make sure the gravel is graded and they don't tear it up and leave the access open for the continuing use of the neighbors out there, so I don't see that being a problem and long term we would put a -- probably a set of bollards across that stub, too, because you don't want the neighborhood using that. I mean that would really upset the homeowners to the west and to the north. We have blocked that off and, then, if something ever happens to the Flack Drain or Venable sells it or something happens to it, then, those bollards could be removed. We have tried to address everything we can in our power. The Flack Drain actually has a Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 103 of 125 right of way that goes just about to our boundary it's a deeded right of way. It's an actual metes and bounds description and it's right on top of Venable's ground that he owns. There is all -- there are all kinds of encumbrances there. We have tried to accommodate as much as we could on our side of the boundary and if the stub street has got to be there, obviously, we are not protesting. We show it there. We'd just leave it to the city to decide, to be honest with you. Hawkins-Clark: If I could just add to that, that I -- my understanding is that ACHD is not objecting to the stub street now, they are just saying that they want bollards put up so that vehicles can't get out there. They -- is that correct; Scott? It's not an in-lieu-of situation. Stanfield: Correct. It's not in lieu of, but I think they don't want that public right of way, Claire Street, to be public right of way. I think I read that in Andrea's staff report, that they don't want that to be public right of way, but they did go on later to say that put bollards across there. That's what we had proposed to do and go ahead and make it public right of way. Zaremba: So, you'd use it for construction traffic and, then, once the infrastructure and roadway is built you would put the bollards? Stanfield: Correct. Correct. I -- personally, my engineering tells me that it's -- honestly, even though we concur to show it, it's a waste. To the north of there you're only a quarter mile for a neighborhood collector that doesn't go anywhere to the south, so what's it really collecting. You know, the city has it's reasons and I'm not going to really second guess that, so -- so, with that, that's where we are at today. Borup: Any additional issues we'd like to cover with Mr. Stanfield? Zaremba: Not at the moment. Stanfield: Yeah. I'll jump in and I'll just make it quick, because these people here aren't here to plaud me on and applaud my efforts, but I'll just keep going real quick. The Comp Plan is eight units per acre in this area, because of the neighborhood center to the north. We are at 3.65. The minimum the Comp Plan really wants out here is three, for obvious reasons. Why didn't the developer go higher, then, we'd probably have twice as many people in here that don't want this. He felt that he'd take it as low as he can and keep the density as low as he can, but yet, have good economics with the project. We ended up with 71 lots in a 3.65 single family versus up to eight units per acre in multi-family, which you can do in this neighborhood commercial area. That's why we tried to keep it as low as we could. The parcels are landlocked, as you could tell. Two access points. We used to have one as I discussed, but he successfully obtained the purchase of the little 30 foot wide strip there, so now that we have the two accesses, we can comply with the comp plan in Chapter 6, I think it is, regarding the interconnection and the connections to the surrounding neighborhoods, so we feel we comply with that. Furthermore, in Chapter 6 it wants the traffic spread out, so at least with the two of them Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 104 of 125 we successfully followed Chapter 6. What does the city gain out of this? A couple things. We are getting closer to a neighborhood center and I don't know if the City of Meridian has seen a neighborhood center yet, but we are getting closer to one now with this annexation and this Preliminary Plat. We will continue the public pathway to the south, on the north side of the South Slough, that trail system will extend all along our south boundary east to west, connecting to the one to the east that will be built, so the city is getting closer to their trail goal, plus we will have the pathway going to the north to connect to the future neighborhood center and a continuation, who knows, that may end up being a full blown stub street. Again, getting to the neighborhood center. That's some of the benefits the city's going to see and I think in the staff report there was some questions about storm water and what we planned there and I don't know if you care to get into that tonight, but if you have questions on our detail we have in the upper right I can answer that, if you have any concerns there. With that, that's all I will wrap it up tonight with. My wife's wondering where I'm at. Borup: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you. Okay. We are assuming that a lot of you here are to put forth some of your feelings, so we'd like to open up the Public Hearing, unless -- do we have -- and because of the time -- Zaremba: A spokesman? Borup: That's what I'm trying to say. It's getting late. What we have done in the past, rather than limiting everybody to three minutes, if we have a spokesman representing the group, then, we have got pretty much unlimited time, so is he speaking -- is there anybody in here that he's not speaking for? Okay. Snodgrass: Thank you very much, Members of the Commission. My name is Mark Snodgrass, I'm a member of the Salisbury Subdivision. I live at 405 West Sedgewick Lane towards the very end of the subdivision and as a neighborhood resident and as a spokesman for the subdivision, we do have some considerable concerns about the project and our original concern is many of the homes that are in adjacent neighborhoods, the density is one issue that we are really really concerned about as far as resale of our properties at a later time. The density of our subdivision I believe at this point in time is approximately 2.8 versus the 3.65 homes per acre that is being suggested by this proposal. Also, not only do we have our subdivision at that 2.8, but the Lansbury Subdivision is also of a similar density and is zoned as our subdivision is at R-4, rather than R-8. The original plan by the developer only provided for one entry and one exit into the proposed subdivision and so I feel that there really is economics that is behind this in that, you know, I believe that we want to create neighborhoods that are user friendly and that not only benefit those people that are soon to be homeowners in that area, but not at the expense of those people who are existing homeowners. We are a little bit concerned about -- Borup: Do you see that they do have two -- they have taken care of the second access now? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 105 of 125 Snodgrass; Yes, they have. We -- I would like to congratulate them for that. I believe that had something to do with the fire code, rather than any kind of input that we had, but we appreciate that that was something that they did, because it did actually decrease our amount of traffic. The storm drain system that is proposed is potentially a little bit different. It is not consistent with what we have in the neighborhoods in that area and so we are a little bit concerned with that. The notification -- this is perhaps maybe a little bit different issue, but the notification for this area I think was something that impacts a neighborhood so significantly, I think that the 300 foot notification of that is, actually, kind of deplorable, that the applicant has -- rather than taking the time to seek out those people that they are impacting in a very very serious way with the original proposal, chose to do the very minimum and I think that that's pretty difficult. Borup: And do you realize there were three methods of notification? Snodgrass: Yes, I believe that there is -- well, perhaps you could tell me a little bit more about -- Borup: Well, one is a letter mailing to those within -- and there has to be some boundary set, so that's the 300 feet. The other is the sign that the property is posted and, then, there is notification in the paper also. Snodgrass: Right. I believe, Mr. Commissioner, I believe I didn't see anything in the newspaper, but, of course, I haven't been looking too much at that. The property is, essentially, landlocked and there is no notification on it at the end of our stub street for that process and so I believe that they have probably went with that third alternative of notifying those homeowners within 300 feet of the project. Borup: No. There is -- Rohm: It should be singed. Snodgrass: A sign on the property? We don't really have any access visually to that kind of sign, because there is -- it's, essentially, landlocked. Borup: Where was the sign posted, do we know? Hawkins-Clark: If we could have the applicant address -- the stub street -- Sedgewick should have been signed. Stanfield: Excuse me. We will just jump in here? Borup: Yes. Stanfield: Well, that was a duty assigned to the developer and he signed an affidavit saying that he would do that and I warned him about 20 days ago that he had to do Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 106 of 125 that, so -- and Mr. Snodgrass is correct, there are -- visually where would you put such a sign and for -- Borup: Other than at the end of the -- Stanfield: Well, then, the neighbors to the north and the neighbors to the west wouldn't see it, so that's about all I can add there. Borup: So, we don't know whether it was posted or not? Stanfield: That's a very good question. Borup: Okay. Stanfield: And the developer, he's in Europe and everything, and I constantly try to remind him to do these things and -- Borup: Okay. Well, that may -- that may be a moot -- Stanfield: Yeah. Zaremba: To clarify the subject of notice, it's not a choice among those three, it's all three. Snodgrass: Oh, it's all there. Zaremba: So, all three have to be done. Snodgrass: Okay. Well, that makes sense. Zaremba: And I might make a suggestion that the 300-foot notice requirement is from state law. Borup: Right. Borup: One of the reasons we -- we, a lot of the time assume that if you catch that many people, they are going to let their neighbors know, and it looks like that worked. Snodgrass: And we do have a -- we do have a very active homeowners association and, obviously, people that want to stay out here until nearly 1:00 o'clock in the morning to protect their subdivision. Makes sense. Borup: And that may be the only thing that may be worthwhile to -- well, I'm not sure how the city would do it. I was going to say in addition to notice in 300 feet that the homeowners association ought to be notified, but -- and I think the city could do that if we knew who that was. I don't know the best way to do that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 107 of 125 Zaremba: I don't think we do. Sodgrass: That's a good recommendation. Borup: Whatever the mechanism to do that. Continue on, Mr. Snodgrass. Snodgrass: Thank you very much, Mr. Commissioner. The new plan by the developer will still -- will still, essentially, turn what we have found to be a fairly quiet neighborhood into a busy street, even with the improved plan that they have with two access points into a street that perhaps will add 350 to 450 additional car trips per day to our subdivision. Higher traffic, of course, is going to make it more difficult for us to get the value out of our homes and we feel that one of the reasons that we purchased into this neighborhood is because we felt strongly about having a neighborhood that was good for our families, good for our children, good for us to be able to walk and do those things. It's important to know that because of the stub streets and the way that our subdivision is built, I think that we have the idea that there would, at some point in time, be some future -- future development and that it was going to happen at some point in time, but I'm not -- Borup: But isn't there a sign posted on some street stating that? Snodgrass: Actually, there is no sign at this point in time. Borup: Maybe that's a newer requirement. Snodgrass: I think it is from when the subdivision was developed, but, you know, even though we could see that there was perhaps going to be some development in the future, I'm not sure that we were really anticipating that we would be servicing, you know, upwards of 50 to 70 different homes down our street and for those people who are purchasing who already live there, we don't really have the opportunity now to choose whether or not, so what we have tried to do is figure out a way for us to perhaps modify this plan. I know that the proposal that Mr. Stanfield presented was one that had, you know, some good concessions to it. If it's possible that they might be able to put up the plan that we have. Sorry. That might be good. What we are proposing is something that addresses most of the issues that we have with that. One of the other things that I would like to add is that in this area and as a real estate professional in this area and others, I believe, that are in the audience that are also real estate people, it's very very odd to see a subdivision development that has a reverse density pattern to where you have larger homes sites of less density towards the outside of the subdivision with more entry level homes of a greater compaction, greater density towards the inside. There are a few subdivisions that I know of that have that pattern and, unfortunately, the home values of those people with the larger homes towards the outside tend to be impacted in a pretty significant way. Typically, if you take a look at most of the subdivisions, that are designed and developed as full subdivisions, they will put most of the smaller homes towards the outside, towards, you know, the more traveled areas and they put Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 108 of 125 the larger homes of less density towards the center where it's, obviously, more desirable to live, because there is less traffic and less situations, noise, and so on and so forth. It's great for us to come here and say that we oppose this program, but I think that we have a plan that is really workable, that addresses some of these issues, instead of just coming here to complain, we kind of put ourselves together and decided that we would maybe want to steer this vessel to a new direction, rather than try and stop it in its tracks, because progress is a difficult thing to stop. The first thing that we would perhaps put in our proposal was that we would like to see the density decreased, at least, if possible, to a density that's more consistent with the neighboring subdivisions, which I think is important. Borup: And do you know what -- oh, you said yours was 2.8. Snodgrass: Yes. We would also like to reconfigure the existing subdivision to put some of the traffic more onto Indian Rocks Street and, basically, we would provide also an alternative to Kelsey Way with a stub street that would access to the north of Kelsey Way on the plan there. The added traffic -- Indian Rocks Street is perhaps a factor that some people would be looking as perhaps a negative, but because it is a new subdivision with no homes there currently, the people who are looking at moving into that subdivision have the opportunity to make a decision, knowing that there would be increased traffic flow, rather than impacting people who have already purchased their homes and, then, are subject to -- subjected to those greater amounts of traffic. That was a luxury, obviously, that was not afforded to the existing homeowners at this point in time. Also, with the stub street that would be put on Kelsey Way to the north, once that northern portion of eight acres was developed it would seem reasonable that they would probably pull that all the way out to Ustick Road and, then, you have a subdivision that is, essentially, landlocked, but that would provide, essentially, almost a one-third to one-third to one-third access point for each of those people in the neighborhood to access once that land is developed. We would also -- are very concerned with our subdivision at Venable Lane or Indian Rock Street be defined as a construction entrance into the new subdivision. Obviously, if they are building a subdivision on Indian Rock Street and there is very few people that are there, we'd like to see that as a primary entrance to the subdivision and even more likely if we could do something with Venable Lane for the construction entrance, that would be great. We'd like to see a few other things in our proposal. That Sedgewick Lane entrance be -- continue to be closed until 50 percent of the homes on Spicewood Way would be built, closed, and occupied. We would like to see a minimum of disruption to the people in our subdivision and -- Borup: When you say closed, do you mean closed to all traffic? Snodgrass: No. No. Just during the period of time that they would be -- Borup: Construction traffic. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 109 of 125 Snodgrass: Construction -- well, actually, we would prefer that this -- that that road for our subdivision would be closed to all traffic until the infrastructure is in and 50 percent of the homes just on Spicewood would be built and occupied. That would mean that the sole -- or dual construction entrance would be either Venable Lane or on Indian Rocks Road, which would currently also be handling construction of that subdivision at that time. Borup: Okay. Snodgrass: You know, these are just proposals, you know. Okay. Thank you. Actually, what we are -- what we are hoping to do -- and as we look at this, if we could T this street off from Sedgewick -- we are trying to make our neighborhood as user friendly as we can and this rendition is something that, essentially, continues to give, I believe, 71 lots to the proposed person -- to the person who is developing this. This section here is really the section that we have modified. The rest of it and all the work and money that they put into the design of these features and the sewer system would not be lost. It's something we are not asking for a complete redesign, but this northern street up here on Kelsey Way is something that, I believe, addresses the problem for the additional stub street that ACHD is looking at. That would also eliminate, perhaps, the possibility of actually stubbing out the Venable Lane, if that is something that is desired. Our main focus here is that by T'ing this street off and this existing sub on the original drawing here, we are actually going to end up servicing these 18 to 20 homes through our subdivision, rather than pretty much, you know, anywhere from -- you know, up to as many as 70 homes and probably as few as probably 30 homes. I think that that would really help our neighborhood and I think that we would probably be amenable to something like this without really impacting what's going on very significantly. There was a discussion, Mr. Stanfield and I, about whether or not we would be able to have this many homes collected without a second access point. There was 46 lots in this area here up to this point here, so I believe that in talking with the planners they said that 50 homes for a single access would still meet that requirement and they would still have perhaps four lots that they could play with, if they wanted to adjust that density in some say. That is, I believe, our proposal. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Zaremba: Well, all of the points are good. One of the points strikes a very valid point. We do have the requirement that densities be closer to the transportation corridors, which is why you generally don't see the density in the middle of the mile squares -- Borup: Correct. Zaremba: -- they are out closer to the major arterials and that's a very important point to be considered in this. It almost would make sense that this subdivision should be R-4. Snodgrass: And that this our contention and I know that -- I'm sorry. Go ahead. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 110 of 125 Zaremba: No. I was just agreeing with you. Snodgrass: And I think that in talking with Mr. Stanfield, I think that, you know, basically, by the way that this was brought about, we are looking at putting in a subdivision with 65 foot frontage on each lot, typically, we are looking at homes that are much smaller in size and scope than the homes that are in either of the two subdivisions that are here to the -- I guess it would be to the east of the subdivision and we are concerned about that as homeowners that want to retain the value of our property, along with a neighborhood that is relatively friendly. We would like to see, you know, a density that would be more consistent with a neighborhood. Unfortunately, it sounds as if Mr. Stanfield and his client are perhaps more interested in the economics behind developing the property and packing as many people into there as they can, based on the frontage and the square footage of the homes. I know economics plays a big part of developing property. I feel pretty confident as a real estate agent that there are enough people in this area, just as homeowners like ourselves who bought into an area that was at 2.8 density, that those homes can be sold and that it can be a profitable venture, otherwise, you wouldn't have seen these subdivisions here being developed the way that they have and being sold out fairly quickly. Borup: Okay. Maybe just a couple comments on that. I was around when your subdivision developed and about half of your arguments are the same thing that the neighbors in Lansbury Lane had to say. They didn't want your subdivision coming in, because it was going to decrease property values, cause traffic through their neighborhood, et cetera, et cetera. They didn't like these smaller lots and smaller homes as they were saying. I mean they had some pretty strong things to say. That's normal. The other thing, I think, of part of why those two subdivisions were developed as they were is because of the size of the property. There wasn't a lot you could do, other than a street down the middle, and so the lots are a little larger because of that. Your subdivision did some of the cul-de-sacs, which decreased some of the lot sizes from what Lansbury did. Snodgrass: Right. Borup: And so it's not -- I mean the sizes -- the density has had a tendency to decrease as it's gone. I mean yours is less than Lansbury and this one seems to be a little less than yours. Whether that's the best use or not, I'm not saying that, but I'm just stating that's the way it's happened. Snodgrass: And perhaps I believe when I did the check on our subdivision we are at around 2.8. I'm not sure what it is typically in Lansbury. I think it would be -- when you look at the actual plat, it's still yet fairly consistent RUT zoning, which is similar to ours and I know that everybody -- you know, we feel pretty strongly that we don't want to be the kind of people that say, you know, growth is not something that we want in our backyard and it's never going to happen. I think that we understand that progress does occur. I think that we just want to make sure that the progress that does occur is Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 111 of 125 consistent with the kind of homes that we have and that fits that density pattern that I think is more desirable for subdivisions. Borup: It looks like what you propose you say it's really only reduced one lot? It's 71? Snodgrass: That is correct. I believe that what we have here is Block 1 -- let me see where I have got that here. Block 1 up here is retained at eight lots. Block 2 in the middle is retained. Borup: Yeah. That looks like that stayed the same. Snodgrass: Block 3 changed and now -- actually, I believe that they have that as two separate lots, but that is now 25 lots. Lot 4 here is retained. Then, Lot 5 also was changed a little bit, I believe to -- oh, let me think here. Borup: One lot was reduced there it looks like. Snodgrass: Yes. The one thing that occurred here by them adding this road is they ended up adding another there, so that was a -- kind of a boon to them as well by moving this. On the original plat that we had seen, this was 11 lots and now they have, I believe, 12 there on the existing plat on their revised plan. They gained -- they did gain a lot there. Borup: Okay. Any other questions from the Commissioners? Snodgrass: Thank you for your time. Borup: Okay. Thank you. You, sir, you said you had a different issue, so come on up. Simunich: My name is Joe Simunich. I live at 955 West Ustick Road. I own property just to the west of this proposed subdivision. If the -- if you could give me back the original. That's good for right now. If you look to the west of that subdivision you see a line there, that's a property line. That's a proposed road that they proposed to the west, if it's in the location that they have it now, you would come within about 20 or 30 feet of that property line. Therefore, if that road would be extended, it would be difficult to get use out of that property. That -- if they would just change that lot -- move one lot up and put the road a little bit farther south, then, there would be no problem with that. Does that make sense to you? Zaremba: Let me see if I understand what you're saying. Their stub street that is going west from their property -- Simunich: Yes. Zaremba: -- your preference would be that it be moved a little farther south -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 112 of 125 Simunich: Yes. Zaremba: -- so that it's more centered on this piece of property? Borup: Is this your property here, Joe? Simunich: Pardon? Borup: Up here. Up front. On the map. On the map there, this is your property here? Simunich: Yes. Borup: Okay. This is -- and this is someone else's property to the north of you? Simunich: Well, that's mine, too, but it's somebody else's. Oh, the other one is somebody else's and that one is mine. Two different owners, same family. I don't know when they will develop -- Borup: Okay. I was -- up here. Simunich: Okay. Borup: So, you're saying that this stub street right now is coming in about right here? Simunich: No. It's lower. Right about there. Borup: I thought you said you wanted to go to the south? Simunich: Yes. That would be south. Lower. Borup: You want it clear down here? Simunich: If you would just change -- if you would look at your plat there and just move the -- move the road one lot farther south. Zaremba: So, essentially, the road would be like 70 or 75 feet south of where it is proposed now? Simunich: Yes. Plus the 40 feet would give you 100-foot lot depth there for future development. Borup: Would that still connect to Venable Lane? Simunich: Pardon? Borup: Would it still connect to Venable? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 113 of 125 Simunich: Yes. It would connect if the county required it. Borup: Right. Yeah. Simunich: If that's required, if they don't require that street, that's fine with me also. Borup: Well, they are going to -- more than likely they are going to require it if your property is ever developed. Simunich: Well, several years ago Mayor Kingsford wrote me a letter and said 8th Street should continue through there. Mr. Yorgason came in, put in a subdivision, and used that right of way for housing. Somebody drop the ball before I got here. Borup: Well, Mr. Kingsford didn't work for ACHD, I guess, is part of the problem. Okay. Simunich: But to that, I don't know why anybody would want to rebuild Venable Lane to a high standard. It's not going to serve that much -- that many people. Borup: So, when you develop your property, you would say you would put a different road in? Simunich: Well, I imagine when my property develops it would come in from Ustick Road. Borup: And you would do all new streets, rather than use Venable? Simunich: Right and abandon Venable Lane. It's got two or three owners. I have got deeds here from I think 1909, if you'd like to see them. Borup: On Venable? Simunich: Yes. Borup: Okay. Simunich: That's the only problem I had, if they could move that road one lot south, I have no problem with that. If they don't build it, that's fine also. Next consideration is the irrigation. Through the middle of that property that's going to be developed, that's the irrigation ditch. It's a raised ditch and maybe some of you people understand what that means, that the water that flows through there is higher than the ground. If a gopher drills a hole or something, the water runs out. It will have to be put in a pipe, a pressurized pipe in order to go from the place where it enters that property to where it comes out on Venable Lane. Borup: And that's already a staff condition. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 114 of 125 Simunich: Pardon? Borup: That's already a staff condition. That's already a condition. I believe. It normally is. I have a tendency to just look over those, but -- so they are piping that already. Simunich: Yes, but by what type construction, what type pipe? Because that shows them wandering around in the front of the lots, it's going to take about 13 concrete boxes that will be up approximately three feet in the front yards. Borup: Well, I don't think it's going to be a raised ditch anymore. Simunich: No, it will be an underground ditch, but it will have pressure on it. Borup: Yes. Simunich: So, the boxes will have to be up -- Borup: Oh, I see what you're saying. Simunich: -- high enough and there is 13 of them and it will be in the front yards of some of those homes. Borup: Okay. We will see if we can get some clarification on that from Mr. Stanfield. Simunich: And the type of material used would be very important. Borup: Okay. Simunich: It should be class three reinforced gasketed concrete pipe with poured in place concrete boxes, because if that leaks, it will be a considerable problem, because there is no way to shut that water off, unless they shut it of at Locust Grove Road. Borup: All right. We will get some answers on that. Simunich: I'd like to see the plan on the irrigation prior to approval of Final Plat. Borup: Thank you, sir. Okay. Mr. Stanfield, comments on -- Stanfield: I'll make this really brief. Borup: Well, yes, first of all -- yes. You have got a copy of the proposed -- Stanfield: Yes. Borup: -- new design that -- that doesn't look that unreasonable to me. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 115 of 125 Stanfield: No, it doesn't to me either. I think the highway district would -- it's going to be a tough sell to the highway district. Borup: Where was it they wanted that stub street to the north to be? Stanfield: No, that's not a problem. That's -- Borup: Oh. That part works for you? Stanfield: Yeah. That part works. It's the disconnect between -- I don't know what they are going to say. They may not like it. They may -- and we might be three lots short on this and Mr. Snodgrass was kind enough to give this to me the other day and the developer, like I said, one day he's in Europe, the next day he's in Washington D.C. Then, an hour later he's in Atlanta, so he's really hard to pin down. I will still go over this with him. I just -- I'm concerned with the highway district eliminating that stub and forcing the traffic tendencies to go to Indian Rocks. It's -- in fact, if he wants to, he can come and work for me. It's a pretty good layout. With that -- Borup: So, it maybe could be -- if the -- well, and they understand that you got to sell that -- I mean the highway district has to sign off on that. Stanfield: Correct. Correct. I mean it's pretty clear we are not -- we are not going to make a recommendation tonight, so I can definitely work on that. Regarding -- Borup: So, another compromise may be is a similar type of design that would send more traffic to Indian Rocks, if they had a problem with this as it is. Stanfield: Correct. Yeah. We can work on something. Regarding the density, the comment was made about you're higher density should be on your larger roads, your mile roads. That's true, but the fallacy it that thought here is the neighborhood center that the city's Comprehensive Plan designated. Well, in fact, it encompasses the north portion of this property. With that neighborhood center -- in fact, that argument was made by everybody against the city's wishes where they wanted a lot of the neighborhood centers. They wanted them in the mile roads and that's not where a lot of them happened, particularly this one. The problem now becomes the city's designated neighborhood center there -- which am I to second-guess that and, then, come in with something R-4 or less right here. I can bet when the developer to the north goes, the city is going to want to see their neighborhood center, because staff and the city worked very hard to get that. Well, do you think these R-4 or less than R-4 people are going to want multi-family or R-8 or a neighborhood center right behind their fence line? So, you have to create some kind of transitional zone between Waterbury, Salisbury, Lansbury, toward that neighborhood center. That pattern has already been established because of that neighborhood center. Your argument is true, but not in this location. Again, we tried to scale that down. Obviously, there is no way we wanted to go in with an R-8 into this, because that -- the developer just wasn't comfortable with that. Try to get as low as Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 116 of 125 we can. We will definitely look at this layout. Let me just jump in on some of the requests real quick. I probably won't catch them all, because I really want to go home. Borup: Well, another comments -- well, go ahead. You will probably cover it and I will mention it if you don't. Stanfield: I encouraged the developer to get with all the neighbors ahead of time, because that's always a good idea. Again, his schedule just -- I don't know what he does for a living. I hate to say that. He's on the move constantly. Let me just jump down here. You're correct, Chairman -- Zaremba: Excuse me. Clarify, if you would. Was there any kind of a neighborhood meeting or -- Stanfield; No, there was not. Zaremba: Okay. Stanfield: He literally, thanks to wireless e-mails, that's how I'm able to communicate with him. He's just -- I don't know, maybe he works for the government. He's all over the place. There was a comment Mr. Snodgrass made about blocking of Spicewood and using Indian Rocks. That's a novel concept, but that really holds us to Indian Rocks being built and, furthermore, being accepted by the highway district and I really don't like that condition because of that. We can direct the construction traffic elsewhere, don't get me wrong, but holding, you know, until final occupancy, that's going to affect marketing, people looking at the lots. What if Indian Rocks isn't paved for some reason? Or if they stop short of paving it -- that just puts us in a quandary. The rest of the stuff you had to say made sense. Borup: Any comment on the storm drains? Stanfield: Yes. Then, let me address Mr. Zaremba's question. The storm drain -- ACHD hoped to adopt this -- this layout that I have in my upper right-hand corner of the Preliminary Plat in November, now it looks like they are going to adopt it this much. ACHD has successfully worked with DEQ and made DEQ realize that a lot of areas in the towns have high groundwater and there has got to be a way to make them work and this was a solution that actually ACHD and another developer came up with in a county subdivision and there may be one in Eagle that's going -- Borup: Isn't there one in Kuna? Stanfield: Yes. There is -- that's the old one in Kuna. They are not quite like that, but there is a new one planned in Kuna, but there is an older one that's built. This is the detached sidewalk with a landscape swale -- grassy lined swale in the middle where there is no curb and gutter and the storm water just runs just off into this grass lined swale and the streets are designed flat. Lengthwise there is no real grade to them, so Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 117 of 125 that the water stays there and you don't pass it down to our next neighbor and we put a sand trench -- ACHD requires a sand trench down the middle with a certain grade of top soil on the top to drain that water down and make it disappear a lot quicker. It is different, than, what you have seen before. In fact, ACHD really has problems with the pond in Salisbury and asked if we could help them out somehow with a discharge line from their pond to the South Slough. Groundwater in the whole area is just -- it's tough, it's really tough. In fact, Mr. Freckleton is going to make a recommendation, I believe, that we have to have a foundation engineered by Geo Tech Engineer. I just wanted to get that on record real quick. That's the storm drain real quick and ACHD is on board with it. We meet with them and that's, really, what governed the project. If that didn't work, this land would be marked undevelopable; you just could do anything with it without that new standard right there. There are four criteria and I won't bore you with the criteria, but they won't let you do that everywhere. There are four criteria that you have to meet and we met all four of them. Simunich, I can't think of any problems. You know, whoever prevails on the roadway location, if there is a stub to Venable, we can pull it down. That makes good planning sense to move that to the south and I don't think there is any impediments in the way of that. The irrigation ditch, if that's Nampa- Meridian's ditch, that letter from them saying it is, they call it the Finch Lateral. I have never heard it called the Finch Lateral. Simunich: It's the Onweiler Lateral. Stanfield: Yes. I don't have a whole lot of faith in the documents the agencies have given me, but if it's Nampa-Meridian, we have to meet their standards and if it's not, there are another set of standards we have to follow. Borup: Further to the east there is one that's the Finch Lateral, but I think they combine. Anyway, go ahead. Stanfield: So, there are a set of standards that we have to follow and one thing that I insist on doing myself and the people that work for me in our office, the engineers, before we start our final design we need to get with the landowners in the area, particularly the farmers in the area, because they have worked the land and they know - - Mr. Simunich knows far better than I do what that water is going today. The landowner that my client purchased the land from, one of them wasn't a farmer, so he's of no use, so you can bet I will definitely get Mr. Simunich involved in this in the very get go, because I don't want to go wrong and have him scream at me a year later. If that's wants to be a condition that I meet with him, that's fine, but that is a matter of practice with our firm. It just makes common sense. With that -- Borup: So, at this point you don't really have a design as far as material and -- Stanfield: No. There is -- it's too premature at this point to sink that much money into a design and, then, change it, as Mr. Snodgrass's layout shows, then, my design I would have wasted thousands of dollars. It's just something we jump into when we -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 118 of 125 Borup: That's what we are used to seeing, usually. Okay. Any other questions from the Commission? Probably the one big issue -- it looks like it wasn't posted, so we probably shouldn't have even opened the hearing. There was -- the people were notified and we had the neighbors here, so that, of course, was why we wanted to go ahead with the hearing. Stanfield: And they didn't beat me up too bad. Zaremba: No. Borup: Do we have some new information? Come on up, then. Okay. I'm sorry. I should have asked that first, because usually the applicant has the last opportunity to respond. Jackson: Thank you, Commissioner and fellow Commissioners and staff members. I own the property -- how do you operate this? Just push it in? Zaremba: Sir, could you start with your name and address. Jackson: Yes. Excuse me. My name is Bill Jackson and I own the property south of the proposed subdivision. Excuse me. North. Borup: You're on the east side of Venable, then? Jackson: It would be right here. Borup: Right there. Okay. Jackson: Right there. I have a couple of concerns. One, I'm disappointed that the developer hasn't taken the time to show sensitivity to the neighboring landowners. Also, I have a concern -- we gave an easement to the Salisbury 1 Subdivision, which allowed them for their runoff water to border the property into the irrigation ditch and one of the problems we are having is that that water backs into our irrigation and lays there and, unfortunately, I haven't had much success with John Sanford to kind of burn off the weeds and everything in there, so that's also an issue, but I want to get together with the developer and Mr. Stanfield there. The other -- Borup: You understand they are not proposing any ponds in this subdivision? Jackson: Well -- Borup: I mean you understood that design? Jackson: Well, I haven't had the opportunity to see the proposal and how it could potentially impact. Then, the other concern is with the Salisbury Subdivision up, they did put a fence, which, you know, we appreciate. Unfortunately, that fence doesn't get Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 119 of 125 maintained, some of the slats get knocked down, and the neighbors in that subdivision have a tendency to wander onto our property, not showing the respect that it is private property. Unfortunately, some of the neighborhoods have made it a point to throw their garbage over the fence, which is something that is unfortunate. I just want to go on record that I do have a concern and would like to have a better understanding of this proposed subdivision to insure that it does not compromise my property as such. That's all I have. Borup: Okay. The way I see the design, it looks like there would be one lot adjoining your property. Does that look right, Scott? Okay. There would be one building lot that would be adjoining your property. Jackson: Okay. Again, I haven't had the opportunity to review -- Borup: Now, on that stub street it appears that the stub street would go onto your property also. Barely. Or does it? This is your property here? Jackson: That and, then, the one to the west of that. Borup: Oh, this one here. Okay. It looks like the stub street comes in about right here. There would be two lots adjoining your property, one on each side of the street. Jackson: Right. Borup: Okay. Jackson: Yes. That's one of the things I'm trying to appreciate is just how all this is going to impact my property as such. That's all I had, Commissioner. Borup: Okay. Thank you, sir. Okay. Was there someone else that was not part of this subdivision that still had -- I couldn't hear that response. Gale: My name is Robert Gale. I live in Salisbury Lane. I have just been hearing all the comments about community centers and neighborhood centers. I was curious if someone could explain exactly what that is. I have no idea what you're talking about. Borup: Okay. That was something that developed several years ago in the development of the Comprehensive Plan and is the -- is that map still up there? Right there it is. These areas, in this particular case it's this one right here. Is that right? Am I pointing to the right one, Scott? Stanfield: That's correct. Borup: Okay. That is showing a neighborhood commercial development somewhere in that general area. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 120 of 125 Gale: Okay. It means commercial development, then? Borup: Well, they are talking office buildings -- we don't have any yet, so we don't have a good example to point to. Restaurants, coffee shop, and, then, maybe some apartments close to the commercial and, then, decreases as it goes out, is the general concept. Something else you'd like to add to that, Brad? Is that close? Hawkins-Clark: Good summary. Borup: Okay. Gale: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: And the theory behind that was you would be putting business destinations close to residential, so that people would be able to walk maybe even to where they work, but certainly walk to some services, like dentists and doctors and not everybody have to get in their car and go downtown or someplace else, so the theory of the neighborhood centers being spotted around is to provide services and employment, possibly walkable or bicycleable from residences. I'm sorry, representative, if I cut you off. Snodgrass: Thank you very much. Just to add something just real quickly, if possible. One of the things as this was drawn up and the density issue that we raised, it seems that this subdivision right here, Waterbury Park and the existing part here shows exactly what we were talking about before with having greater density towards the street here, which would be Meridian Road and less density as you go inside to those more desirable lots and quieter types of things. I think that what we are looking at as far as density is just something that would be consistent with this area right here and these two subdivisions that have been developed here, rather than going back to a density that is perhaps even a little bit greater than what they have at Waterbury Park, which seems inconsistent with some of the things that we have seen. Thank you. Zaremba: Well -- and leaning on your real estate expertise, it's your opinion that the larger, less dense lots would sell; right? Snodgrass: Most definitely. Perhaps I will have the opportunity to talk to these guys about marketing their property. Thank you. Borup: Okay. Now -- Hawkins-Clark: Chairman? Borup: Yes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 121 of 125 Hawkins-Clark: Sorry. Can we just ask for one clarification before we continue? If I heard Mr. Snodgrass correctly, the revised plat that they showed only, I believe, removed one lot. That's, essentially, the same density that they are showing. Borup: Well, but it -- the one they removed was against -- was on the eastern side, so it -- Hawkins-Clark: Just to clarify that, is the preference for the community to reduce density or to reduce -- I mean, obviously, both in an ideal world, but I mean I'm hearing two different things. One of your concepts shows the same density, but, yet, you're saying you want to reduce the density. Snodgrass: Well -- and without being able to talk to the homeowners individually and find out what their preference is, I mean ideally you're absolutely right, our preference would be that we would have a density that would be consistent with out subdivision, as well as being able to have that one third, one third, sort of access into each of those subdivisions at a later time. I guess that we would need to meet as a homeowners association to decide what our preference was and work with, you know, Mr. Wood and the Stanfield engineering firm to decide, perhaps, whether there is a compromise there that could be reached for either of those. I know the economics of the project, in talking to Mr. Stanfield, showed that, you know, there were some significant economic costs towards lowering that density down and having those lots. You know, I think from a real estate standpoint, having something that is more consistent with our homes are going to retain the value of our homes probably even more, but that's something I would want to check with the homeowners to make sure that they were in agreement with that before speaking for them in this matter. Borup: Okay. Well -- and that's kind of what I assumed, too, but also I guess I had the impression that the neighborhood was trying to be practical a little bit in what they were asking for, realizing it more reasonable that -- the better chance of maybe getting some change. Stanfield: Correct. Exactly. Maybe we will get the moon. Thank you. Borup: And -- yeah. I mean it's been -- I don't know about the other Commissioners, but, usually, when something comes and ask for something that's way out in left field, you know, you don't get anything at all. Stanfield: Right. Borup: Well, if we wanted to do a good job on the proposal that you have shown, wouldn't it show the viable alternative and -- all right. Stanfield: Thank you very much. I appreciate your time. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 122 of 125 Zaremba: Well, I agree, I think it's impressive to show that it can be done to mitigate the traffic through the currently existing subdivision without much loss of property, but the second issue is whether or not it would be marketable with even fewer lots as well. Borup: The problem of the notice. We need to -- I assume we need to renotice? Hawkins-Clark: Yes. We did -- we have in the record a signed letter, November 20, 2003, that says Jeffrey Wood would post the property, but -- and, I'm sorry, that was not verified by staff beforehand, but it certainly sounds like it was not done, so, yeah, we would need to renotice. Zaremba: On the renotice do we want to give any direction on where that notice needs to be visible from? Borup: Yeah. Well, the ordinance is pretty clear. I mean from the nearest adjacent right of way, so in this case they have just one public right of way and that's the stub street Sedgewick. Borup: So, it's got to be right there you're saying. Hawkins-Clark: Uh-huh. Zaremba: Venable doesn't count? Hawkins-Clark: It's not public right of way. Borup: Do we determine a date tonight or just let -- does the applicant have to re -- we haven't run into this situation before where we have had a Public Hearing without proper notification. We have usually caught it earlier. Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. I guess Tara from the clerk's office is here. Do you -- Borup: Well, what I'm getting at -- yeah. Would it be -- I mean is the 19th -- does that work? Green: We can do it as soon as the 12th, but the 19th would work. Borup: Yeah. Does the applicant have to re-apply or -- we just need verification that it's -- Green: You just need to re-post the property. We just have to go through the posting requirements again. Borup: Okay. Rohm: For the 19th. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 123 of 125 Borup: So, until it's re-posted, we can assume the 19th and this time we will check and if it's not done, then, the meeting will be -- Zaremba: Continued again. Borup: Yeah. Maybe until June or something. Zaremba: As a penalty. We are vindictive, is that it? Borup: Uh-huh. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman -- Borup: Okay. Are we clear on that, then? Zaremba: I move that we continue the hearings on AZ 03-036 and PP 03-042 to the date certain of February 19th, with the provision that they be renoticed and resigned. Borup: Posted. Zaremba: Re-posted. Borup: Or just posted period. Zaremba: Posted. Okay. Rohm: I will second that. Borup: And that will also give them an opportunity to look at the ACHD -- we will have the ACHD -- Zaremba: ACHD report and consider the input from the neighbors, which is -- Borup: On the new design. Rohm: Well, they might even have a community meeting. Mathes: If they can find the developer. Powell: Chairman Borup. Rohm: If they can find the developer. Powell: Chairman Borup? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 124 of 125 Borup: Yes. Powell: Commissioners, on your motion -- Tara, I believe that if one part of the posting fails, then, all three fail, so you will need to redo the mailing notice, the paper notice and posting notice. It's not just a posting and I think the motion included just posting, so I was concerned about that. Green: That's correct. We do have to do all three posting requirements again. Borup: So, would the applicant pay the additional fee? Green: Yeah. If he -- if it's the applicant who doesn't post the property, they would have to pay the additional fee, yes. Borup: For the remailings and -- okay. Zaremba: My motion was not seconded, so I'll make it again. Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue the hearings for AZ 03-036 and PP 03-042 to our meeting of February 19th, to be carried forward only if it has been renoticed, re-posted, and republished. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor. Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Thank you. Thank you for sticking here with us, only we would just as soon gone home. The meeting on the 19th has a much shorter agenda. Zaremba: We should take a public vote on the order of the agenda. Mr. Chairman, I move that we adjourn. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second to adjourn the meeting. Meeting adjourned at 1:33. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:55 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 125 of 125 / / KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN DATE ATTESTED: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK