Loading...
2011 11-03Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting November 3, 2011 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of November 3, 2011, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Scott Freeman. Members Present: Chairman Michael Rohm, Commissioner Joe Marshall, Commissioner Scott Freeman, Commissioner Steven Yearsley and Commissioner Tom O'Brien. Others Present: Machelle Hill, Ted Baird, Bill Parsons, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call X Steven Yearsley X Tom O'Brien X Scott Freeman X Joe Marshall X Michael Rohm -Chairman Freeman: Okay. Well, good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time I'd like to call to order the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission on this date of November 3rd, 2011. And let's begin with roll call. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda Freeman: Thank you. Okay. The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. I don't believe we have any changes to the agenda this evening, so could I get a motion to adopt the agenda? Marshall: So moved, Yearsley: Second. Freeman: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 3: Consent Agenda A. Approve Minutes of October 20, 2011 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting B. Final Order for Approval: TEC 11-004 Medina Drive-Thru by Meridian Gateway Associates Located at 1653 S. Meridian Road Request: Two (2) Year Time Extension on the Conditional Use Permit (CUP 08-021) for aDrive-Thru Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 Page 2 of 35 Establishment and Development of the Site at 1653 S. Meridian Road Freeman: Okay. The first item then -- or next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and we have two items on the Consent Agenda. First the approval of the minutes of October 20th, 2011, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and, second, final order of approval for TEC 11-004 having to do with Medina drive-thru. Could I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda -- approve the Consent Agenda. O'Brien: So moved. Yearsley: Second. Freeman: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Freeman: Okay. We will move onto the other items on the agenda this evening. Before we get going, though, I just want to take a moment to explain the process for all of you that have come to attend and maybe offer testimony this evening. What we will do is we will start out by opening each item tonight. We are going to open these two items together for Chesterfield and, then, we will start with the staff report and staff will present their findings as far as how the application adheres to the Comprehensive Plan and Uniform Development Code. After we hear from staff the applicant will be given ten minutes to come up and present their application and, then, after the applicant's testimony we will open it up for public testimony. So, if you would like to testify on this item, if you're here for that purpose, there is a sign-up sheet in the back. If you put your name on there that helps. Anybody wanting to offer public testimony I will call your name and you will be given three minutes to testify. If you are speaking for a group of people and representing a group of people -- and I can take a show of hands indicating who you're speaking for, you will be given up to ten minutes to testify. If you don't sign up on the chart in the back -- on the list in the back that's okay. After I read all those names off that list I will ask if there is anybody else that wishes to testify and you will be given that opportunity. After all the public testimony has been heard the applicant will be given ten more minutes to come up and address anything else that he wishes to address. After which time we will close the public hearing and, then, the Commissioners deliberate amongst ourselves, you will all be here to listen to all those deliberations and, hopefully, we will be able to offer a recommendation at the end of the evening. Item 4: Action Items A. Continued Public Hearing from October 20, 2011: RZ 11-004 Chesterfield by Liberty Development, Inc. Located South Side Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 Page 3 of 35 of W. Pine Avenue; Midway Between N. Black Cat Road and N. Ten Mile Road Request: Rezone of 1.48 Acres of Land from the R-8 Zoning District to the R-15 Zoning District B. Continued Public Hearing from October 20, 2011: PP 11-007 Chesterfield by Liberty Development, Inc. Located South Side of W. Pine Avenue; Midway Between N. Black Cat Road and N. Ten Mile Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval of 148 Residential Lots and Twelve (12) Common Lots on 28.2 Acres in an Existing R-8 Zone and a Proposed R-15 Zone Freeman: So, with that, at this time I'd like to open the public hearing for Items RZ 11- 004 and PP 11-007 regarding Chesterfield Development by Liberty Development, starting with the staff report. Parsons: Good evening, Chairman, Members of the Commission. The subject property before you is located on the south side of Pine midway between Black Cat Road and North Ten Mile Road. Tonight I will give you a brief presentation of some of the history on this site, trying to move forward into what the applicant's proposing and, then, also cover some recommended changes that the applicant's proposing before you this evening, as well as some recommended changes that staff is proposing. So, if you'd indulge me here, this property was annexed and zoned in 2003. Originally it was part of the Chesterfield PD, which it granted reduced lot sizes, street frontages, and allowed for a mix of product type, so it came in as a mixed use residential development. In 2008 Council denied the time extension, therefore, that basically caused the plat to expire and the CUP to expire. The applicant is coming before you this evening proposing to rezone approximately 1.4 acres of property from the R-8 zone to the R-15 zone and the primary reason for that is to basically -- the rezone itself will only affect about 15 lots. So, if you look at this nice exhibit that the applicant's proposed, I have highlighted that in red and so you can see those lots are basically going to be -- the applicant's proposing to rezone that to R-15, so that this portion of the plat can mirror what's already been constructed and approved with Chesterfield phase number one along the western boundary. It's the applicant's intent to transition the test of it with single family lots and, then, as you get -- go to the north with Castlebrook and, then, also these county subs, there will be slightly larger lots. They do comport -- the majority of them do comport with the R-8 standards and so looking at this and looking at the previous plat, this does generally comply with those requirements. If you'd allow me a moment to step back here, you can see on the left-hand side what staffs tried to do is show you what the original plat looked like versus what the applicant is proposing now. You can see here that back in 2003 there was the mix of residential lots that I explained to you, so there were quite a few more alley loaded product there internal to the subdivision. Along the southern periphery you can see there were some common drive lots and, then, internal and along the perimeter were large -- smaller lots internally with larger 6,500 all the way up to 8,000 square foot lots along the west -- excuse me -- the north and eastern boundary. In the right-hand exhibit you can see here the applicant again has rezoned Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 Page 4 of 35 that property, as I mentioned -- or proposing to mirror those alley loaded lots and the majority of the lots will be anywhere from 5,000 square feet up to approximately 9,000 square feet. Average lot size for this subdivision is going to be anywhere -- going to be 7,300 square foot, approximately. I would mention to Commission that the previous density approved with the old plat came in at 4.61 dwelling units to the acre. The new plat that's proposed before you this evening is roughly at 5.25 dwelling units to the acre. So, a slight increase in density. As well as lot count. The previous lot count for this portion of the old plat -- there was a total of 142 lots. With the new plat the applicant is proposing 148. So, again, a six lot increase over the previous version. Again, staff has reviewed this for conformance with the UDC and the subdivision standard. Staff is recommending some changes for the applicant and those are included in the staff report. Also included with the rezone staff is recommending a development agreement with the project and I will go into those with you a little bit further as I move along here. So, right now if you look at this plat, the applicant -- according to the UDC the applicant has to comply with the R-8 dimensional standards. In reviewing the plat some of these lots do not comport with those standards. The applicant has been conditioned to comply with that and they are aware of that and are willing to do that. Also staff has reviewed this for consistency with the landscape ordinance and the site amenity ordinance as well and there is some changes here that staff is recommending. Again, the majority of the open space that the applicant's proposing is basically these drainage lots that you see in the northwest corner, southwest corner and, then, northeast corner, with a small node or pocket park here central to the development. With the submission of the application staff was unsure what amenities the applicant was proposing, so in their analysis in the staff report staff looked at those amenities allowed under the UDC and felt it appropriate to condition the project to provide a picnic shelter and a tot lot and so the applicant has -- wants some of that to change or possibly wants to discuss that with you, but that's what stafFs recommendation is now. Also if you look at the second portion of the plat -- I have got a little yellow remark there that talks about the extent of block length where currently under the subdivision ordinance block lengths cannot exceed 750 feet. From this intersecting road to the next is approximately 760 feet and the applicant has been conditioned to comply with that. The applicant would like to discuss with you this evening the possibility of building some flexibility in that condition and I will go into that in further detail as well. The other issues that we have here is -- sorry, Ilost my train of thought here. So, we have got the dimensional standards that they need to comply with, the pocket park, and, then, also staff has conditioned them to add another micropath lot to stub to the planned pathway that may be along the railroad corridor at some future date. The applicant has also proposed elevations with the application. As part of the DA requirement staff is conditioning the applicant to get planning department sign off for these elevations. In particular staff has concerns with how these houses will front on public streets and common open space. In the Meridian city design manual staff -- there is some guidelines in there that talk about using a mix of similar materials or carrying those design elements to those facades that face common open space and public streets and so staff felt it appropriate that the applicant come in, work with planning department, prior to getting occupancy -- or a permit for the homes to insure that those homes comport with the Meridian design manual. I would Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 Page 5 of 35 like to mention, though, that staff has received some written testimony on the project. One was from the applicant. Again, he is concerned with some of the conditions that staff has placed on the project and, then, staff has also received written testimony from some of the adjacent property owners and that's presented to you on your hearing outline this evening. So, basically, I have a petition from seven Castlebrook residents saying that they are in opposition of the project. Their primary concern is the increased traffic with additional homes and also with the lack of amenities that are currently provided in the surrounding subdivisions and, then, also back in September we received written testimony from Mr. Chris Vekerk in opposition for the same reasons, again, traffic and lack of amenities. If I can step back to the applicant's testimony for a moment and get back to that main slide here and kind of let you know what's happening here. So, applicants given written testimony. The way staff has it conditioned in the staff report, that pocket park that I have highlighted here on the exhibit is conditioned to happen with phase three. Now, it's always been the pleasure of the Commission to require those amenities at an earlier phase, so that -- to insure that those amenities are in place when people start inhabiting the subdivision. The applicant would either like the option to either move those amenities to a different common lot in the subdivision or just change that to read: Provide that amenity with phase five. The phasing -- this plat is proposed for six phases, so five and six kind of straddle the park right now, if you remember how it was in the staff report. So, the phase line bisects the park here and so if staff felt this was an important amenity to be provided in an earlier phase and that's why we are sticking with phase three. Staff would still -- the applicant also was toying with the thought of asking you to strike the requirement for the tot lot. Staff -- because this is a rezone and there is a DA involved, staff feels that this can be included as an amenity as part of the DA, so we feel that we should basically keep the site with the approval of two amenities as staff has recommended and I will go into some of the additional DA language as well. And, then, also going back to the block length, the applicant would like some flexibility in condition 1.2.4, I believe it's bullet number two or three in the staff report, that either they provide that extra micropath lot that I discussed with you or, basically, realign this road to make up that ten feet and comply with the seven foot block length requirement in the UDC. Staff is amenable to changing that condition to read as such. And the applicant would also like the Commission to act on the amount of open space to be provided in the staff report. Right now the way the condition 1.2.3 reads staff has conditioned the applicant to provide 3.09 acres of open space. The UDC requires ten percent. So, technically, the applicant could provide 2.8 acres of open space and still comply with the UDC. Staff is okay with the requirement to either say 2.8 acres or simply say provide ten percent open space, however you choose to go with that we are fine with that, but, again, we are recommending that the applicant provide a picnic shelter and a tot lot on -- with that planned pocket park. And so leading into my closure here, again, staff is also requesting that Commission add some additional provisions to the DA. The main reason for it is given the amount of, you know, public testimony and some concerns the neighbors are having, staff feels there is some -- should be some additional DA provisions that should be incorporated into that, other than just the building elevations. So, in your hearing outline staff has provided the language for you this evening and, basically, the one -- one DA provision is Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 Page 6 of 35 that the applicant -- the subject property shall develop with a maximum of 148 residential lots as generally configured on the proposed preliminary plat, unless modified by City Council and, then, the second DA provision staff is asking the Commission to add to the development agreement is the applicant shall provide either -- shall provide a minimum of two point acres of common open space and include the following amenities: A covered picnic shelter and a tot lot on the planned pocket park. So, I know, again, staff is recommending approval of the plat and, in summary, the plat does generally conform with the dimension standards of the UDC, it does generally conform with the Comprehensive Plan which designates the property as medium density residential. Maximum density allowed for that land use is up to eight units to the acre and, again, the applicant is providing -- it's a 5.25, which is well below what's allowed under that zoning designation. Staff feels that the proposed plat complies with the adjacent properties to the northwest and Ada County parcels to the east and so staff is, again, recommending approval of the plat as stated and, of course, with the conditions in the staff report and amended DA provisions that I just presented to you. To staffs knowledge there aren't any other outstanding issues before you and with that I would be happy to answer any questions you have. Freeman: Thank you, Bill. Any questions for staff? O'Brien: Yeah. Mr. Chair? Bill, can you depict the -- the future pathways connections somewhere on your diagrams? Parsons: Sure. If you recall -- sorry. Mr. Chairman and Commissioner O'Brien, when you say pathways, do you mean the internal pathway or pathways -- O'Brien: The one that's going to connect from the Meridian major pathways. Is there a connection to those coming into the subdivision? Parsons: Commissioner O'Brien, the -- the one -- the plat that you see -- this concept plan you see here doesn't show the pathway, but staff has conditioned -- if you look in the southwest corner -- or, excuse me, the southeast corner you can see that micropath lot there, in the staff report the applicant is conditioned to widen that and add a five foot pathway there to connect to the regional pathway along the railway corridor and they are in agreement with that condition. So, that will be a change as the final plat comes forward, but certainly that's a condition and they are in agreement with that. O'Brien: Okay. That's what I was looking for. Thank you very much. That's all I have. Marshall: Mr. Chair? Freeman: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: A little clarification on that, Bill. Sorry, but when you say in lieu of the 750 foot block going to 760, you're asking for a micro pathway; is that correct? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 Page 7 of 35 Parsons: That is correct. Marshall: And is that in addition to the micro pathway we see there going to the railroad? Parsons: Commissioner Marshall, that is correct. It would be an additional one. Marshall: And where would that be located? Parsons: Well, it's -- Commissioner Marshall, typically, I have conditioned them to provide it somewhere mid block in between both streets to break it up, but the applicant certainly has -- if they choose to go that route. If you recall they are proposing to either comply with the 750 or provide that micropath lot. But I think it's conditioned to be provided somewhere in here and that would be a minimum 15 foot wide lot, with five foot planting strip on each side with a five foot meandering pathway to provide connection. Marshall: Mr. Chair, if I could again. Freeman: Yes. Marshall: Bill, a couple quick questions also. So, we are looking 1.48 acres going to an R-15 there in the red area. That's correct? Parsons: That is correct. Marshall: And what's the zoning on the other side there in Chesterfield? Parsons: Commissioner Marshall, that's zoning is R-8. Marshall: It's R-8. Yet they were able to mirror it and we have to go to an R-15? Parsons: That is correct. If I can elaborate a little more, Mr. Chairman. What has happened is under that PD or the planned development they were allowed to have reduced lot frontages. I believe it was 35 feet. And so that's how they were able to create these alley loaded products. We -- under the current UDC we don't have any of those requirements in place to allow you to reduce past the R-8 zoning standards. So, the next zoning appropriate to allow them to mirror that and keep that consistency with that project is to go to an R-8 -- or, excuse me, an R-15 zone. With that zoning district there are no minimum frontage requirements, but there is minimum lot requirement of 2,400 square feet. So, there is some flexibility there, but as far as subdivision ordinance or the zoning that they were annexed with and because that PD has expired, they can't get that back and there is no other mechanism in code right now to allow that, other than a rezone. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 Page 8 of 35 Marshall: And that's because our zoning has changed? Freeman: Not our zoning has changed, our -- the way we -- we don't generally do subdivisions on the planned unit development anymore. We don't have that reduced frontage requirement in the PD process anymore. Marshall: Thank you. Parsons: Yes. Freeman: Any other questions? Okay. Well, at this time if the applicant would like to come forward. You have 15 minutes for comments and when you get to the mike, please, state your name and address for the record. Arnold: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, for the record my name is Steve Arnold with CK Engineering, 860 Headwaters, Eagle Idaho. I won't take 15 minutes. I think Bill's done a good job addressing most of the concerns. I will explain a little bit more as to what has been constructed into the project. If you -- back in '08 -- '08, '07 -- '07, '08, there was a sewer project that was constructed through this site and it comes down this and the alignment that Bill's showing here along -- oh, it's the north most road and it goes all the way down to the south and stubs into the south boundary through that common lot, that was a City of Meridian and -- a City of Meridian job that was done that was based on the approved preliminary plat, assuming that this was going to come back with a similar street layout and lot density. That also was -- also that was constructed was the alley that is along our current western boundary, that alley serves -- or was planned to serve these future alley loaded lot and, again, the only thing that we are rezoning -- and the only reason that we had to come in for a rezone was for dimensional standards as Bill was suggesting. The remainder of the property is existing R-8 and we are not proposing -- and I think at the first hearing there was quite a bit of confusion about the fact that we were -- are rezoning the entire 28 acres. Going into the other issue about the block length, you know, I think it's been so long since our guys have put together a preliminary plat, it was a confusion about measuring block length from near edge to near edge. Near edge of roadway to near edge, it was 720. We are ten feet off. I think we can comply with the 750, but -- and in agreement with the staffs recommendation that we can either put a common lot -- another common lot down there or we will just comply with it. It's also important to note in the first phase of the development there is a significantly sized tot lot and we provided in that phase 12 percent open space and, again, in this one we are currently just over ten percent at 3.09. All that is required is 2.8. We are proposing pathways through all of the common spaces that you see before you, the two southern and northern common lots, and we are in agreement with staff. We will put astub -- a pathway down to the south to the future pathway. The main issue I think that we have tonight that we will have not come to an agreement with staff was the timing of the common lot. All of the utilities and all of the infrastructure is along the current western boundary of this site. From an Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 Page 9 of 35 engineering standpoint, from a marketing standpoint, we don't want to bring on a whole bunch of lots onto this market all at once. We believe that our phasing is -- is a correct market driven phasing plan. If we bring on additional lots Iwould -- in our opinion we are bringing on more than the market will demand and if it is deemed by the Commission tonight that we need to have that tot lot amenity right away, we would suggest putting it into a different common lot than what is proposed tonight. With that being said I will stand for any questions that the Commission has. Freeman: Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Freeman: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: Could you walk me through the phasing just a little bit? How many lots are you intending to include in phase one? Arnold: Let me get -- Bill, if you could pull up the preliminary plat or show me how to -- Parsons: Sure. Arnold: -- switch over. I will give you a general idea. I'm going to have to grab my map to -- the first phase is coming in approximately right here, picking up some alley and some single family product type. The first phase is about 30 lots. Second phase is down in this area. I can point on here, too. It's around in here. Third phase is up in the northern portion up around in here and it is approximately 27 lots. And, then, the fourth phase is -- well, I guess the third phase is more in this area. And, then, the fourth phase we start building -- oh. Third phase is 27 lots. Fourth phase is about 28 lots. And it's in generally this quadrant here. And, then, the fifth phase picks up this -- the tot lot that we are proposing and, then, the last phase is adjacent to the canal and, then, up in this area. And they are all approximately 28, 26, and the last phase is the smallest at 17 lots. Rohm: Okay. That's what I was after, so -- Arnold: In order to bring in -- go up to the phase five, we would be almost bringing in over a hundred lots pretty -- pretty quickly. I'm mean it -- about 60 with what we are proposing and it would be about another 60 more than what we would like to bring on at that time. We are assuming one phase per year, hopefully. Hopefully the markets take that. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Freeman: Any other questions of the applicant? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 Page 10 of 35 O'Brien: Just a quick question. Freeman: Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: So, just to clarify, when -- you're going to be bringing in the -- the -- that open space with the tot lot and the small park area in phase three? Arnold: No. We are planning to propose it at phase five. O'Brien: Bill, didn't you say that -- Arnold: Staff -- I'm sorry. Staff is recommending that it be brought in at an earlier phase. O'Brien: Yeah. Okay. Just -- Arnold: And the only problem -- I mean we don't have a problem building the tot lot and what staff is recommending, it's just bring on all the additional product type that we don't believe the market will absorb. O'Brien: So, if you're going to have a hundred homes in three years, you still won't have a lot there for the customers to use; is that right? Arnold: Based on one phase per year that would be correct. O'Brien: Thank you. That's all I have. Freeman: Any other questions? Rohm: I guess back to that tot lot. One of the items of discussion was to relocate that from this fifth phase common area to one of the other two common areas that are going to be part of phase one and/or two. Do you feel like it's appropriate to put the tot lot in one of those common areas? Arnold: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Rohm, it would be our preference to leave it as is, as we proposed. If it's the direction of the Commission to bring on an amenity sooner than phase five, we would propose to move it to a different common lot. Rohm: I'm pretty sure that we are going to think along those lines. I can't speak for the rest of the Commission, but generally speaking the common areas we'd like to see them develop up front, rather than at the end of a project. So, I guess we will see where that goes as we continue our discussion. Arnold: Chairman, Commissioner Rohm, I can tell you the common lots that we are proposing that will be up front will be -- I mean these two larger ones and so there will Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 Page 11 of 35 be -- you know, there is walking pathways in these two locations as amenities. I guess if it is the direction the Commission tonight wants the tot lot within a phase of -- the third phase, we would suggest locating it in one of these areas. Rohm: I think that's appropriate. Freeman: Yeah. I guess just to clarify, we understand that those other two open spaces would be in your earlier phases, but there is a difference between open space and amenities as defined by the UDC and open space without amenities is what you would be doing and what we are concerned about is the amenity and when that would be provided, which would be the tot lot, just to clarify. Commissioner Marshall? Marshall: Mr. Chair. I do have a couple questions for you. First, I'm going to ask are you aware of and familiar with the material that was received from the other Chesterfield residents? Freeman: I have not seen that yet. Marshall: Okay. It talks about the concern about the amenities and the overload on the existing swimming pool and they felt -- have you worked with them at all on this? You have had some neighborhood meetings and talked to them about it? Arnold: Chairman, Commissioner Marshall, we had a neighborhood meeting way back in June and at that neighborhood meeting there was about seven or eight people that showed up. Some had concerns about what was going on with the property. It was brought to our attention about the -- the pool, what was going on. And that's in Castlebury, I believe? Marshall: Uh-huh. Arnold: That current amenity was having some overload issues with kids. We did say that we would be providing a tot lot that we would provide an amenity within this subdivision, not to the extreme of a pool, that's a pretty significant amenity to provide for this size of a sub. Apparently at the September 15th hearing there was a significant amount of people that showed up at that meeting with concerns and at that time staff thought it was potentially the thought that we were rezoning the entire thing as R-15. So, at the -- at a later date mailed out another -- basically a meeting request to all of the people that signed up on the mailer. I suggested either another meeting or getting together one on one or, you know, give me a call and let's discuss what your concern was, because I thought the main thing was the rezone for the R-15. I think people had issues, they thought we were going to increase the density to R-15 on the entire project. I heard back from one of the gentlemen that represented the neighborhood association. I believe it was the Castlebury or -- I don't -- I didn't get his name. He did say that they were -- they were concerned about traffic and they were concerned about having us provide an additional pool and I did explain to that gentleman that that was not our Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 Page 12 of 35 intention to do an additional pool, but that we would provide some sort of tot lot or common area within the subdivision. Marshall: I'm assuming that might have been Mr. Chris Vekerk. At one time he was part of Castlebury homeowners association and you were -- so, you were aware of the issue with the overloading of the pool. So, are all of these new lots to be a part of the same homeowners association also to be using that same amenity? Arnold: Currently it is that way. I mean if it is the direction of the Commission -- I mean it could be something that we would pull out of the CC&Rs or existing homeowners and this be its own subdivision and not a part of the other. Marshall: Uh-huh. Freeman: Any other questions? Okay. Well, we will have an opportunity later. Thank you very much. At this time I'd like to open up the floor to public testimony. I do have a list of several names here. Again, when you come up as I call your name indicate to me whether you still intend to testify or not. Speak your name and address clearly into the microphone and we are going to hold your comments to three minutes each, unless you're speaking for a larger group and, then, let me know and we will potentially give you ten. The first person on the list is Heather -- and I can't tell if it's Wiemer or Wiemer. Okay. Heather is not going to testify at the moment. Next on the list is Guy Colwell. Okay. Please state your name and address into the microphone. Colwell: My name is Guy Colwell. I live at 1030 North Manship in the Castlebrook Subdivision. Chesterfield has actually been annexed into the Castlebrook Subdivision, so I'm also a member of the board for the homeowners association. When we were first informed of this plat being -- part of the plat being rezoned and, then, the rest of it going in, we had some concerns. Our primary concern was the initial lack of amenities. The -- can you go to the -- yeah. That one. When we -- the board had an opportunity to meet with Corey Barton, who is the house -- the home -- the developer for the homes, which is different from the land developer. Corey Barton indicated to us at that time -- and he provided a plat for us to view. On that plat the three common areas that are the run off were on there, but the planned pocket park at that time was not indicated. There was no indication that there was going to be any tot lots or any extra amenities in the open areas or, basically, the run off areas. So, as a board we were really concerned about the lack of amenities coming in with 148 new homes. We were also very concerned that adding 148 new homes to the subdivision would have an adverse impact on our community pool. Right now between Castlebrook and the existing Chesterfield we have 336 homes and the pool was built -- it's a 36,000 gallon pool. It has a residential size sanitation system. It is -- during the summer it is at capacity virtually every weekend. Our concern is that bringing in 148 new homes will make the pool unsafe. The load on the sanitation equipment will be too much, honestly. We have had some estimates done for us by some contractors on what it would take to get the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 Page 13 of 35 sanitation equipment up to the requirements it would take to, basically, take care of the existing load and possibly the new load that this extension would bring in. Freeman: Mr. Colwell, we are going to have to ask you to wrap up quickly, because we have exceeded our three minutes. Colwell: So, basically, that as a member of the board that's our concern is the lack of amenities, although I'm really happy with the planned pocket park. This -- you know, as far as this type of amenities, the open space and tot lot, the covered picnic area, that will be great, we are happy -- I'm happy with that. I'm also happy with the rezoning, because it mirrors the existing -- on what's already there. It mirrors that. But I'm still concerned about the impact on the community pool. I will take any questions or -- Freeman: Thank you very much. We have several people that want to speak, so I think we will --did you want to ask a question, Commissioner -- Rohm: I have -- Freeman: Okay. Commissioner Rohm, go ahead. Rohm: Yeah. I do. Was this proposed subdivision that we are speaking to tonight a part of the overall plan at the time that your portion was built a number of years ago? Colwell: Right. When Castlebrook was first started Chesterfield was not a part of Castlebrook. It was annexed at a later -- at a later time. I believe it was annexed about phase two or phase three of the Castlebrook Rohm: How did it get to be included as part of the CC&Rs of your subdivision if it wasn't part of -- Colwell: I'm not -- you'd have to talk to probably Corey Barton. He would be able to explain how Chesterfield was annexed into Castlebrook. Rohm: Okay. All right. I was just curious. Thank you. Colwell: Okay. Thanks. Freeman: Thank you. Next on my list Josh Alvy. And please state your name and address for the record. Alvy: My name Josh Alvy. 1 live at 4196 West Farlam Drive in the Chesterfield Subdivision. I agree with all of the issues that have been stated already. Adding 148 homes also adds the potential of 300 or more new vehicles on a one inlet street on Pine. There is no other outlet out. Also the pool is very small. It's not for the capacity and is full all summer long. The applicant did mention the possibility of dividing out the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 Page 14 of 35 subdivisions into two different homeowners associations. Castlebrook and Chesterfield. I would agree with that, as long as a pool was put into Chesterfield as a very necessary amenity I know all of my neighbors enjoy and if we were to have separate homeowners associations we wouldn't have the same access to that pool. So, I would point that out. But those are my comments. Freeman: Okay. Any questions? O'Brien: One question, Mr. Chair. Freeman: Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: I'm not sure if this is for Josh or not, but what you're saying is that if Chesterfield was a separate subdivision from Castlebury -- Castlewood is it? Alvy: Castlebrook. O'Brien: Castlebrook. Then they wouldn't have access between -- the people in Chesterfield couldn't cross over to the other one and vice-versa? Alvy: My understanding of homeowners associations would be you have access to what is part of your homeowners association. O'Brien: So these aren't public pools? Alvy: No. It's a homeowners association pool from -- O'Brien: Oh, my gosh. Marshall: I think this can be clarified by the developer, but I believe when he said separated out, we are talking about the new addition being a separate subdivision stand alone. Alvy: Well, it would be part of the existing subdivision that we are currently in. Marshall: It would be next to, but you could rename it as a separate subdivision. It could be done. And I believe that's what the developer was talking about. But I will allow him to verbally address that later. Freeman: Okay. Thank you, Josh. David Wright. You will get tired of me saying it, but I'll remind everyone. Please state your name and address for the record. Wright: My name is David Wright. I live at 4124 West Meadowpine Street in Chesterfield Subdivision and we live at the end of West Meadowpine Street where the new subdivision is planned to be built and one of the reasons we moved there was Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 Page 15 of 35 because of the -- of the small amount of traffic and stuff. We have five children. And, of course, that's one of my main concerns is the amount of traffic that this will create. Like Josh said, there is only one outlet going to Pine right now and with 148 new homes there is going to be a lot of traffic that that's going to create and it's at least two or three cars, probably, to each home. One of my other concerns is -- if I understand this right, they are going to mirror the -- the townhouses already built here and put others on the other side of them and that's -- I'm not sure exactly how it's going to work, if they are going to share the same common alleyway there that's kind of a concern to me, because it's only wide enough for one car to go by and to me that. kind of looks like an accident waiting to happen. You know, for the lack of amenities as everyone has already addressed. With the pool I see it very crowded at times -- overcrowded, in fact, for the number of homes there is and -- and I don't want to lose -- I mean we enjoy the pool also. It's not something that we want to lose. Hopefully, the new subdivision can be -- have its own homeowners association. That would, you know, be my hope for that, too, so that they wouldn't have to be part of our existing homeowners association and they can have their own amenities, because I think that ours would be just -- ours is not enough to -- for all these new homes that will be built. Freeman: Thank you. Wright: Thanks. Freeman: Questions? Okay. Okay. I'm going to try to get this one right. Oleydi Wright? You wish not to speak at the moment. Okay. Michael Chicowski or Chicowski. I probably buthered it. Either way, I will just stop trying and let you state your name and address for the record. My apologies. Chahowski: My name is Michael Chahowski and I live at 4185 Meadowpine in Chesterfield and I agree with pretty much all the concerns that people have brought up about the lack of amenities, the traffic that would be created because there is still only one outlet, and probably primarily the pool issue. We have been to the pool several times last summer and, yeah, it was packed. It was well overloaded and with a two year old it was really hard to keep them from getting knocked over by all the other people that were trying to fight for the pool. So, I think that's it. Freeman: Okay. Thank you. Holly Wheelock. Holly does not wish to testify at this time. Troy Behunin. Please state your name and address for the record when you get to the microphone. Behunin: Mr. Commissioner, fellow commissioners, my name is Troy Behunin. I live at 4690 West Gillette. I'm here to address you this evening as a citizen in the Castlebrook Subdivision. I was actually -- I'm a part of phase number one in Castlebrook and just as an item of clarification and housekeeping, the Chesterfield Subdivision was not annexed into the Castlebrook Subdivision until 2007. So, that was at the end of phase four or five. I have some friends that are here tonight to testify and it actually happened after Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 Page 16 of 35 they bought their home in 2007. I'm going to try and cover a lot of ground. I know I only have three minutes. As the rezone staffs recommending a development agreement be placed on -- on this development. I would strongly urge and suggest and, frankly, request that you do take staffs recommendation to extend additional conditions of approval through that development agreement, which is a mechanism that this body and that this city has to employ things that need to be taken care of. We have heard about a lack of amenities. We have talked about -- well, we have heard lots of discussion about the traffic on Pine. One hundred and forty-eight homes, just as a small traffic generation tool, ten trips per day. Ten trips per day. That's 1,480 trips per day -- additional trips per day on a street that is not connected to any other street, except for Black Cat and I can tell you right now that the near collisions that happen at Black Cat and Pine, those are not calculated or shown on a traffic impact study. Okay? I pass by that intersection at least three times a day and I can tell you there is a number of them and the impact alone just on traffic is highly concerning to me as a resident, because I have to go through there, my wife goes through there. My kids on a school bus have to go through there twice a day. The other thing that I wanted to talk about -- there is a huge impact -- we have heard some discussion about this undersized pool. It is an undersized pool. I frequent the pool. Not only is there a problem with real estate when you go to visit the pool, but I have to contend with 332 other people and families that are in town that do have the ability to -- to use the pool during the sometime. In addition to the real estate, you have things that are health problems. Waterborne illnesses, for example, that can cause some serious problems. Cryptosporidium is -- is a waterborne illness and the more that you lap onto an already overloaded pool the greater the chance that we have -- that we have of getting waterborne illnesses, okay? And that's just one of them. There is a number of them. The other thing that I would like to talk about -- Freeman: Mr. Behunin, that's our reminder we are going to have to wrap up quickly. Behunin: Okay. I'll make my -- Freeman: That's our three minute mark. Behunin: I'll make my comments short, then. The other thing that I would like to do is that -- as part of your development agreement I would strongly recommend that there be some kind of condition for this subdivision to create its own HOA and to not continue using the Castlebrook amenities, the Castlebrook pool, and the Castlebrook things that are offered to the Castlebrook residents. It has a -- it has a Chesterfield name on the final plat. The final plat says form a Chesterfield HOA and the only way that that got annexed in is because the developer at that time was able to exercise a certain amount of votes and he was able to out vote the people in Castlebrook and that's how it got voted in and in closing I would just like to say that if a pool is not completed or is not conditioned as an approval requirement for this development, then, the Chesterfield development will, then, continue to have a huge impact on my neighborhood where I live with all of the benefits and none of the impact. There is a huge impact, because Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 Page 17 of 35 they walk over, they drive over, and it's a small parking lot, it's undersized, and they get all of the benefit and they don't have the impact. I suggest that you request and require them to form their own HOA. And I would stand for any questions. Freeman: Thank you. Are there any questions at this time? O'Brien: Yes, Mr. Chair. Freeman: Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: Are you aware of any health issues -- documented health issues? Behunin: I am not. I am not at this time, but I do know -- I can tell you this: Just this past summer I know that the pool was closed down a number of times. Three visits that I visited and I don't even go on Sunday. I only go Monday through Friday. But there were three times that I went due to either related issues or equipment failure because of vandalism or whatever, the pool was shut down. I had family in town. We were not able to even use my --the pool that I paid for annually, the things that I try and take care of. And even though I'm not on the HOA board, when I do visit the site and I frequent it often, my friends and I, we try and take care of it, we try and pick up trash. We try and pick up things, try and straighten up things, we try and keep our eye on it. I pass by there frequently to visit my friends that are here and like to testify and they frequent my place. And, I'll tell you, we keep. an eye on it, not because we are on the HOA, we do it because we are trying to be good stewards of our neighborhood and we are trying to make sure that what we are investing -- that we have invested into is taken care of. O'Brien: Thank you. You have answered my question before, so thank you very much. Behunin: Okay. Freeman: Any other questions? Marshall: I would just like to make a quick statement, Mr. Chair, if I could? Freeman: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: I would like to remind you, though, that those people in the HOA, even though they may be from Chesterfield, also pay the same dues and must help pay for that. So, when there is vandalism and damage they also are paying and I'm sure that most of those are aware of that as they are writing out homeowners association check. Behunin: Absolutely. And our only concern is that the more you throw onto it or that is thrown onto it the greater the chances for more vandalism and we don't like having extra fees added onto -- we haven't as of yet -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 Page 18 of 35 Freeman: Mr. Behunin, I'm going to have to limit it there, so we can get onto our -- thankyou very much. Behunin: Sure. Freeman: Jill Ball. Please state your name and address for the record. Ball: My name is Jill Ball and I live at 4100 West Hearst, which is in Castlebrook. We are in the last phase of Castlebrook and we actually are very close to the pool and when we purchased our home in 2007 we were not told that Chesterfield was technically getting annexed into us. We were told this is Chesterfield, they showed us a plat, here is all the houses and they told us at the time all these houses are for this one pool, which originally when Castlebrook was platted -- the pool was platted for the third phrase -- second or third phase, it was actually bigger. So, there was already issues that the developer kept pushing the pool back farther and people that bought in the first phase were told we are going to have a pool, it's going to be big enough to accommodate all of you and, then, when it originally -- they kept pushing it back, we got a really small pool that does not accommodate our neighborhood, that's even before Chesterfield came into the picture, and they, 1 think, in my opinion, were sneaky and put in a filter that is not acceptable for aresidential -- they put in a residential pool for one family, not for a neighborhood of 333 homes. And so there is a problem. It is constantly breaking, people are getting sick. I know of a family -- it was not documented, but know of a family that got really sick this summer and it was because of the pool. The pool was closed down for a lot of sick reasons, different things like that. There is a huge concern about Pine. The intersection of Black Cat and Pine has a blind spot and there are a lot of accidents there and if you put this many more homes and this many more cars there there is going to be a big problem. traffic's a problem. My biggest problem is that not told that Chesterfield is part of us. We annexed Chesterfield into our homeowners. says it needs Chesterfield's homeowners as Chesterfield. If you need to keep the first phi next phases their own homeowners. The pro street and you have all these people in ChestE Pine, which is a serious issue for kids. Kids street, which is going to be very busy. So, I ; create their own homeowners or -- and they So, the amenities are a problem. The when we purchased our home we were bought in Castlebrook and, then, they f you look at Chesterfield's plat on it it ;ociation. I feel bad for the people in se in Castlebrook, do that, but have the Clem is Pine is going to be a very busy rField walking or riding their bikes across hould not be riding their bike across the suggest that you guys demand that they need a pool. These people bought in Chesterfield, because they want the pool. They were promised a pool. The Chesterfield people have a totally different side than the Castlebrook people, because they come in and are told you get to use this pool, so that's what they are paying for and they knew that. Castlebrook people didn't know that. So, I feel like we were kind of blindsided and at the point that they annexed in Chesterfield we had no say, because the developer had all of the votes and out voted us, so it didn't matter. It doesn't matter what the homeowners say, because we already bought our homes. So, I think that I Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 Page 19 of 35 would hope that you guys look into these issues and really consider it, because there are a lot of homeowners that are going to be impacted now because of this. Freeman: Thank you. Any questions? Okay. Next would be Ryan Ball. Please state your name and address for the record R.Ball: Ryan Ball. I'm also at 4100 West Hearst Drive in Castlebrook Subdivision and I just -- you know, without being too repetitive, you know, the main concerns with traffic, feel the same concern with traffic, you know, a number of times personally -- you know, kids will be kids a lot of times and sometimes they don't look when they are crossing the street and there has been a couple of times where they have just gone across without looking and, you know, had a near miss with them or a near hit with them. So, that's also a major concern. But on top of that, I have the same concern with the -- the pool being the issue, as far as -- you know, there -- I can remember a couple of times we went to the pool with the kids and there was a green film of who knows what on top of the water and it was because the -- the system that's currently in place in that pool could not keep up -- could not keep up with the population of the hundreds of bodies that were in there every day and so if we do add on more families and more homes, it's just going to get worse. I mean they will probably have to shut down the pool on a regular basis and so that is a concern and I would have the same recommendation of keeping those subdivisions separate, having separate homeowner associations, so that whatever they decide to do in that subdivision they can -- you know, they could, basically, have the amenities that can handle all the new homes that are going to be in there and also handle what already is a problem in Castlebrook. That's all I have. Freeman: Thank you. Any questions? Okay. That is everyone that's signed up to offer public testimony. Is there anyone else who would like to. Come on forward. Please state your name and address for the record. Escobar: Hi. My name is Jim Escobar. I live at 899 North Oxwich Avenue and that's in the -- I almost said Chesterfield -- Castlebrook Subdivision. So, I can echo what everybody is saying before as far as the road and the pool is concerned, but I guess what -- what I want to point out is we have a developer who is very intelligent in how he develops. He understands the way to play the game that he does. It's his business. It's his life. We have a pool that was reduced in size. We have a filtration system which the Planning and Zoning Commission does not check to insure that it's of adequate size. It's been undersized and we are having issues with it as it currently stands. We have the Chesterfield Subdivision that's been annexed -- I guess annexed is the right word. Brought into the Castlebrook Subdivision in a way that, yes, he went through the proper channels, but I think has been under the radar, and so I think he's playing his side of the game right. However, I want to echo one big thing, other than the pool, it's the road, that intersection of Pine and Black Cat is dangerous. There is a lot of cars that currently do travel that intersection and, let's face it, the connection of Pine over to Ten Mile is not going to be driven by ACRD, it's going to be driven by a developer and this is the opportunity to be able to have a developer connect through to the end of this Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 Page 20 of 35 particular development, which is a normal thing that I have to face as an architect when I stand in front of the commission speaking with other jurisdictions. So, I think it only makes sense to request this developer at least connect Pine through and potentially even over the canals, since that will be a bridging point, that I don't see a developer on the east side of the canal wanting to take on. That's it. Freeman: Thank you. Any questions? Yearsley: I have one question. Freeman: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: What are your HOA dues? Freeman: One -- 275. Yearsley: Okay. Thank you. Freeman: Thank you. Anybody else? Okay. At this time the applicant, if you'd like to come back forward, we can give you ten minutes to address anything that you have heard. Arnold: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, again, for the record Steve Arnold, CK Engineering, 860 Headwaters. I guess the biggest concern that we are hearing tonight is the addition of the 148 lots and their association with the pool site. I think the simplest thing that we would suggest, if the Commission wants us to -- I don't think it's the best planning, but to separate not the existing Chesterfield Subdivision, but this proposed subdivision outside of the HOA and have it be a stand alone HOA, so that the concerns of the neighbors are addressed in that aspect. We would be happy to address -- or do that and that can be conditioned I believe in a development agreement as well. In relation to -- I think the other issue that I think I heard tonight was the traffic. It should be noted that we did submit a revised traffic study for this subdivision. All of the roadways are operating at -- at adequate levels of service, if not high levels of service. This trip -- the ten isn't exactly accurate. That's a standard that the traffic engineers usually use, like about a 9.1 per household. This site was going to generate 1,411 trips, 111 in the a.m. peak hours, which is just over just -- or just under two trips per minute. So, although it seems like there is a lot of traffic, when you look at the overall, the p.m. and a.m. peak hour traffic is minimal. I mean it -- all the site entrances, the exiting out to Pine, the exiting that we are going to connect to, we are well below their capacity. Pine Avenue. It was stated that they were concerned about the over trip generation on that. The -- Pine Avenue can carry up to -- it's a collector roadway. It can carry a significant amount of traffic. It is well below the threshold currently and at build out of this area. The intersection of Pine Avenue and Black Cat was looked at by our traffic engineer. It will operate at acceptable levels of service at full build out with this proposed and existing. We did -- one of the issues that we have with ACHD earlier that Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 Page 21 of 35 we were addressing was connectivity and building -- providing a road trust for extending Pine across the bridge. Currently Pine, where it extends, where we are proposing to extend, will end at a private road. That private road, as those parcels develop to the east, they will build out Pine Avenue and ACRD will require that at that time to extend Pine Avenue out towards Ten Mile. Right now it's currently a private road. We didn't hear from any of those neighbors, but their biggest concern right now was having traffic connect to their private road and we addressed a lot of their concerns earlier with ACHD. The other issue with the amenity, you know, as we are proposing -- you know, we are in agreement with staff putting the tot lot in there. Again, we could put that at an earlier phase in a different common lot and that's what we would recommend if the Commission has seen the need for that at a sooner phase than what we are proposing. I think I have addressed the majority of the concerns, but I'll stand here for any questions that you have. Freeman: Are there any further questions? O'Brien: I had a question. I'm not sure -- Freeman: Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: Anyway, I'll get right to the point. When this is built out and the traffic study was done, does that include other subdivisions that possibly could go in in and around Chesterfield? I mean you're saying that right now it's a minimal traffic flow, but what about the future of other things? How does that all fit together and who has the answer for that? Is it Ada County Highway District or what? I'm not sure. Arnold: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner O'Brien, yeah, we -- the traffic numbers on Pine were very low. I mean the Castlebury has two entrances out onto Black Cat right now, so when ACHD does a traffic study -- and I'm pretty familiar, I used to work there. When they do a traffic study they look at zoning, they look at connectivity, they look at existing roadways, traffic patterns. They look at the traffic analysis zones. They take into effect the future build out of uses and the traffic engineer when they prepare the traffic study that's what they look at. So, they have looked at the zoning, the existing parcels, and interconnectivity and how it will affect Pine Avenue and the existing roads that we are connecting into in Chesterfield. Those were all well below levels of service -- acceptable levels of service. O'Brien: What you were telling me, then, was the percent -- or traffic flow was only the partial big picture if you will, inclusive of what subdivision you're proposing to put in here, that's only a portion of what the traffic study entailed? Arnold: No, that's not correct. The traffic study takes in everything. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 Page 22 of 35 O'Brien: Right. But what about yours as a percentage or as a part of that whole picture, what -- were you stating that impact that you're going to have or -- as a portion of the overall study? Arnold: The impact that our subdivision has, along with the existing traffic, the roadways are going to operate at adequate levels of service. O'Brien: Okay. Thank you. That's all. Freeman: Okay. Any other questions? Commissioner Yearsley? Yearsley: I have one. Would you be amenable to changing your phasing a little bit to add the connection to Pine Street like in phase two, instead of into phase three? Arnold: I'm not -- Commissioner, I'm not sure what -- exactly what that would benefit. Yearsley: Well, right now the way you have got it, the way it looks like you're funneling a lot of your traffic into the already phased development early on and, then, you're not going to make that second connection to Pine until phase three or four? Arnold: It's with phase three. I mean if that's something that that was a serious concern we can look at, but the -- the roadways as proposed and with the phasing they are still well below any -- Yearsley: Oh, I'm not worried about -- about traffic, I'm just worried about adding increased traffic into the other subdivision for public safety for children and stuff like that. Arnold: And that's what I -- I mean with -- with the phasing that we have, I mean the -- the amount of traffic that's going to be going in there will be roughly the same with the connections, as opposed to at full build out and we have I think 200 to 300 trips, even at full build out it's still going that direction with the remaining coming out to Pine on that main entrance. So, we wouldn't be really gaining anything by -- Marshall: Commissioner Yearsley, if I could real quick, clarify for myself -- ask a quick question. How many lots are going to be built out before the connection to Pine? Arnold: It will be approximately -- I think that's the third phase. Marshall: Right. So, how many lots? Arnold: Sixty. Marshall: So, what we are talking about is 60 lots would, then, be filtering through the existing Chesterfield before the connection to Pine and I believe that was some of the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 Page 23 of 35 complaint here. I believe that's what we were trying to reach. And so you would have an additional 60 lots going through the residential streets there before you connect to Pine and I believe what Commissioner Yearsley is suggesting that is if we redid the phasing a little bit that it would alleviate a lot of concerns and problems and be better neighbors. Arnold: If that's -- I can tell you the -- from the traffic study the -- there is approximately 40 to 50 -- 400 trips -- or, excuse me, two to three hundred trips already going that direction at full build out, so I'm not sure that we would be gaining -- Marshall: Going through the existing Chesterfield? To me I see the development here - - most everybody is going to go out right out to Pine here, they are not going to go back through the other Chesterfield to go out the other entry. Arnold: I can show you -- do you have an exhibit on the traffic studies? That's what the traffic engineer came up with. Marshall: Really? Arnold: But if that's a serious concern that this Commission has, I mean we can build a temporary access out there or -- I just don't see where you're gaining a lot. But if that's a concern -- Marshall: Okay. Arnold: -- it's something we could look at. Freeman: Any other questions? O'Brien: I did want to make a comment, Mr. Chair. Freeman: Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: Commissioner Marshall, you said going through the other Chesterfield. Are you talking about Castlebrook? Marshall: Chesterfield to the left -- O'Brien: Yeah. Marshall: -- on the left-hand side is existing Chesterfield, the second part of Chesterfield, supposedly. O'Brien: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 Page 24 of 35 Marshall: Now, as we are looking at this, where does Chesterfield -- the existing Chesterfield connect to Pine? Freeman: Right in the middle I think. Marshall: There is a connection over there on the -- kind of on the left side. So, the new 60 lots, before there is a connection, are going to file out through there and out that drive. Now, you will probably get a few of them coming up through there, but, to be honest, look at -- looking at most of this, where that second connection is, most of them are going to go through that connection. I'm surprised you would have a large number -- and you're saying that alarge -- even after build out a large number of these new houses are still going to go through and go out that other exit. Arnold: At least that's what our traffic study determined. Freeman: Okay. Have we got our questions asked? Yearsley: I think so. Freeman: Okay. Thank you very much. At this time could I get a motion to close the public hearing for Items No. RZ 11-004 and PP 11-007, Chesterfield. Marshall: So moved. Yearsley: Second. Freeman: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for RZ 11-004 and 11-007, Chesterfield. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Freeman: Okay. Discussion? And I believe we have several things that we might want to discuss. Marshall: Mr. Chair? Freeman: Who would like to start? Commissioner Marshall? Marshall: To be honest, I'm pretty disappointed, because I don't think the developer has spend a lot of time trying to be a good neighbor and work with and address the concerns of the neighbors. I don't think that's been done here and that's the purpose of the original meeting with the surrounding people is they have concerns and we try to be good neighbors and we try to do things that -- I understand the lot sizes, things like that, but there is a serious concern and, to be honest, if you had anything to do with the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 Page 25 of 35 original annexation of Chesterfield with Castlebrook, I'm very disappointed in that. Those people were deceived it appears to me. I'm not a part of that, but it really appears those people were deceived. I'm disappointed in that. Very disappointed in that. I think trying to put another 148 houses on a pool that's -- that's set up for residential is absolutely asinine. It is a health hazard and 1 believe that we are grabbing -- grabbing onto that to use it as another selling amenity and people will buy into the house and, then, months later as they go to use the pool they will find out what kind of condition it's in and the homeowners association fees are going to go through the roof as that thing -- or they are just going to get rid of the pool. I don't feel like we are trying to work and be a good neighbor. There is real concerns with traffic flowing through the existing Chesterfield. I understand the traffic. I also understand how the software and the algorithms work and they often take the shortest path -- path of least resistance. I also know a lot of people don't necessarily drive that way. I, too, have some background in traffic. I think by being a good neighbor and rephasing it -- and just addressing that. I don't see any additional cost by making that connection to Pine. There is not a huge additional cost. Plus it gives you a nice entryway and -- which is an additional selling point. I do absolutely, Commissioners, believe that the amenities need to be built early and I do believe -- Bill, I'm going to ask a question. Are there any requirement on the tot lot? What does it mean to have a tot lot? What are the requirements to qualify as a tot lot? Parsons: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Marshall, there isn't a specific requirement, it just says childrens play structure. So, when the applicant comes in with the final plat application they usually provide a detail as to what that play structure is to look like. But to have any technical specifics on it, we don't have any in the code. Freeman: I assume staff -- I'm sorry, if I could interrupt. I'm assuming staff would have to review that and see that it complies with the intent of the development agreement, however. Parsons: That would be correct. Freeman: Commissioner Marshall, did you want to continue? Marshall: I appreciate that. Thank you. To be honest, I -- you know, I'm all for the zoning. I like the mirroring of -- and going to the R-15 seems appropriate to be able to back up. The alleyways are always one one car alleyways. It's rear loaded. Those are by design. I know there was a concern with that. I do appreciate the requirement for the extension to Ten Mile, but there is an issue of that's somebody else's property and we can't have them build on somebody else's property. That's a bit of a problem and I believe ACHD's been working with that and requiring that and we can't require them to go build on somebody else's property. That would be inappropriate. You just can't do it. But to be honest, I do have some disappointments here and I think in the future I'd really like to see some more work with the citizens and the people around you to be able to try to come to some agreement, some appeasement. I mean nobody -- not Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 Page 26 of 35 everybody is going to be happy. Never going to be. That's just part of life. But at the best when we have some concerns, you know, if we make just a little adjustment here or a little adjustment there and it appeases some people, then, everybody is a little happier and people will be more supportive. As far as the tot lot, because of the past with the pool and stuff like that, assuming this is the same developer, I would like some stringent conditions on that and I'm absolutely for every condition as created by staff. That's all I have to say. Freeman: Okay. Shall I go next or does somebody else want to chime in? I may come back with additional comments, but there are a couple of things I just want to throw out there, so that we are all aware and on the same page. A couple of the big issues that are in my mind right now and there are others that I may get to later. Number one is the -- the HOA and the structuring of the HOA and there has been some suggestions that perhaps we have a separate HOA and that perhaps that be included in the development agreement and I may have legal elaborate on this, but it's my understanding that as the city and the UDC itself has no say on the structuring of an HOA. That's something that's between HOAs and developers, 1 suppose, but we don't have any jurisdiction to tell you this will be under a separate HOA. And you can elaborate on -- go ahead. Ted, please. Baird: Thank you, Commissioner Freeman. I have put some thought to that as I went through this earlier today. We always start with the assumption that what happens with the HOA is between the homeowners and the HOA. However, it occurred to me this evening, listening to the testimony, that we do have a mechanism where we might try to require that and that's the rezone. The rezone is the opportunity to require things of that nature. So, I have, in essence, changed -- changed my thinking on that over the course of the evening and think that if that's what the Commission finds desirable, that you could certainly condition that as a DA condition for the rezone. Freeman: So, if I understand it, what you're saying is we could, as a -- because the -- the rezone is not something that is necessarily an entitlement, we could say -- we can trade one for one. We will grant you the rezone on these conditions and one of those conditions could be something like the structuring of an HOA. Baird: That's correct. And that's based on the theory that you can outright deny the request for the rezone without giving any explanation at all, just that you're not ready to rezone that property. Freeman: Okay. The other comment that I want to make -- and I may need Ted to help me out with this one, too, is the concern about the pool, which seems to be an obvious concern and if I were in your neighborhood I would have the same concerns. Again, the -- the UDC requires a certain number of amenities and typically we will leave the choice of amenities up to the developer. Some amenities are a lot more expensive than others, so we don't typically say you have to provide this amenity or that. We can recommend amenities. Often we will recommend an amenity that we think is maybe Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 Page 27 of 35 equal with what we are giving away, in this case a rezone. I just wanted to state that, because right now the recommendation for an amenity stands at a tot lot, which I think is a very reasonable recommendation. We are not typically in the business as a city of telling a developer that he must put a pool in his development. It sounds like there is some very serious issues regarding that pool, which are probably an internal issue to be resolved between developer and HOA or HOAs, whatever the case maybe. So, with that I'm going to come back to some other comments, but I just wanted to get that out there and have Ted explain some of these things to avoid us going down paths that we probably can't go down or ought not go down. Ted, is there anything else that you would clarify along those lines before we -- Baird: Commissioner Freeman and Members of the Commission, just to follow up on your comments. When staff puts together their recommendations for DA conditions, they look for conditions that are pretty much commensurate with the impact that the rezone or the plat will have and that's why the tot lot seemed to be commensurate with the additional lots that would be allowed by the rezone. To require a pool would probably be above and beyond what would be necessary to mitigate for the effects of the subdivision. I think staff would probably agree -- planning staff would probably agree that a condition to have this be its own subdivision and the developer would choose that it's going to be a nonpool subdivision, that encapsulates the impact sufficiently. Those are the thoughts that I had. Freeman: Thank you, Mr. Baird. Okay. Other commissioners comments, discussion? Yearsley: 1'll go next. Freeman: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: As a fellow pool subdivision owner I echo their concerns. We have several pools in our subdivision and most of them were built residential and are at over capacity in most of our subdivisions. At that point I don't know that this development is big enough to be able to financially pay for a pool to be put in. I echo Commissioner Marshall's concerns that there was no coordination, because I think maybe working with the HOA there could have been an agreement to pay for half of a pool and the HOA pay for a half and you get two pools for your subdivision and you get a great marketing ploy for your -- for the phase, which didn't happen, which is just really disappointing. I agree that the tot lot should go in sooner, if not other amenities, and I believe that the access to Pine should be at an earlier phase as well. I understand that traffic engineer saying that there is going to be a lot of traffic going into the existing subdivision. Knowing a little bit about traffic engineering, a lot of times they just take a split and say we are assuming so much goes to this one and so much goes to this one. Looking at the subdivision I don't see a lot going through the existing subdivision because of the way the traffic is laid out. It's not conducive for most people to travel that way. So, with that that's -- those are the conditions that I would recommend. If there is no agreement with Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 Page 28 of 35 a pool, I would recommend that they be not included with the HOA and not have access to the pool, given the size and the number of lots to that pool. Freeman: Thank you. Yearsley: That's all I have. Freeman: Commissioner O'Brien? O'Brien: I have a couple of words. My first thought is -- is that -- and I have to agree with Commissioner Marshall is that I don't think this was prepared right. I don't think we are ready, to be honest with you. I think this is -- there is enough questions and issues that I think the developer needs to go back to the drawing board and really discuss those issues that have been voiced here this evening. In the pool thing I think a pool is an non-issue with us. I don't think that should even enter into it. It's the -- it's the zoning and the ability to handle facilities as drawn. The one thing that concerned me was there is no -- I didn't see a defined phase that really made any sense as to how it was -- I saw circles on the -- on the screen, but it wasn't defined to me exactly what those lines represented. Having the tot lot far away from the phase two and three as he depicted is -- I don't know, it just seems like it's stuck out there in left field and I think you did mention that you might bring it back to the west, possibly, instead of leaving it where you have it there shown on phase five. So, I think phase five is way too late. I think it should be brought in at the earliest part of phase three somewhere to address the issues of the development. Other than that Ijust -- I don't think it's really ready to -- to really vote on it as we see it. I think there is just too many things in the development plan we have to come up with to be sure we didn't miss something, because, you know, once this is cast in concrete it -- you know, it's done and I don't think we can do that all here. I just -- there is too many issues, too many concerns. That's my opinion. Freeman: Okay. Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: Wow, I'm on a completely different page than my fellow commissioners here. personally think that this application before us tonight should stand on its own merits. It has 148 lots and it has 2.8 or whatever acres of common area that will be included and have amenities placed on them at an appropriate time. The fact that this subdivision is an attachment to a previous subdivision and the pool system -- and I agree with everything that's been said on that, but that doesn't have anything to do with the application before us tonight. That has an HOA impact. Our legal counsel has given us a window of opportunity where we can make it a condition through the development agreement to remove this subdivision from the existing HOA and I think that that in and of itself addresses the -- the primary concern that is before us. Traffic will do what traffic does. They take the path of least resistance and I'm not necessarily -- I don't know which way people are going to exit that subdivision. My personal opinion is the 15 lots that are part of the rezone are going to exit to the west and go through the existing Chesterfield and exit out onto Pine and they are not to going to backtrack and exit Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 Page 29 of 35 through the proposed additional access to Pine to the east. If -- if it's made a -- necessarily part of this project to build out that access to Pine Street as part of phase two, I suppose I could support that. But Idon't -- I don't -- I don't think that in any way it's necessary for phase one. The -- the fact that the amenities are supposed to -- they are supposed to capture the needs of the lots being developed, I think that the tot lot needs to come in as part of either phase one and/or two in that common area to the north that is adjacent to Pine. That seems to be the appropriate place to put the tot lot, but all of those things are in my mind tied to this application, not necessarily the issues associated with the other developments, that it sounds like the developer himself pulled the wool over your eyes, not this development. They didn't have anything to do with it, it was a voting right because of lot ownership I suppose. So, in any case, in my mind if we make it a part of our development agreement that they form their own HOA, they put the tot lot as part of phase one or two and build out on the access to Pine Street as part of maybe phase three, everything that this subdivision has for full development are addressed if we take that route. Freeman: Thank you, Commissioner Rohm. Commissioner Marshall, do you have more comments? Marshall: Mr. Chair, I'll try to take a stab at this, since -- Freeman: Well, I have a comment if you're -- before you do a motion. I was going to come back -- Marshall: Oh, please. Oh, I apologize. I am in agreement with much of what Commissioner Rohm had to say. Freeman: Okay. I would like to add a few more comments. I mentioned I would come back to this. I'm actually in agreement with Commissioner Rohm on several things, although I do see issues with the pool, whether or not a pool is included in this application isn't really a criteria by which the Commission can either recommend denial or approval. The fact that we can include a requirement in a development agreement that this development be under a separate HOA probably does as much as we can do to alleviate that problem. I agree with that. For this particular application I understand the traffic will increase. I would probably also have to admit that it was always anticipated that it would increase and as long as we are not exceeding the design capacity of those streets I think we have to accept the fact that as development happens traffic is going to increase, as long as we stay within the designs of our -- our roads and streets. The biggest issue I see with the development as it stands in and of itself is the amenity that's required and I agree wholeheartedly that the amenity needs to be included in the early phases of development. So, I agree with staffs recommendation there. However, as the development develops and we grow towards the east, I also think that the central planned pocket park is actually the ideal place for the amenity and perhaps we would consider requiring a tot lot -- a small accessible tot lot in the early phases and also a similar amenity in that park when it's done. That's a Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 Page 30 of 35 possibility in my mind that we would require tot lots as the thing is phased out. With that that's the end of my comments, other than to the Commissioners. As we develop a motion we have several conditions -- amended conditions that have been given to us by staff, so we need to address each one of those conditions with our motion, as well as any other conditions that we may have discussed here that you would want to add to your motion. Commissioner O'Brien, did you have a question? O'Brien: Yeah. Mr. Chair. So, you're recommending that the planned pocket park stay -- at least to where it's designed right now? Freeman: I am recommending that the pocket park location stay where it is, because I think it's an excellent -- excellent overall location that's central to at least the east half of the subdivision. I also think it's the ideal place -- the best place for a tot lot, again, because it's central and a pocket park. However, I think it's a bad idea to wait until that park is developed until we provide an amenity. O'Brien: Okay. So, having said that -- and my comments earlier, I think the phases are kind of out of phase and out of place. What I would suggest, then, is why can't we change the phases starting from the east to the west, instead of from the west to the east? Freeman: Commissioner O'Brien, I just think it's beyond the scope of our jurisdiction to demand -- O'Brien: It was just a suggestion. Freeman: I understand. I'm just answering the question. I don't. think we can get into how they phase the project, other than, you know, in which phases, knowing it's going to be phased, where we want to see the amenities in certain phases. O'Brien: Is that something the developer can change or -- Freeman: I believe they could. Staff, is that the right answer? They could change the phasing of this. I don't believe the phasing designations are actually part of this approval, unless it becomes part of the development agreement. I'm going to shut up and let you answer that forme. Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, you are correct. I mean the applicant has the opportunity to change the phasing line, but keep in mind when the applicant was providing testimony all of the services are coming from existing Chesterfield. So, in order for the applicant to work east to west he will have to run all the infrastructure -- all of that way and work his way backwards. So, that's why to them -- from an engineering standpoint phasing makes sense starting with the alley loaded lots and, then, progressing eastward. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 Page 31 of 35 O'Brien: Then you have answered my question. Thank you very much. Freeman: Thank you. Yearsley: I have one quick -- Freeman: Commissioner Yearsley, go ahead. Yearsley: -- question. If we do go to -- and I guess this is going to be more directly to staff, because they will be in more of the review of this -- to put a tot lot in that north portion, I would recommend that they move the drainage structure further to the north closer to Pine and have the tot lot closer to the residents there and that way you're not having the children so close to Pine would be my recommendation. Freeman: Sounds like a good recommendation. Any other comments? Marshall: I would ask would that be something we would want to condition or is that something that would be a staff level approval? Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, it might be advisable to reopen the record and seek information from the applicant as to whether that's possible given the engineering and the topography. Usually the drainage area goes in a specific spot. So, before you go down that road you might want to take the opportunity to amend the record. Freeman: Understood. If we want to go down that road and I'm not convinced at this point we want to. I think what we can do is condition that an amenity be provided and trust staff to coordinate that with the developer to put it in an ideal location, rather than -- ratherthan dictating at this point where it would be located. Marshall: And just suggest to staff maybe that it -- right up next to Pine would not be an idea location. Freeman: Yeah. That's on the record now. Marshall: Yeah. Freeman: I think that's good enough. That's my opinion. Yearsley: And that was my -- my only request is just directing it to staff for -- during their review. Freeman: Yeah. I agree. Okay. Well, with that who is going to take a stab at this? Commissioner Rohm was clearing his throat. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 Page 32 of 35 Rohm: No, I wasn't. Marshall: I'll take a stab, but please -- I mean bear with me. Freeman: We will bear with you if you go wrong. Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number RZ 11-004 and PP 11-007 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 3rd, 2011, with the following modifications: There is to be an additional 15 foot wide connection with five foot pathway to the trail system to the south, in addition to the one that's there, to alleviate for the 750 foot block that we are at 760. Also that the applicant shall provide a minimum of 2.8 acres of common area and open space and include the following amenities: A covered picnic shelter and a tot lot by phase three, I believe. By phase three -- prior to completing phase three. Those are to be offered. Also the exit to Pine is to be constructed prior to the completion of phase two and the subdivision is to be a separate entity from the existing homeowners associations of the combined Chesterfield and Castlebrook Subdivision. Freeman: There are also some DA provisions at the bottom there. Do you wish to consider those? Two of them, I believe. Marshall: And -- oh. Okay. Yeah. And the subject property shall -- shall develop with a maximum of 148 residential lots as generally configured on the proposed preliminary plat, unless modified by City Council. Now, did I go okay with that? All right. Parsons: Mr. Chairman? I'm sorry to interrupt. Freeman: Bill, please. Parsons: Just for clarification so I know what to add to my staff report moving forward to Council on this. So, is it Commissioner Marshall's requirement for a separate HOA to be part of the development agreement as a DA provision I assume? Not a condition of the plat. Marshall: Correct. Parsons: Okay. Further clarification on your motion for bullet point -- condition 1.2.4. Basically, staffs already conditioned them to provide that micropath lot as you stated. The applicant is simply requesting you give them one -- either option. One, they either comply with the 750 feet or put in the micropath. Freeman: And was that -- Marshall: That is my intention. That is my intention. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 Page 33 of 35 Parsons: Okay. Thank you. Freeman: Thank you for those clarifications, Bill. I have a motion. Rohm: I'll second that. Freeman: It's been moved and seconded -- and I'm not going to try to repeat all of this -- to recommend approval for RZ 11-004 and PP 10-007. Marshall: Eleven. Freeman: Oh. Thank you. 11-007. As amended. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Freeman: Thank you. Yearsley: Mr. Chairman? Freeman: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: Let me make one last comment before we adjourn. Freeman: Sure. Yearsley: The residents here said that there was a lot of concerns with the traffic and safety at Black Cat. I actually serve on Meridian's transportation safety committee, which meets every third Tuesday? Tuesday. Sorry. If you're that concerned about it, ACHD does attend those meetings. Please, call, have it be put on the agenda and come state your claim. They will look into it and report back to that commission and make any recommendations for improving that safety. So, if you're concerned about that enough, please, make that recommendation and come in and talk to us about that. Marshall: Along that same line, there is another commission called the traffic task force that also would like any comments or recommendations. So, you have the traffic task force and the traffic safety commission. Yearsley: Correct. Freeman: Thank you. It's been asked what the date and time is on -- Hill: The third Tuesday. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 Page 34 of 35 Yearsley: It's the third Tuesday. But you need to call and ask to get that put on the agenda. So, if you call the city clerk's office and ask that intersection be put on the agenda, then, you can come up and talk about it. Marshall: And -- Hill: You can contact me at the clerk's office. Freeman: Thank you. Marshall: And the traffic task force is the first Thursday of every month. Yearsley: They don't typically deal with -- Hill: I don't think they do -- yeah, I don't think they do -- Marshall: Try to highlight -- prioritize intersections that may need updating and so we do try to prioritize those intersections and so that information probably would be very good to come from the traffic safety commission, too. Yearsley: Yeah. Freeman: Thank you for that clarification, too. Do I have one more motion? Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Freeman: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move we adjourn. Marshall: Second. Freeman: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Freeman: We are adjourned. Thank you, everybody. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:44 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 Page 35 of 35 APPROVED _-~ .___._______-. 11 ~ I~ ~ l l REEMAN - CHA MA DATE APPROVED ATTEST: tJ"~' JAYCEE L. HOLMAN -CITY CLER G/'Q,nzenAV~U~ , ~Qs° J V A /~ ~tY ~ ~'~ ' ' IDAHO ~!' S~1"lir r r 0 ,~r~~a~tleiRE~b~p6 ~