Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMilliron Subdivision PP 04-034 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING November 4, 2004 APPLICANT Dyver Development, LLC ITEM NO. 5 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from October 21,2004 - Preliminary Plat approval for 83 single-family residential building lots and 5 common lots on 25.86 acres in an R-4 zone . for Milliron Subdivision - NEC of North Black Cat Road and West Cherry Lane AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: See previous Item Packet / Minutes CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: See attached Comments 'ftto ~11 rVUil cl M rOV ~ to (¡{V L1~ CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meelings shall become property of the City of Meridian. MAYOR TAMMY OE WEERD COUNCIL MEMBERS WILLIAMLM. NARY KEITII BIRD CHARLIE M. ROUNTREE SHAUN W AROLE ~(J /COTYOF '-../VL tJri dian "', ~1.. '" IDAHO .,1 . ("." " . . .,~. r .""'IH'.N...".",..v,~- .. "~' '.. ," .,," MERIDIAN CITY/RURAL FIRE DEPARTMENT CHIEF KENW. BOWERS DEPUTY CHIEF - FIRE PREVENTION JOSEPH SILVA c__.~~.,,~~ DEPUTY CHIEF - TRAINING BILL JOHNSON 540 East Franklin Road Meridian, ID &3642 (208ì 888-1234 Fax (208) 895-0390 RURAL FIRE COMMISSIONERS RICHARO GREENE TERRY LEIGHTON November 1,2004 RECEIVED NOY 0 1 2004 City Of Meridian City Clerk Office TO: Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Joseph Silva, Deputy Chief, Fire Prevention SUBJECT: Milliron Subdivision File PP 04-034 The following will be the requirements and/or concerns to provide minimum levels of fire protection for the proposed project: I. Residential projects shall have a fire-flow as required by the International Fire Code. Fire hydrants shall be placed an average of 400' apart. International Fire Code Appendix D 2. Acceptance of the water supply for fire protection will be by the Meridian Water Department. 3. Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department. a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 YO' outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle. b. The Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it. c. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works spec. d. Locations with fire hydrants shall have the curb painted red 10' to each side of the hydrant location. e. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on comers. f. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'. 4. The phasing plan may require that any roadway greater than ISO' in length that is not provided with an outlet shall be required to have an turn-around. 5. All entrance and internal roads shall have a turning radius of28' inside radius and 48'outside radius. 6. Operational fire hydrants and temporary or permanent street signs are required before combustible construction begins. 7. All portions of the buildings located on this project must be within 150' of a paved surface as measured around the perimeter of the building. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 21. 2004 Page 24 of 46 concern is whether or not in the future some significant change to this property is going to get heard publicly by either this Commission or the Council, most likely. I mean never say never, but most changes are going to come back here, so -- Zaremba: And I'm comfortable with that without a development agreement if you are. Moe: That's not a problem. Freckleton: Mr. Chair, just one quick comment. The applicant pointed out that it was his understanding that Wendy's comment regarding police chief approving the plan was simply just that. He wanted to have a shot at it if there was changes in the future. So, I think what you're talking about covers that issue. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. If he did a significant change, it would go out to all departments, including the police department for comment. In that case in some point in there I was previously finished with my motion. Moe: Then, I will second that. Borup: Okay. Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 11: Public Hearing: PP 04-034 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 83 single-family residential building lots and 5 common lots on 25.86 acres in an R-4 zone for Milliron Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC - NEC of North Black Cat Road and West Cherry Lane: Borup: Thank you. Okay. It looks like we do have one hearing left. Gosh. Zaremba: I would move we adjourn. I withdraw that motion. Moe: You didn't get a second. Zaremba: There was not a second. Borup: Item No. 11, Public Hearing PP 04-034. This is a request for a preliminary plat approval for 83 single family residential building lots, five common lots, on 25 acres, R-4 zone in Milliron Subdivision. I'd like to, again, open this hearing and start with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. The subject property is here at the northeast corner of Black Cat Road and Cherry Lane. The property, as you can see, was annexed sometime ago, we believe in the late '70s, as part of a larger annexation in this part of the city. However, there was never any final plat approved on it, so it remains annexed, but never had any development plans Meridian Planning & Zoning October 21. 2004 Page 25 of 46 approved for it. So, the only application that you have tonight is for a subdivision. There is no planned development, there is no annexation or a rezone attached to that plat. The surrounding uses include the Golf View Estates No.5 on the north, Golf View Estates No.4 on the east. Just two different phases of the same subdivision there. Those are also zoned R-4, which is the existing zoning of the property. There is a church that touches the northwest corner. Blackstone Subdivision is across the street on the south side of Cherry Lane. The properties at the corners on the west side of Black Cat there have not been annexed. So, the annexation, as I say, is set. What they are proposing here is this plat that was submitted with their application. A couple of highlights for the plat for the Commission. They are not proposing any vehicular access to Cherry Lane. They have proposed to simply utilize an existing stub street that comes out of Golf View No.4 and, then, to construct a new entrance on Black Cat Road at this location. Open space in the subdivision is generally in two locations. They have this triangular-shaped lot here, which is all open space. A lot of the subdivisions that you see do come through with dual use open space with storm water retention, detention in open space. In this case they actually are proposing to run all their street drainage down to the southwest corner of the property and retain that there. So, that's the second open space area that I was going to point out. They do have a linear path open space up here in the corner, which there is -- the main entry into Golf View Estates Five is right at the north boundary of this property. A little bit difficult to see on this slide, but there is a common lot that is also -- would be a part of this Milliron Subdivision. I guess we will have to get an appropriate pronunciation if that's not right, but -- Milliron is the appropriate pronunciation I was just told. They are -- they have lot sizes that range from 8,000 square feet, which is the minimum in the R-4 zone district -- application says up to 26,504 square feet. That 26,000 only applies to this lot here on the northeast corner, that there is an existing house on the property and that's what that lot applies to. There is about 5.5 percent of the subdivision in open space. The gross density is 3.2 dwelling units per acre. I wanted to point out just two items on the staff report that start on page three. The first one has to do with the side yard setback on North Tessa Avenue. North Tessa is the proposed street name for this first north-south street. This just deals with the site setback on this lot here. City code says that they have to have a minimum of 20 feet of setback on this property to the street and there is a small strip of open space that's a part of this -- this lot here that does come along the side, but it's only about ten feet wide. With a five foot setback, that would only mean a 15 foot side, so we are just asking for that to be cleaned up. The second special consideration was the design of Lot 9, Block 2. This is Lot 9, Block 2, the center common space. There is a little bit of a potential dead area here that the staff had some concern about. We are asking that -- for the applicant just to coordinate with the police department to insure that their patrol officers don't have a problem with the way that this is currently designed. And, then, the last item that we had for special consideration had to do with the Settler's canal access road. Settler's Irrigation District is the irrigation district that serves this part of the city. There is currently a gravel access road along the north boundary. Their plat, actually, shows that to remain and we just wanted some clarification on the record tonight how that's going to be dwelt with, as well as access to the -- to the clean Outs for the Settler's canal, which is back there. There is a 30 foot wide easement on that canal. We have recommended that they complete the vacation, if this is approved, that they complete a Meridian Planning & Zoning October 21.2004 Page 26 of 46 vacation of the Idaho Power easement. There is an easement for Idaho Power that runs along this portion of the property to serve the existing home and, of course, that would, then, take its power supply internally and would not need that any longer. Finally, we did receive two items into the record that I wanted to point out to the Commission. One is a response -- a written response from the applicant was received a couple of days ago that was addressing the staff report. They are in general agreement with the recommended conditions, And, then, the other item I wanted to point out -- there was a letter received by Robert and Judith Ricketts, dated October 5, that states that they were going to be out of town tonight and could not make the meeting, so they have submitted some concerns with the square footage of the homes and some of the materials that would be used. And so just clarification from the city's perspective, you know, we have -- we have an ordinance that says that this zone has 1,400 square foot minimum home size and an 8,000 square foot minimum lot size. We do not have any ordinances that deal with materials on these homes. The CC&Rs are a civil document that the city does not regulate, which is normally where an architectural committee or otherwise would review materials and so just to clarify, I'm assuming there might be other comments on that front tonight, so -- and with that I guess I'll end staff's comments. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Zaremba: I just want to -- Mr. Chairman, Brad, I just want to clarify or maybe emphasize the last part of what you said. Even though this was annexed and zoned as an R-4 in the '70s, many years ago, the fact that the application is coming now means it has to comply with our current codes today; is that correct? Hawkins-Clark: That's correct. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Okay. Anyone else? Thank you. Would the applicant like to make their presentation. As Brad mentioned, I noticed from the letter agreement with virtually everything in the staff report, wasn't it? Amar: Yes, sir. Borup: Okay. Go ahead. Amar: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Kevin Amar, address 114 East Idaho, Suite 230, here in Meridian. As Brad indicated, this is a subdivision for once -- and I'm happy to say that we are able to submit for a subdivision that's already permitted within a zone. We are not asking for any special considerations, we are not asking for any variances, we are in agreement with all of the recommendations that was requested by staff and I will try to go over some of those and we did submit that letter -- did you receive a copy of the letter? Meridian Planning & Zoning October 21,2004 Page 27 of 46 Borup: Yes, we did. Zaremba: Your letter, yes. Amar: So, the project itself is 83 residential lots. There is one existing home and 82 new lots within this project. It is an R-4 zone. It was zoned sometime in the '70s. I believe Commissioner Zaremba brought up that we are required to comply with the zoning regulations as of today, not in 1970 whenever it was annexed. With this project we are complying with all of the zoning regulations for this project and for this area. If we look at the surrounding subdivisions, they are also with the R-4 zone, there are on the eastern boundary of this project, as well as -- the eastern boundary, as well as the northern boundary, existing pathways and/or irrigation access roads, along with a pathway. There is a pathway currently that runs as a part of Golf View, as I understand it, all the way on these boundaries. That fencing on our northern and also on our eastern we will coordinate that, as well as the fencing around the park area with the fire -- or the police department to make sure there are no conflicts. Typically what is requested by police departments is no taller than four feet, so it can be seen behind that or over the top of that. That fencing will be put in by us through the course of development. Also, some of the questions that came up -- on this boundary, these lots originally we had at 115 feet deep, which allowed for an easement over and across those lots. We did speak -- or our engineer did speak with Nathan Draper from Settler's Irrigation District and rather than making it an easement, we, actually, created a common lot and these lots would, then, be a hundred feet deep and a common lot for that access road to continue, so there won't be any access problems with Settler's Irrigation District. It will also be addressed with Settler's Irrigation District through a license agreement with them. Settler's Irrigation District will be the entity that will maintain our irrigation pump station. It will be built to their specifications and, again, it will be through a license agreement with them. There are other concerns or more in depth concerns with the irrigation district. My engineer is here tonight, he is the one that actually spoke with them and. he would be happy to answer any questions. Some of the other questions that came up -- we initially -- on our common area, we initially had a pathway in here. That was for sewer service, but our sewer will come in through this road. We, actually, removed that path. There was some concerns with the lot frontages and it allowed us to created a more -- actually, be in compliance with the zone on the lot frontage. As far as the common space, this area down here, which is for storm drainage, is not counted in our common area calculations. So, we have still above five percent in just this area. So, that common area is for strictly open space. There is no drainage. It will be just - it will be down in that area, which, again, is another unique feature that I'm not often able to do and it seemed to work out pretty well on this project. The project Itself, as Brad stated, will have a minimum home size of 1,400 square feet with a minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet. Some of the building materials that will be used -- there will be no vinyl siding allowed. There is a requirement for rock, brick, stucco and architectural on the front of the house, so it is, obviously, more of an upscale subdivision, trying to be compatible with the neighbors. As we look at the compatibility on these lots and these lots, I believe we have one more lot in this area than there are -- than there is here and down at the corner there may be one more lot than there is on this run. But, again, as I stated, this also has a pathway Meridian Pianning & Zoning October 21, 2004 Page 28 of 46 and an area that separates the two or the three subdivisions, I guess, with two different Golf Views here. I believe that -- were the staff comments. We are excited to do this project and we appreciate your time. Again, we are simply asking for a permitted use within the existing zone and would end my comments with that and stand for any questions. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Zaremba: And I would ask one that you may not be able to give the answer to, but I'll try. Even though the ordinance allows the smallest dwelling unit to be 1,400 square feet, given the neighborhood surrounding it, which is also all R-4 and lots of 8,000 square feet, and many of the houses bigger than 14, do you have any assessment of when this gets built out how many of your lots might have a 1,400 square foot house on them? Amar: I can give you my best guess, but the 1,400 square feet, as well as in the other subdivisions, is a minimum. What we have found in our subdivisions is the square footage is significantly higher than that, as that is a minimum, not an avenue, not a maximum. And what we are finding in the subdivisions in this lot size is we are looking at lots on the average -- or homes on the average of 2,000 square feet. So, they are significantly greater than the minimum. That's not to say that -- Zaremba: Even though 1,400 is allowed, it's more typical that they be closer to 2,000? Amar: Correct. That is what we are finding on other subdivisions. So, that's not to say that there won't be a 1,400 square foot home in here, but there will also be something significantly greater than 1,400 square feet, bringing the average to about 2,000 square feet. Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: The other question I have may be obvious and that is did you hold a neighborhood meeting? Amar: We did not hold a neighborhood meeting. Borup: I think we could tell that. Rohm: And I guess the follow-up question to that is why not? Amar: I guess my only response to that is we are doing a use within this zone that's already permitted. This zone was here before any of the neighbors were here, this property was already zoned for that. I, to be real honest with you, didn't anticipate all this opposition, because it is a permitted use within this zone. Maybe that's bad judgment on my part -- Rohm: I'd say so. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 21,2004 Page 29 of 46 Amar: I'll accept that. But, again, we are here based on what is permitted in this zone. We are not trying to do anything that's different, we are not trying to do anything out of the ordinary, so I'll use better judgment next time. Borup: And I think that explanation makes sense. Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Amar? Amar: Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Okay. This is the time for the public testimony portion. There was one -- a couple things that I went through a little quickly previously and that's on the time. If we do have -- we do allow extra time if we have someone speak in behalf of a group, like a neighborhood association or anything like that. So, rather than the three minute limit, we can go ten minutes. By that it would be expected that those people they are speaking in behalf of would not be speaking. So, do we have that here tonight? Do we have a spokesman for a whole neighborhood? You, sir? Do you want to stand up just quick right there. How many people is he speaking for in behalf of? Okay. So, that means that you would -- he would be saying everything that you want to say? Well, then, does that mean saying that you would not be coming up to testify? Okay. I guess you didn't get your extra time. I'm sorry, they didn't give it to you. Okay. All right. We were hoping to give you some extra. Okay. Then, like we'd to start with that. As I mentioned earlier, we do have a timer. The green light means you keep going. The yellow light means there is 30 seconds. And the clerk will be monitoring that. And I -- we have got a long list of names and I can either go down that or just ask people to come on up, just right in order -- or I mean just as soon as they'd like to, so let's go ahead and start. Nary: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Yes. Mr. Nary. Nary: If you could, for the purpose of the public record, if you follow the list we'd have a way to acknowledge whether or not they actually appeared and spoke. Borup: All right. We can do that. Nary: Thank you. Borup: Don Burton. That worked out good. Burton: I was here early. Mr. Commissioner and Members of the Commission, thank you very much for the opportunity of speaking with you tonight. My name is Don Burton, I live at 1949 North Pear Tree Avenue -- Zaremba: Sir, will you pull the microphone a little closer to your mouth. Meridian Pianning & Zoning October 21. 2004 Page 30 of 46 Burton: -- Golf View Subdivision. And I am the treasurer, past president of the homeowners association. Our president is out of town tonight. At the end of my comments I would like to present a letter from the homeowners association signed by all the board members and 132 adults residing in Golf View who ostensibly oppose Milliron Subdivision as proposed. I would like to point out the primary reasons for our opposition and some of the possible resolutions, some of which I already heard tonight from the applicant. First is addressing the lot size and house sizes. It is very divergent from what you will find in Golf View. I think this creates a situation where you could possibly have a 1,400 square foot home on the perimeter of Milliron backed right up to a 3,500 square foot home in Golf View and I think we know what that does to property values and which one is going to take the hit in terms of property value loss. Also it is my understanding -- and I have not got this verified -- that there is an option for no garages on these homes. I think down the road that that would be a problem. I'm not positive about that. Borup: No. City code ordinances requires two car garages. Burton: The second point I would like to make has to do with the egress entrance streets, only two, one on Black Cat, one utilizing White Birch Street, which would take a zigzag pattern through Golf View. I was told that Ada County Highway District anticipates that at full capacity this subdivision would create about 800 vehicle trips per day. If you look at the plat layout of the streets, I think you will see that the travel directions will take more than half of those on that zigzag pattern through Golf View. This has an impact on homes along those routes in terms of nuisance and noise and property values, but, more importantly, safety issues for children who live in the Golf View neighborhood. There was discussion by the applicant about fencing the perimeter, which I was glad to hear of, because of the bike path, walking path, that is owned and maintained by Golf View. We do not want that to become a conduit for bike and walking traffic from Milliron into and through Golf View. I will be brief to get to my three minutes and let others speak. In summation, we believe that you will agree with us that part of planning is the protection of existing developments and properties as new development are brought into being. We also believe that as proposed, Milliron will have a significantly and negative impact on the property values, resale marketability, the investment, and the security in their homes currently enjoyed by the citizens of Golf View Subdivision. We believe it to be in the City of Meridian's best interest to maintain similar developments that share contiguous boundaries and utilize main arterials as dividers between very divergent developments. We see Milliron as proposed as being a very divergent development from what you have in Golf View Two, Three, Four and Five. Thank you very much for your time. I stand for any questions. Borup: Okay. Questions for Mr. Burton? I do have one. Burton: Yes, sir. Borup: Do you know the -- what the square footage covenants is for -- Meridian Pianning & Zoning October 21, 2004 Page 31 of 46 Burton: Minimum is 1,800 square feet in Golf View. Borup: In all three phases? Burton: Yes, sir. I'm not sure about phase -- I live in phase two. It was 1,800 square feet there. Maybe someone else can address more accurately four and five. I know there are homes along the perimeter there that -- on the north side that are up to 3,500 square foot homes. Borup: Right. But I -- so 1,800 is the answer? Okay. Burton: To my best knowledge that's the minimum. It might be higher than that in phases four and five. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Rohm: I just had a question. On this ingress into Golf View -- Burton: Yes, sir. Rohm: -- is it your recommendation that the developer have access to Cherry Lane? Burton: We strongly believe that that should be in place and that there should perhaps be a speed bump or something to restrict traffic going on White Birch from Milliron into and out of Golf View through that direction. It's a zigzag pattern to get from there to Cherry Lane. It's going to be a right, a left, and another right to get out of there. I think you can see that on this map right there. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Burton: Thank you very much, Commission. Borup: Thank you. Steve Pieper. Pieper: Yes. My name is Steve Pieper. I live at 4695 West White Ash Drive. I'm in phase five of the Golf View Subdivision. My main concern -- my house backs up against the new proposed subdivision and in addition to my concerns about the property values with a minimum square footage size of 1,400, that leads to a lot of transition from people moving up after a few years and they start turning into rentals and the quality of my life would go down with rentals behind me, because you have people moving in that may rent and not have the pride of ownership as established in the Golf View Subdivision. It is a more upscale subdivision. and I would propose that the board -- or the Planning and Zoning Commission have at least an 1,800 square foot minimum size of the homes. That's alii have. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 21,2004 Page 32 of 46 Borup: Thank you, sir. Jason Doms? Is that correct. Would you still like to come forward? Okay. Langland? Ronald Howell? Okay. Thank you. Heather Lainhart? Still wish to come forward? Lainhart: I am Heather Lainhart, I reside at 1801 Golf View. Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, I appreciate your time. I know this is a long night for you. I have a letter from Harry, our president, who wasn't able to be here. He regrets it, but it was unavoidable. A few points that Don didn't bring up. Golf View has a lot of people who have bought there, they plan to retire and they wanted to make their -- make it their home and it is an investment. So, a lot of people feel like the property value question has just really hit them in the wallet. So, that's why you will hear that expressed probably a lot tonight. My main -- main fear is for the safety of the children. I'm begging you, respectfully, to protect the children in this neighborhood. There is a bike path that runs right across the main street that they are going to pull in, White Birch, and there is a lot of trees and things, there is not good visibility there at all, and with the volume of houses, there is going to be a lot of traffic, like Don has mentioned, and I feel that the volume of houses is a problem in my book. There is just too many houses crammed into there and I know it's not high density, but just the problems that will come along with that are going to flow right out into our subdivision and so we feel that since it is connected, it should be a little bit more congruent and equitable in the spacing of things and the way they are. Harry, in his letter, noticed that the comprehensive planning of the city in trying to keep subdivisions somewhat contiguous in style and type of areas and structures, seems to be seriously undermined with this development. Like we said, if they are across Cherry Lane or across Black Cat, that would make more sense to us, it wouldn't affect us. As you can see if you go upwards, there is Ashford Greens and, then, on and they will seem to have the same higher minimum of the square footage of houses and the higher minimum of the lot size and we ask that you would consider that and if you do have any ability to control that and to truly have planning in what Meridian develops into, so that we can have different styles of neighborhoods in Meridian to accommodate everyone's needs as citizens of this wonderful city, we would appreciate it. Borup: Questions from any of the Commission? Thank you. I would point out that I think Ashford Greens, actually, has a good part of the lots are smaller than an R -- than 8,000 foot. That's James Place. Okay. I was looking on the map up there. Zaremba: It's a section within Ashford Greens called James Place and they are considerably smaller. Borup: Yeah. It was part of the original application. Wayne Hammer. Okay. And, again, just because your name is on here doesn't mean -- you don't have to come up, but -- okay. Alma Hammer, same thing? All right. And I'm going to have trouble, probably, with some of these names, but is it Don Howell? Okay. Thank you. Donna Learner? David Learner? Rick Bachmeier? Okay, sir. Meridian Pianning & Zoning October 21, 2004 Page 33 of 46 Bachmeier: Yes. I'm Rich Bachmeier. I live at 1865 North Golf View Way, which would be on the easterly side of the proposed development where the pathway is. I think Don's covered most of the things that we want to discuss, but to give you an example, we don't have, unfortunately, photos of our subdivision, but it's been said 1,800 square foot minimum, landscaping at the time was part of our covenants. If you look at Golf View, it's very extensively landscaped. Like Ashford Greens, like all the other subdivisions that have been developed. I guess I can't understand -- and I guess it's one of the big concerns -- is why there can't be an ingress-egress on Cherry Lane. I think that's one of the biggest concerns is the traffic flow and if you look at the subdivision directly to the south, there is an ingress-egress. I know there is some standards by Ada county, I think you have to be at least 150 feet from the intersection to put in an approach. There is an existing approach on the property right at that location, there is a curb cut there. I would assume that's a viable ingress-egress. So, why no access to Cherry Lane? I don't understand that. I think with access to Cherry Lane it would alleviate the concerns of the traffic going through Golf View. Obviously, you have to share the roadways and there would be some traffic going through there, which we could, I'm sure, put up with. But if you take potentially I would say probably two-thirds of the traffic in that subdivision and push it through our subdivision, I don't think is a good idea. If you look at the access on Black Cat, it's up towards the middle northerly portion of the development. Why would people typically going to Meridian or Boise go up and around, as opposed to going through that subdivision? I think that at least 50 percent -- and I would guess much more would take the shorter route through Golf View Subdivision. So, I think that access to us is probably one of the - at least for me personally, is one of the biggest concerns, putting some of that access out onto Cherry Lane. Obviously, there is going to be a lot loss. I mean the developer wants to maximize his lots, they are pretty small lots as it is, but could we give up a lot, an 8,000 square foot lot, to put in another access in Cherry Lane. I think that's alii have. Borup: Okay. Thank you. I might mention just for -- part of the disadvantage, maybe, we have not seen the ACHD report. It just came in and the clerk is going to get a copy of it. That may help a little bit. Is it Diane Aschenbacher? All right. Thank you. Moe: Your time's up already. Borup: And I'm not sure on the next one, was that also Aschenbacher? Okay, sir. Nancy Evans. Care to come up? Okay. Don Evans. Evans: I'm Don Evans, 4349 Quaker Ridge. I'm in Golf View Subdivision No.3. I'd like to take just a quick moment and address the size of the lots and the intended purpose of what's going in here. Being a retired builder of not only starter homes, but also upper end homes, I look at a subdivision plot like this or a plan and the first thing I see is starter homes. With the setbacks that is required by the city, the size of these lots, you're going to have probably no more than 1,400 or 1,500 square foot homes on these lots and I assume -- I know that's being a little presumptuous, but reading between the lines this is what we are looking at. We are looking at a starter home subdivision in the Meridian Planning & Zoning October 21,2004 Page 34 of 46 corner of upper end homes. I don't think that any of us in any of these other subdivisions are saying, no, this should not be built, that it should not be subdivided, what we are saying is let's get it in compliance with what's already there. Let's save the investment of the people that's already built there. And I think -- there, again, I think the protection of the homeowners that are there should be upmost in your mind. Also, give some consideration is what you are looking at here, in my opinion, is a starter home subdivision. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Andersons? Anderson. Okay. Anderson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Ron Anderson, I live at 4327 West Quaker Ridge. I'd like to start off by telling a little bit of a story. I have grown up in Meridian, went to junior high, high school here, graduated, have lived in several homes, including my parents' home in Meridian, have owned three homes myself in Meridian. Very attached to the community. In fact, served four years on the City Council, as many of you know. And Meridian is very near and dear to my heart and my wife's heart. We plan on making this our home, we plan on living out our lives in Meridian. Having said that, we also, being familiar with the community, have looked at where we want to live in Meridian and for years we had looked at Golf View Subdivision. In fact, I used to drive through Golf View Subdivision two or three days a week on my way to work looking at the subdivision. For those of you who have never been into Golf View, it's a very beautiful subdivision. There is ponds as you come in and a waterfall. There is walking paths that meander through the neighborhood. There is ponds and streams that run along that path. It's a very gorgeous subdivision. We also pay homeowner dues in there to maintain all those amenities in that subdivision. As we have decided to live out our lives in Meridian, we decided to look for a more upscale neighborhood to move into and last year our dream finally came true. As I was driving to work one day, drove through the subdivision and saw the house that I had fell in love with years ago was for sale, so stopped and got the phone number and we called the people and we ended up buying that house and moving into it earlier this year. I am very disappointed to see this project now being presented to come right next door to our subdivision. As you have already heard, Golf View is more upscale. I would say on an average the homes range from 200 to 350 thousand dollars in there. It's people that -- they are not starter homes. And now what's being proposed next to us are starter homes. And I don't mean any disrespect to the developers and the planners on this, but because this was an already annexed piece of property, I believe they felt that we will meet the -- Meridian's minimum requirements, the 8,000 square foot lots and the 1,400 square foot houses and this thing will sale right through. As you heard at the start of this, there has been no conversation, no meetings with the homeowners next door in our subdivision and that should happen I think in every development and see what is compatible. The biggest concern that our neighborhood has is incompatibility with the existing subdivisions. Having served on the Council, I know that's a concern to the Council and to you guys as Commissioners. The design of this subdivision is very poorly designed from the roads that access through our subdivision, to the drainage ponds being on the corner -- Cherry Lane is a gateway to our community and we need to put something in this piece of property that will show that we are proud of Meridian. Meridian Pianning & Zoning October 21. 2004 Page 35 of 46 Borup: Thank you. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, we have just been handed a copy of the ACHD report and I would ask that we have about five minutes to read it, so that I'm not trying to read it when I should be listening to somebody that's talking. Borup: I think that would be a good -- and maybe just -- Mrs. Anderson, do you have anything you want to say, too? Okay. That would probably be a good place to stop and I think that would be appropriate. We will take about a five minute break or so. Some here may want a break also. (Recess.) Borup: Okay. ladies and gentlemen, we'd like to reconvene our meeting. All right. Thank you. Okay. We have had an opportunity to read the ACHD report and we will get probably comment on that a little bit later. Again, those that do not wish to testify, of course, don't need to. Next name we had was Tom and Kathy Henderson. Henderson. Tom and Kathy. Henderson: Hi, my name is Kathy Henderson and I reside a 4457 West Dawson Drive and I don't represent our subdivision, but I am from Ashford Greens and we ditto everything that has been said. We live in custom built homes and we do not want to see starter homes on that corner lot. We are going to miss our onion field. Thank you. Borup: Mark Henderson. Is it Kemp? No? Okay. Tony Gallegos. Gallegos: My name is Tony Gallegos, I live at 4440 West White Birch Court. My house faces the headlights of everybody that's going to be driving and making that corner into this new subdivision and I wanted to take it a step further. I'm totally opposed to that inlet to that subdivision. My background -- I own a small architectural design firm and have drawn probably over 1,000 houses, a number in Golf View and Ashford Greens and James Place and the architectural requirements that I have to go according to draw these house plans for the clients are unbelievable. I mean my landscaping, just on my own home, 63 little plants in my front yard. I mean it was just tremendous. We have put an in-ground pool in. I'm looking at living there a long time. I'm 41, I love the place, we love the neighbors, we have a lot of kids running around in this subdivision, and so my -- in saying that I would like to take this a step further, at the end of Golf View, the entrance that will go into Ashford Greens Phase 5, the developer put in a foot bridge. The street was stopped and there was a real nice railing and archway and all that jazz and so that eliminated a chunk of traffic taking the shortcut and I'd like to propose on my own behalf -- and I have talked to a few other people and they had that idea, too -- obviously, if that road is going to have to be there, that we don't created an ingress, but do put a foot bridge there, if it has to be there. Of course, number one is I'm adamantly opposed to it, I would love to just have the thing just shut off right there. My neighbor across the street, he's going to have people driving into his driveway if they make a Meridian Planning & Zoning October 21. 2004 Page 36 of 46 wrong right turn or me into my front yard. I had another person who has also voiced concern of liability with all of our landscaping in the subdivision, not so much the personal, but the ponds and whatnot that we pay our homeowners dues on to keep everything up and with the amount of children that might be in there, there are some yards that you actually can walk through, because Golf View does deter, you know, the fencing and everything to give everything a nice wide open landscaped look. He was worried about having people walking through his yard gelling onto the paths to take shortcuts. So, we are -- like I said, my biggest thing is that ingress area right there and if it does have to be there or if does have to have a road there or something, if we could just knock it down and have a foot bridge, worst case. Thank you. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Don Davis. Okay. Thank you. Pally Slattery? Okay. Millers? Miller: My name is Leslie Miller and I live at 1950 North Summertree Way. I, again, support everything that's been said up to this point. The access, in my opinion, is completely unacceptable. If you're going to go through our neighborhood, I think you have to live up to our standards and terms of square footage minimum, landscaping minimum. Otherwise, they need to section it off as proposed by the person in front me. Also, we all know soon enough that the intersection at Black Cat and Cherry Lane is going to be extremely busy and adding this many homes right there without that extra access is just asking for trouble. Thank you. Borup: Darrin and Denise Bushy? They must have left. Okay. Mr. Amar, have you got some concluding remarks you'd like to make? Amar: Thank you, Commissioners. I'm surprised it's my turn again already. There is a lot of people here. Again, for the record, my name is Kevin Amar, I'm here to address some of the items that did come up this evening. One of the main issues,. it sounds like this evening, is the access into Golf View Estates and I'm sure you have had a chance to review -- or now I know you have had a chance to review the ACHD report. When we initially went to Ada County Highway District, we did discuss do we take access off of Black Cat or do we take access off of Cherry Lane. As you know, Ada County Highway District is extremely interested in limiting the number of accesses onto arterials and roads that are principally traveled by people. One of the items that came up was if an access is off of Cherry Lane, it's going to be directly across the street from this existing access. Ada County Highway District would rather see a three way stop, meaning this one, we have got this area and this area, than a four way. It is more dangerous to have a four way access than a three way. That is something they have said over and over again. The other item that was brought up is the access at this point is going to provide better traveling access to the general public. I know the neighbors in this audience may not like to hear that, but that road at this location was stubbed there to provide access for this property in the future. Without that road stub that property would not have been allowed to be developed. In talking to Mr. Milliron, who is here this evening, he would like it all to be onion fields still and he would not have to move. He heard a lot about consideration and he lived here before any of the homes were in here and he has a bigger home than 1,800 square feet. So, his concern is if consideration really is granted, Meridian Planning & Zoning October 21,2004 Page 37 of 46 then, consideration should have been granted all around and all of them should have a 25 acre lot. I know that's ridiculous. I know we want to develop. I know we all want to move forward, but what we are doing this evening is providing a subdivision that is extremely compatible with the neighbors. The lots sizes are compatible -- the lot sizes are compatible, it's built within the -- Borup: Wait a minute. You all had your chance and he didn't interrupt you, so let's offer the same thing here. Thank you. Amar: We are - we are simply trying to provide a subdivision that is better for the city. We could have come in, we could have asked for a higher density, it would have been permitted within this zone, we could have asked for a rezone. We are using the existing zoning and we are moving forward with that. Some of the concerns of protect the children and the nice -- the subdivision that Golf View is, I agree, Golf View is a beautiful subdivision. I have been through it. I think it's a nice subdivision. I don't think this is a starter home subdivision. I'm not even sure where that came from. If you look at the projects around there, in Ashford Greens, in Golf View, Cherry Lane Estates, all of those, they are not starter home subdivisions. We intend on being compatible with those -- with those subdivisions. I really -- I guess the main issue that I heard was the access. What we would like to do is keep that access at this point. I think it will be better overall and it will provide better travel for the general public. I'd be happy to answer any other questions that you might have. Borup: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to talk to Kevin about a couple of things here. I think that from the number of people we have here in the audience tonight, that if you would have had a neighborhood meeting prior to submitting this for our consideration, it's possible that you could have come up with some alternate traffic patterns that would have addressed the appearance of a primary access through their subdivision, as opposed to I think stub streets traditionally or typically are secondary access at best. Not necessarily -- in this particular case you have got maybe a third of the lots that will egress onto Black Cat and two-thirds of them will access through this other subdivision. I think that if you would have had a neighborhood meeting, you possibly could have avoided that by taking another look at having a second access, one on Black Cat and one on Cherry Lane. I think that that's probably a better conclusion, but having not had that neighborhood meeting you didn't get that opportunity. I would ask you if you would reconsider having a second access being on Cherry Lane, so that you would have one to Black Cat and one to Cherry Lane, so that your primary access or egress out of this subdivision would not be through the adjacent subdivision. Is that something that you would consider? Amar: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Rohm, in discussions with Ada County Highway District, they requested that we have one access to either Cherry Lane or Black Cat. That was in the preliminary discussion when we were doing the design. What I certainly can consider is relocating that access from Black Cat to Cherry Lane. Meridian Pianning & Zoning October 21. 2004 Page 38 of 46 Rohm: I think that if you were to go back to Ada county and specifically request a second access to an arterial road, you may get some consideration, but if you don't specifically press for that, Ada county, more than likely, is not going to make it a requirement. And I'm not speaking for the Commission, that's just my own belief. I believe that they would take a look at this development and they could see that there would be benefits to your own 83 lot development, as well as the existing neighbors to the east. Would you consider going back to Ada county and requesting a second access, not moving the single access, but have one off Black Cat and Cherry Lane? Borup: Do you need to discuss with your client for little bit? Amar: No. I can make the decision. I guess the concern I have, then, is we have the same -- we can make that request. I'm certain that we can make that request. The concern I have with it is we have sat here tonight and listened to neighbors and said we don't want anybody to drive through our subdivision, when they moved into that subdivision knowing full well there was a stub street to their property. Rohm: Absolutely. There is no question in my mind that the stub street was there with the intent that there would be ingress-egress. It's my opinion that that would be a secondary ingress-egress, not a primary and as you designed your subdivision, that would, then, be a primary egress, not secondary. And I think that there is a possible better way to exit this subdivision via Cherry Lane. That's -- I believe that. Moe: I was just -- just was questioning -- you made a comment that when you had met with ACHD it was on your early design, so they had not really seen your lot layout at the time originally when they discussed whether it be Black Cat or Cherry Lane? Amar: No. They did see the lot layout. Möe They did see it and they did note that, basically, two-thirds of this subdivision is going to get access off the stub street, basically? Amar: They certainly saw this design and saw -- and they requested if we had one access, it would be off of Black Cat. Moe: Well, I agree with Commissioner Rohm, I'm very disappointed that there is not an access onto Cherry Lane, because, quite frankly, I think that's way too much traffic to have to go through a subdivision and -- you know, I realize you made the comment about going off of Black Cat. I live in the area down the way a little bit, I can guarantee you everybody is going to go through that stub street, because they, basically, are going to take a right off Cherry Lane to go into those homes and so the traffic is going to be maximized through that entrance, not the entrance off Black Cat. And so I, too, would hope that we could go back before ACHD and say, look, this is really what we want to do. Meridian Pianning & Zoning October 21. 2004 Page 39 of 46 Amar: I guess for that reason I would request that rather than an additional access, relocate the existing access. You still have the access off of Cherry Lane, it still eliminates the problem that of going through the other subdivision, because you do -- you would have a primary or principal access at this location. So, the need to drive through Golf View would, then, be eliminated, because they can connect at this location. So, what I'm requesting in consideration is that rather than an additional -- Rohm: I think 83 lots deserves two accesses to arterial roads myself. Zaremba: And I would agree. I would support -- my instinct is there ought to be three ways in and out of this, two of them on the arterials and one of them -- that, then, would get very minor use, the current stub street. I have no doubt that it was always the intent that there be a connection to the stub street and that it go somewhere, but I agree with the other Commissioners, to make that -- I live out in that area as well and I know that the people would use that to get to Albertson's, they'd use it to get -- you know, that stub street. And I don't think that's the idea behind stub streets. My preference would be an access to Black Cat, an access to Cherry Lane, and the stub street. If you were only willing to move it forward by giving up the Black Cat one to get the Cherry Lane, I would still see that as a better solution. If you think of where traffic is going to want to go, unless they are going to the LDS church, there really isn't any reason to go out the Black Cat entrance at the moment -- and I'm trying to think of what might develop over the next 20 years that would change that. Borup: Well, traffic studies usually show some traffic to the north, you know, someone going to HP or something, but -- Zaremba: And, eventually, if Highway 16 crosses the river, there will be some reason to go north. Borup: -- generally the traffic is towards the freeway or towards town. Zaremba: My preference would be three accesses, but -- and, again, I think 83 residences supports that. Well, 82, because you would lose one, but -- Moe: Well, not only that, I guess I would have another concern and that would be emergency access. By not having anything up to the north, you're going to bring everything through Cherry Lane to get back to the northern side -- northern end of that property. I think the Black Cat should stay as well, just for any reason for that purpose. Rohm: Well -- and as we have had other subdivisions brought before this Commission in the past, basically what we have made it a requirement is that as -- in 50 lot increments they have multiple accesses and I think that this is kind of in that same vein, that if you have 83 lots, that's a lot of traffic to push out one direction and I think that it alleviates a lot of the concerns that have been brought before us tonight if we could just make that step forward. Other than that, Kevin, your proposal complies with ordinance, it's within the Comprehensive Plan, and I think that it's our job to try and help come up Meridian Planning & Zoning October 21. 2004 Page 40 of 46 with solutions that take into consideration the needs of the community and support development within ordinance as written and I think that that would move a long ways towards resolving many of these issues. Amar: I have said this before and I'll say it again, I want my way all the time and all these neighbors want their way all the time -- everybody wants their own way and I have expressed to this Commission what I would request. I'm not sitting there, I don't hold a vote, and so this, really, is up to this Commission. I do know that we have done numerous subdivisions with this exact same scenario and this board approved those same subdivisions with one access and the other access is through -- through existing subdivisions next door. And, in fact, they were of larger lot size than -- or larger total lots than this one. So, I guess I know what I want, but you guys get to make the decision or the recommendation on what I get. Zaremba: Well, my recollection would be that the stub street in most of those developments wasn't oriented 50 that it was going to end up being the major one and I think our instinct on this one is that this sub street is going to be your major entrance and exit and my personal feeling is that needs to be resolved. Rohm: And I guess to follow that up, I would like to propose to you that that's the direction we go and have some concurrence on your part prior to me making a motion before this Commission and I will tell that I would like you to agree to an additional access to Cherry Lane at North Wale, in addition to the existing access to Black Cat. Would you agree to that -- Borup: Commissioner, I think he has already answered that, how he feels, 50 -- Rohm: But how he feels -- I would like to have a yes or no. Amar: I'll say it again. I don't make the decision. What I want is a single access. Obviously, I am not desirous to lose a lot. If you -- if you are only going to move it forward that way, I don't know that I can make a decision. I can't say anything. Rohm: Thank you. Borup: I think that could be -- that can be in the motion. Any other questions for Mr. Amar from this group -- from the Commission? Okay. We have closed the public testimony portion. Zaremba: Actually, we haven't, but - Borup: Now, we haven't close the public testimony. We have closed the public testimony portion of the hearing. We have concluded. We have concluded. Commissioners? We have concluded the public testimony. As I said at the beginning, after all the public testimony, the applicant has an opportunity to come up and make a rebuttal. This is not a back and forth discussion. Every time someone else talks, then, Meridian Planning & Zoning October 21. 2004 Page 41 of46 he also will come up and has another ten minutes to make another rebuttal and I don't think -- I'm sorry, ma'am. Commissioners? Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Borup: Discussion? Or did we kind of cover a lot of that? Zaremba: I personally am not ready to move it forward with the access going through the neighbors. I agree the stub street needs to be there, but not to have it designed such that it's almost intuitive that it's going to be the primary ingress and egress, I'm not willing to move it forward with that. Moe: The point I just wanted to make is as far as -- as far as the lot sizes and whatnot, quite frankly, it meets the ordinance and such and so, therefore, I have no problem with that. But, again, I'm very much opposed to not having access off Cherry Lane. We definitely need to have that and it needs to be explored, so I don't know whether that means we deny or that we continue this, hoping that the developer will, then, meet with ACHD and get this issue resolved. Zaremba: Technically, to continue we'd have to reopen. We closed the hearing. Moe: But we are just speaking at the present time, so -- Borup: Another option could be approve it with an entrance at that location and have it redesigned before City Council. But, then, we would not have a chance to take another look at it, though. Zaremba: I suspect that once they sit down to do the engineering to put an entrance there, there may be other changes that they wish to make as well and I think we should see those before they go to the City Council. Borup: They may want to reconfigure, you mean? Zaremba: Uh-huh. That may be minor, but my preference would not be to shove it off on City Council, my desire would be to -- Borup: I think they would rather it came to them clean, as we would rather send it to them clean. Zaremba: Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 21, 2004 Page 42 of 46 Moe: I agree. Borup: I just was pointing that out, that third option. Rohm: Why would we not be able to recommend to -- recommend approval with an addition that they would be required to put an additional stub street and, then, it would be clean from this -- from this Commission, anyway, that that's the direction we wanted to see things go. And, then, the City Council could act on it based upon the motion as -- as stated. Borup: That is one of the options. Zaremba: That kind of a change would require a reconsideration by ACHD, because they are going to have to approve the access to Cherry Lane and, again, the traffic patterns and I think the police department and the fire department could look at it again if that changes and I'm hesitant to send things forward to the City Council hoping that it will look different than what we saw. I would like to see the final thing that's going to go to the City Council. Rohm: Okay. Then, continue with recommendations? Can you do that? Zaremba: Yes. If -- the choices would be at this point leave the Public Hearing closed and recommend denial or reopen the Public Hearing, since I don't think anybody has left and there isn't a notice issue, and continue it. And continue it for specific reasons that need to be resolved before we hear it again. Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we reopen the Public Hearing on PP 04-034. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second to reopen the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: I would comment for the record I believe at least 98 percent of the people that have been here are still here and are aware that this Public Hearing is continuous. Rohm: Okay. Now, we need to pick a date. Zaremba: Well, we would want staff to have time with it and we would want ACHD to have time with it, so -- and the applicant needs time to redraw it. Meridian Pianning & Zoning October 21, 2004 Page 43 of 46 Rohm: Okay. Would it be appropriate to ask Mr. Amar how long he would like to have to address known issues? Borup: Mr. Amar. Nary: Mr. Chairman, the ordinance -- just so you and the members of the Commission recall, the ordinance also gives you the authority to require a neighborhood meeting if you wish. Rohm: I believe we have had a neighborhood meeting tonight. Zaremba: I would support the idea of having a separate one. Rohm: That would be fine as well. Borup: Well, that would be a motion that we could make. Moe: It would included in your motion. Borup: Just the input on timing is what we are looking for. Amar: I can get with Ada County Highway District tomorrow in their -- what I have in front of me, the application did not require commission action, it was approved at staff level, so we can get input from the staff as whether this is a change that they will allow or not. So, I think the time frame to get in front of ACHD is tomorrow or Monday. If Andrea Tunning is available. As far as the redesign, pen markings, but I can show you tonight what it's going to look like. It will be a road in lieu of Lot 9, Block 5. That's the one that lines up with North Wells Avenue. As far as any other redesign, I'm not aware of any. Rohm: That would probably change block numbers, too, then, wouldn't it? Amar: It may change block and lot numbers. It will actually add a block. Rohm: It will add a block. Amar: So, if we are going to ask for a continuance, I would I guess ask for a couple weeks. I'm sure that gives more than enough time for everybody to review it. Rohm: Okay. Zaremba: Staff would want ten days after everything is complete and given to them. Borup: Our November 4th meeting is lighter than the 18th. Rohm: Okay. How does the 4th sound? Meridian Planning & Zoning October 21. 2004 Page 44 of 46 Amar: Sounds great. Rohm: This is good. Zaremba: That would be assuming that staff had everything by the 25th. Our staff had everything by the 25th. Rohm: That's kind of an issue, too. As far as the neighborhood meeting, if we could squeeze a neighborhood meeting in prior to the November 4th, I think that that would be in good keeping as well and so -- Amar: When we do neighborhood meetings we give a week's notice prior to the meeting. We can send out notices tomorrow, as staff has already generated the mailing list, that's not a problem. I can hold a neighborhood meeting. Nary: Mr. Chairman, just for the record as well, the ACHD staff report is dated October 15th and the time to appeal indicates in the document ten days from the date of the decision, which by my calendar appears to be the end of -- next Friday, Friday the 29th. So, there is an opportunity to appeal this decision, so the Commission is aware. Rohm: So, that -- the appeal would be on our behalf or on -- Nary: Mr. Amar's. Rohm: Great. Okay. With that being said, Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue this Public Hearing to the hearing date of November 4th, with the following provisions: That the applicant pursue additional ingress-egress off of Cherry Lane and have a neighborhood meeting prior to that scheduled meeting date of November 4th. End of motion. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Borup: I don't think we have ever done this before and I don't know -- you have got an opportunity to announce a meeting -- a neighborhood meeting time. I don't know if it's a little premature to do that or-- Amar: I don't mind announcing a time, I just don't know a location yet, so -- I can certainly announce a time, but as far as a location I'm -- I guess I need to do some research. Can we let this room be the location? Meridian Planning & Zoning October 21, 2004 Page 45 of 46 Nary: Mr. Chairman, yeah, they can use this room if -- you need to check with the city clerk if it's available on the night you'd like. Borup: That would be the only thing if it would be available. Rohm: We will check with the city clerk and we will hold it here and now I can't announce a time. I have to check with the city clerk. Borup: But you're thinking next week? Depending on the clerk's schedule. Amar: Yes, it will be next week and depending on the clerk's schedule -- Borup: Have you got the name of the homeowners association? It looked like everyone here was from Golf View, so -- no? Zaremba: Ashford Greens. Borup: And Ashford Greens. So, the two -- if we have the neighborhood associations of those two -- Amar: Don Burton was the secretary for Golf View and I believe Kathy Henderson represented -- oh, who is the president of both? Is this appropriate to do this at this time? Borup: Well, it's out of the ordinary, but it's -- we have got an opportunity here to probably -- Rohm: I don't think this has to take place on the public -- Borup: You know, I tell you what, we don't have anything else on -- let's go ahead and close the hearing and, then, give you an opportunity to do that. Rohm: Absolutely. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we adjoum. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Borup: Thank you. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:53 P.M. Meridian Pianning & Zoning October 21,2004 Page 46 of 46 (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED KEITH BORUP - CHAIRMAN ATTEST: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR, CITY CLERK _1_1- DATE APPROVED 1239001321. .~ least ten (10) feet on each side Lot line. Eaves, steps and gutters shall not be considered as part of the building for the purpose of this section; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that this shall not be construed to permit any eaves, steps or gutters or any portion of the building on any Lot to encroach upon any other Lot. Open patios shall not be considered as a part of the building, but any open patio which would extend beyond the building lines as herein established shall, prior to constructianr require the approval of the Architectural Control Committee. D. Roofinq. Only shake or tile roofing shall be used on any structure constructed on a Lot unless approved otherwise in writing by the Architectural Control Co~ittee beforehand. 3.3 Architectural Committee Review. No dwelling, garage, . accessory building, fence, wallar other structure on the Property shall be built, erected, placed or materially altered unless and until the plans therefor have been revie~ed in advance by the Architectural co~ittee, and the same have been approved in writingr as more particularly required by Article IV of this Declaration. 3.~ Work Prosecution and Sanctions. Each Owlier covenants and agrees that within six (6) months following the purchase of a Lot from Declàrant, the construction of a dwellL,g Eeeting specifications approved by the Architectural Co~ittee shall be completed thereon, including exterior painting; PRov~D3D, HOWEVER, Declarant may extend such period for causes beyond the control of the Ow~er's builder. 3.5 Landscapinq. All Lot Owliers shall prepare and submit a landscape plan to the Architectural Control CoEmittee, as provided in Article IV hereof. Unless otherwise required by said committee, all portions of a Lot ~hich are un~proved with a dwelling, garage, accessory building or other structure shall be landscaped. Landscaping of the front yard (and street-side yards on corner Lots) including soddL,g and the planting of one ornamental tree of at least,l 1/2" caliper or a pine tree of at least six (6) feet in height, t..'1ree (3) five gallon plants, and five (5) one gallon shrubs shall be co~pleted within forty-five (45) days of substantial completion or occupancy of the dwelling, whichever is earlier. Berms and sculptured planting areas are encouraged. In the event of undue hardship due to weather conditions, this provision may be extended for a reasonable length of time upon w-ritten approval of the Architectural CoIDlnittee. Grass shall be planted in the back yard within six (6) months of occupancy. 3.6 ~. No fence, hedge or boundary wall situated anywhere upon any Lot shall have a height greater than six (6) feet, or such other lesser heights as the Þxchitectural Control Committee may specify, above the finished graded surface of the THrRD AMENDED AND RESTATED DEC4~~TrON FOR GOLF vrEW ESTATES SUBDrVrSIoN - 6 RECEIVED NOV _.~ 2ùu~ City of Meridian City Clerk Office CITY OF MERIDIAN PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET November 4, 2004 ITEM # 5 DATE PROJECT NUMBER PP 04-034 PROJECT NAME Milliron Subdivision -7 EOR AGAINST NEUTRAL ~ v"" V . I PP 04-034 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8. ZONING MEETING October 21 , 2004 APPLICANT Dyver Development, LLC ITEM NO. REQUEST Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat approval for 83 single-family residential building lots and 5 common lots on 25.86 acres in an R-4 zone for Milliron Subdivision NEC of North Black Cat Road and West Cherry Lane 11 AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY See attached stan comments CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: No comment See attached comments See attached comments L ovfu fWV ?l~ 10 \\J¥~ MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: See attached comments ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: See attached comments See attached comments IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: ~ contactedJ'AlkùJ\f\.. '\I \ Olili Emailed: Date: ~ Staff Initials: Phone:1~ g-~g /12 Materials presented at pubDc meetings shag become properly of the City ot Meridian. c::::lfe;¡ dfân IDAHO j MAYOR Tammy do Ween! CITY COUNCn. MEMBERS Keith Bird Shauo Wardle CharI.. M. Rounttee CITY HALL (208) 888-4433 - Fax 887-4813 PUBUCWORKS BUILDING DEPARTMENT (208) 887-2211 - Fax 898-9551 LEGAL DEPARTMENT (208) 466-9272 - FAX 466-4405 STAFF REPORT: Transmittal Date: October 18, 2004 P&Z Hearing Date: October 21,2004 To: Mayor, City Council and Planning & Zoning Commission Brad Hawkins-Clark, Principal City Planner~{.: Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager~ Mllliron Place Subdivision . Preliminary Plat for Eighty-three (83) Single Family Residential Building Lots and Five (5) Common Lots on 25.86 Acres in an R-4 Zone, by Dyver Development, LLC (File No. PP-O4-034). From: Re: We have reviewed the above referenced submittals RDd otTer the foRowing comments, as conditions of approval. These conditions shall be considered in full, unless expressly modified or deleted by motion of the Meridian City Council: APPLICATIONS SUMMARY The applicant, Dyver Development, LLC, has applied for preliminary plat approval of 83 building lots and five (5) common lots on 25.86 acres ofland on the northeast comer ofN. Black Cat Road and W. Cherry Lane. The property was annexed in the 1970's and is presently zoned R-4. The land is designated as Medium Density Residential on the 2002 Future Land Use Map. No variances or exceptions to the Zoning or Subdivision Ordinances are proposed. The proposed building lots range in size from 8,000 square feet up to 26,504 square feet (for the existing residence). Approximately 1.4 acres (5.51%) of the subdivision is usable open space, the majority of which is located within the pocket park in Block 2. The gross density of the project is 3.21 dwelling units per/acre. This complies with the Comprehensive Plan future land use designation of Medium Density Residential (up to 8 dulacre). The subdivision is proposed to be constructed in two phases, beginning in the northern half. The preliminary plat shows a new public street access to N. Black Cat Road and proposes to extend one existing stub street (W. White Birch Dr.) which exists on the east boundary in Golf View Estates. No new public street access is proposed to W. Cherry Lane. The ACHD Commission approved Milliron Subdivision at their October 13, 2004 meeting. Staff is recommending approval of the preliminary plat application with conditions. PJ>-O4.034 Milliron Pl""pp Planning & Zoning CommissionlMayor & City Council October 21, 2004 (p&Z Hearing Date) Page 2 LOCATION The property is located on the northeast corner ofN. Black Cat Road and W. Cherry Lane. It is located in Township 3 N., Range I w., Section 3. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES North: Golf View Estates No.5, zoned R-4. West: Three (3) unplatted parcels with single family residences, zoned RUT (Ada Co.) and a church, zoned L-O. East: Golf View Estates No.4, zoned R-4. South: Blackstone Subdivision, zoned R-4. OWNERS OF RECORD The property owners of record are Ricky and Kathy Milliron. Both individuals have signed an affidavit granting their consent for the submission of the preliminary plat application. PRELIMINARY PLAT FINDINGS AND REOUIREMENTS Sections 12-3-3 1.2 and 12-3-5 D read as follows: "In detennining the acceptance of a proposed subdivision, the Commission/Council shall consider the objectives of this title and at least the following: a. The conformance of the subdivision with the Comprehensive Development Plan; Staff finds that the proposed application is in substantial compliance with the adopted Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan (Chapter VII), which designates the property as Medium Density Residential. The proposed density, 3.21 du/ acre (gross), is in compliance with the land use classification. The applicant's cover letter (from Shawn Nickel, dated August 13, 2004) lists six specific policies from Chapter VI and vn that support the application. b. The availability of public services to accommodate the proposed development; Staff finds that public services are available to accommodate the proposed development if all conditions of approval are met by the applicant. c. The continuity of the proposed development with the capital improvement program; Staff finds that construction of the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. All major infrastructure improvements are being funded by the developer. PP-<J"" _PI""," Planning & Zoning CommissionlMayor & City Council October 21, 2004 (p&Z Hearing Date) Page 3 d. The public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Staff recommends the Commission and Council rely upon comments ITom the public service providers (i.e. police, fire, ACHD, etc) to determine this finding. However, representatives ITom Meridian Fire Department and Meridian Parks & Recreation Department attended the agency comments meeting on September 24, 2004 and recommended approval ofthe subdivision with conditions (noted below). Staff also finds that municipal sewer and water services are adjacent to the subject property and available to seNe the subdivision. e. The other health, safety or environmental problems that may be brought to the Commission's attention. Staff does not find any other health, safety or environmental problems present on the subject property at this time. PRELIMINARY PLAT SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS A Side Yard Setbacks on N. Tessa Ave.: MCC 11-9-1 requires a minimum street side setback of20 feet within the R-4 zone. A$ proposed, Lot 14, Block 2 is below the 20-foot minimum street side setback on the east side ofN. Tessa Ave. Even though this lot meets the 5-foot side yard setback within the lot, it does not meet the intent of the code regarding the street side setback dimension. Staff is recommending the common landscape lot (Lot 9, Block 2) be widened to at least 15 feet east ofN. Tessa Ave. to meet the intent ofMCC 11-9-1. (See Site Specific Condition #3.) B. Design of Lot 9. Block 2: At the time of issuance of this staff report, the Meridian Police Department had not commented on the application. However, P&Z staff recommends the applicant coordinate with the Police ChiefBìll Musser regarding the restricted sight comdor into the southeast comer of Lot 9, Block 2. There is a potential "dead space" for approximately 80 feet where the lot tapers. No fencing details were provided for this lot. If the applicant proposes open-vision fencing around the perimeter, the concern is likely addressed. C. Settlers Canal Access Road: At the P&Z Commission public hearing, applicant shall clarify how the existing gravel access road for the Settlers Canal along the north property line will be accessed and treated. Applicant should also discuss fencing details along the north property line and, specifically, if the fence will be located north or south of the gravel road. SITE SPECIFIC CONDmONS OF APPROVAL (PRELIMINARY PLAT) 1. The vacation of the existing Idaho Power Co. power line easement shall be approved by all applicable agencies prior to the City Engineer signature of the final plat for Phase 1. _PI,,",PP pp-M-Q34 Planning & Zoning CommissionlMayor & City Council October 21, 2004 (p&Z Hearing Date) Page 4 2. 3. 4. The minimum street ftontage for Lots 5 and 7, Block 1 shall be widened to a minimum of 40 feet. Lot 9, Block 2 shall be widened to a minimum of 15 feet between the west property line of Lot 14, Block 9 and the N. Tessa Ave right-of-way line. In accordance with MCC ll-IO-4.A, Preliminary Plat Note No.9 shall be revised to require a minimum house size of 1,400 square feet, not 1,301 as currently written. 5. Prior to City Engineer signature of the final plat, submit a copy of an executed license agreement with Settlers Irrigation District that allows the encroachment of the Settlers Canal, Milliron Lateral and the Stewart Lateral easements, unless otherwise waived by the City Engineer. 6. All fencing within the subdivision shall comply with MeC 12-4-10 and 12-13-15-9, as applicable. The developer shall construct the micropath fence on Lot 6, Block I prior to release of any Certificate of Occupancy within Phase I. 7. The conceptual landscape plan submitted with the preliminary plat (Sheets L-I thru 1..-2, dated 8/1/04 by The Land Group, Inc.) is approved with the following changes: a. Revise Lot 6, Block I to show a minimum of one deciduous tree per 35 lineal feet within the common lot. No evergreen or Class ill trees are permitted in this lot. b. Where applicable, callout the type and height of perimeter fencing along the north and east property lines. c. Applicant/contractor shall ensure all trees are located in such a manner as to not create a conflict with the gravity drainage line shown in Lot 22, Block 5 (the Cherry Ln. street buffer). 8. All areas being counted toward the 5% open space requirement shall be ftee of "wet ponds" or other such nuisances. All stormwater detention facilities incorporated into the required open space are subject to Ordinance 12-13-14 and shall be fully vegetated with grass and trees, as depicted on the submitted landscape plans. 9. Please submit all up-to-date groundwater monitoring data to the Public Works Department for review. The initial study indicates tb4t groundwater may be a factor. All drainage areas (detention/retention basins) must be designed to ensure that water will percolate or discharge within a period of time not to exceed 24 hours for all storms up to and including a 100-year storm event. Side slopes within drainage areas shall not exceed 3:1. The project engineer should pay close attention to the results of field studies determining the groundwater, soil type & and characteristics during the design and construction phases. The engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of3-feet above the highest established normal groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least I-foot above groundwater. ......." ~P1",," Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council October 21, 2004 (p&Z Hearing Date) Page 5 10. 11. 12. Sanitary sewer service to this project will be ITom mains installed in N. Black Cat Road. The applicant wi11 be responsible to construct sewer mains to and through this proposed development. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. Applicant shall execute City of Meridian standard forms of easements, for any mains that are required to provide service. Portions of this development shall be subject to latecomers fees to reimburse those responsible for extending sewer service into the area. Latecomer fees shall be due and payable prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Domestic water service to this site shall be via main line extensions from mains installed adjacent to the property. The applicant will be responsible to construct water mains to and through this proposed development. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. Applicant shall execute City of Meridian standard forms of easements, for any mains that are required to provide service. The applicant has not indicated who will own and operate the pressurized irrigation system within this development. Underground year-round pressurized irrigation must be provided to all lots within this development. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water. If the pressurized irrigation system within this development is to remain a private homeowners' association system, complete plans and specifications shall be reviewed by the Public Works Department as part of the development plan review process. A draft copy of the pressurized irrigation system O&M manual shall be submitted prior to plan approval. The Applicant shall be required to utilize any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer shall be responsible for the payment of 8.&sessments for the common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. 13. Applicant shall submit 10 copies ofrevised plat prior to the City Council public hearing on this application. STANDARD CONDIDONS OF APPROVAL (PRELIMINARY PLATI 1. All grading ofthe site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2. Sidewalks shall be installed within the subdivision and on the perimeter of the subdivision pursuant to MCC 12-13-10-8. 3. Please submit with the final plat application a copy of the Ada County Street Name Committee's approva1letter for the subdivision name, and the lot and block numbering. Make any corrections necessary to conform. J'P-04.034 MillinmPlooe.PP Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council October 21, 2004 (p&Z Hearing Date) Page 6 4. 7. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all fencing, landscaping, pressurized irrigation, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to signature on the final plat. 5. A detailed landscape and fencing plan, in compliance with the landscape and subdivision ordinance, shall be submitted for the subdivision with the final plat application. 6. Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian Public Works Department. Two-hundred-fifty and one-hundred-watt, high-pressure sodium streetlights will be required at locations designated by the Public Works Department. All streetlights shall be installed at subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants. Final design locations and quantity are determined after power designs are completed by Idaho Power Company. The street light contractor shall obtain design and permit ITom the Public Works Department prior commencing installations. 8. Any tree over 4" in caliper that is removed ITom the property shall be replaced by installing additional trees, being the equivalent number of caliper inches of trees that were removed. Required landscaping trees will not be considered as replacement trees for those trees that have to be mitigated. 9. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be removed ITom their domestic service per City Ordinance Sectipn 9-1-4 and 9-4-8. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. 10. Compaction test results must be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. 11. Applicant's engineer will be required to submit a signed, stamped statement certifying that all street finish centerline elevations are set a minimum of three feet above the highest established nonnal groundwater elevation. MERIDIAN FIRE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS 1. One and two family dwellings will require a flre-flow of 1,000 gallons per minute available for duration of 2 hours to service the entire project. Fire hydrants shall be placed an average of 400' apart. International Fire Code Appendix D. 2. Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department. a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 'Ii' outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle. b. The Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it. c. Fire hydrant marlcers shall be provided per Public Works spec. d. Locations with flre hydrants shall have the curb painted red 10' to each side of the hydrant location. e. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on comers. f Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'. p...."" Milliron'","," Plaruûng & Zoning CommissionlMayor & City Council October 21, 2004 (P&Z Hearing Date) Page 7 3. The phasing plan may require that any roadway greater than 150' in length that is not provided with an outlet shall be required to have an approved turn around. 4. Operational fire hydrants and temporary or permanent street signs are required before combustible construction begins. s. The roadways shall be buih to Ada County Highway Standards and shall have a clear driving surface, available at all times, which is 20' wide. Streets with less than a 29' street width, face of curb to face of curb, shall have no parking. Streets with less than 33' shall have parking only on one side. All entrance and internal roads shall have a turning radius of28' inside and 48' outside radius. 6. The proposed 83 lot subdivision with an estimated 2.9 residents per household would have a total estimated population of 241 residents at build out. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed preliminary plat with the conditions noted above. '.......,34 MiIliron-.PP MAYOR Tammy de Weerd LEGAL DEPARTMENT (208) 466-9272 . FAX 466-4405 PARKS & RECREATION (208) 888-3579' Fax 898-5501 PUBLIC WORKS (208) 898-5500' Fax 887-1297 CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Shaull Wardle William L. M. Nary Charles M. Rountree Keith Bird BUILDING DEPARTMENT (208) 887-2211' Fax 887-1297 PLANNING & ZONING (208) 884-5533 . Fax 888-6854 TRANSMITTALS TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City clerk's Office AUn: Will Berg, City Clerk, by: October 14, 2004 Transmittal Date: September 14,2004 Hearing Date: October 21,2004 File No.: PP 04-034 Request: Preliminary Plat approval for 83 single-family residential building lots & 5 common lots on 25.86 acres in an R-4 zone for Milliron Subdivision By: Dyver Development, LLC Location of Property or Project: NEC of North Black Cat Road & West Cherry Lane Meridian School District (No FP) Meridian Post Office (FP/PPonly) Ada County Highway District Ada County Development Services Central District Health Nampa Meridian Irrig. District Settlers Irrigation District Idaho Power CO. (FP/PP only) Owest (FP/PP only) Intermountain Gas (FP/PP only) Bureau of Reclamation (FP/PP only) Idaho Transportation Department (No FP) Ada County Land Records Meridian Development Corporation Historical Preservation Commission David Zaremba, P/Z (No FP) David Moe, P/Z (No FP) Wendy Newton-Huckabay, P/Z (NoFP) Michael Rohm, P/Z (NoFP) Keith Borup, PIZ (No FP) Tammy de Weerd, Mayor Bill Nary, CIC Charlie Rountree, CIC Keith Bird, CIC Shaun Wardle, CIC Water Department Sewer Department Sanitary Service (No VAR. VAG, FP) Building Department Fire Department Police Department City Attorney City Engineer City Planner Parks Department x: Your Concise Remarks: ht-~~~~ ~~:& RECEIVED SEP 24 2004 City of Meridian City Clerk Office 33 EAST IDAHO AVENUE. MERIDIAN. IDAHO 83642 . (208) 888-4433 City Clerk Office Fax (208) &88-4218 . Human Resources Fax (208) 884-8723 . Finance & Utility Billing Fax (208) 887-4813 CcJ~Ä'O; * D¡SI,>¡~>. " , Piepmin, g , ~ .S Today', 0 .Q ~~':::i;::w~~i 'N Challenge, 6' o'"c. , 'Ogle. Joint School District No.2 911 Meridian Road. Meridian, Idaho 83642 . (208) 855-4500 . Fax (208) 888-6700 SUPERINTENDENT Dr. Linda Clark September 16, 2004 RECEIVED SEP 20 2004 City of Meridian City Clerk Office City of Meridian 33 East Idaho Meridian, Idaho 83642 Dear Planners: The Meridian School District has experienced phenomenal student growth the last ten years. The high schools, middle schools, and elementary schools throughout the district are operating over capacity. Approval of Millron Subdivision will have a significant impact on school enrollments at Chaparral Elementary. Meridian Middle. and Meridian High School. We can predict that these homes, when completed, will house twenty-two (22) elementary aged children, twenty-five (25) middle school aged children, and twenty-three (23) senior high aged students. Additional students will further compound the current overcrowded situation. Residents cannot be assured of attending the neighborhood school, as it may be necessary to bus students to other schools across the district. School capacity is addressed in Idaho Code 67-6508. The Meridian School District is' currently operating beyond capacity. Future development will continue to have an impact on the district's capacity. If you have any questions, please contact me at 855-4500. Sincerely, ~#- Wendel Bigham Supervisor of Facilities and Construction ~ CENTRAL CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT \:Ö'B~6LI~ Environmental Health Division Rezone # Conditional Use # Preliminary / Final/Short ~ f ~ ðtj- C>. if ¡p1 ILl. J ¡( 0 AI ~<)uA (Jjl/iS/ l>tJ RECEIVED SEP 2 4 2004 Return to: 0 Boise 0 Eagle 0 Garden City )( Meridian 0 Kuna OACZ 0 Star City of Meridian City Clerk Office 01. 02. 03. 04. 05, 06. 07. 'fa ~. We have No Objections to this Proposal. We recommend Denial of this Proposal. Specific knowledge as to the exact type of use must be provided before we can comment on this Proposal. We will require more data concerning soil conditions on this Proposal before we can comment. Before we can comment concerning individual sewage disposal, we will require more data concerning the depth of: 0 high seasonal ground water 0 waste flow characteristics 0 or bedrock from original grade 0 other This office will require a study to assess the impact of nutrients and pathogens to receiving ground waters and/or surface waters. This project shall be reviewed by the Idaho Departm~nt of Water Resources concerning well construction and water availability. After written approval from appropriate entitles are submitted, we can approve this proposal for: ~ centrai sewage 0 community sewage system 0 community water well 0 interim sewage }t central water 0 individual sewage 0 Individual water The following plan(s) must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality: þit central sewage 0 community sewage system 0 community water 0 sewage dry lines Jt! centrai water ~10. Run-off is not to create a mosquito breeding probiem. 0 11. This Department would recommend deferral until high seasonal ground water can be determined if other considerations indicate approval. 012. If restroom facilities are to be installed, then a sewage system MUST be installed to meet Idaho State Sewage Regulations. 0 13. We will require plans be submitted for a plan review for any: 0 food establishment 0 swimming pools or spas 0 beverage establishment 0 grocery store 0 child care center ~14, Please see attached stormwater management recommendatations 015. Date:!d~~ Reviewed By: ø r1Ic CDHD9IOO1", Review Sheet RECEIVED SEP 2 7 2004 City of Meridian City Clerk Olfi~. ~ & ~ 1~ 'Di4tIUa 1503 FiRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395 FAX # 208-463-0092 22;S~tember, 2004 phones: Areo Code 208 OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861 SHOP: Nampa 466-0663 William G. Berg If. City Clerk ~"",ÇilY--2~,'lY--2," '-' ., '",' '~~AVë. Meridian, ID83642 RE: PP 04-034/MilliroD Subdivision Dear Will: If all storm drainage is retained on-site there will be no impact on Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District and no further review will be required. However, if any surface drainage leaves the site, the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District requires a Land Use Change Application be filed for review prior to final platting. Please contact Donna Moore at 466-7861 for further information. All laterals and waste ways must be protected. The developer must comply with Idaho Code 31-3805. It is recommended that irrigation water be made available to all developments within the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District. Thank you, ~~!~ Asst. Water Superintendent Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District BH/dbg c: Water Superintendent File - Office/Shop APPROXiMATE iRRiGABlE ACRES RIVER FLOW RiGHTS - 23,000 BOiSE PROJECT RiGHTS 40.000 RECEIVED SEP 27 2004 C;~""",;." ~COP~ City Clerk Office ~&~I)' . ~ ua 1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395 FAX # 208-463-0092 24 September 2004 Phones: Area Code 208 OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861 SHOP: Nampo 466-0663 David Bailey Bailey Engineering, Inc. 1117 E. Plaza Drive, Suite F . ---.. . Eagle¡ID83616 Land Use Change Application - Milliron Subdivision Please note the District now reQuires three (3) sets of plans Dear Mr. Bailey: RE: Enclosed please find a Land Use Change Application for your use to file with the Irrigation District for its review on the above-referenced development. If this development is under a "rush" to be finalized, I would recommend that you submit a cashier's check, money order or cash as payment of the fees in order to speed the process up. If you submit a company or personal check, it must clear the bank before processing the application. Should this development be planning a pressure urban irrigation system that will be owned, operated and maintained by the Irrigation District, I strongly urge you to coordinate with John P. Anderson, Water Superintendent for the Irrigation District, conceming the installation of the pressure system. Enclosed is a questionnaire that you must fill out and return in order to initiate the process of contractual agreements between the owner or developer and the Irrigation District for the ownership, operation and maintenance of the pressure urban irrigation system. If you have any questions concerning this matter, plea~e feel¡ free to call on me at the District's office, or John P. AnderSon, at the District's shop. Sincerely, ~!~~- NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT DNMlsmc cc: File Water Superintendent Will Berg, City Clerk, Meridian City Dyver Development, LLC, 114 E. Idaho St., Suite 230, Meridian, ID83642 Shawn L. Nickel, Land Consultants, Inc., 52 N. 2nd Street, Eagle, ID 83616 Ricky & Kathy Milliron, 4450 W. Cherry Lane, Meridian, ID 83642 Centennial Development, LLC, 114 E. Idaho St., Suite 230, Meridian, ID 83642 enc. APPROXIMATE IRRiGABLE ACRES RiVER FLOW RiGHTS - 23.000 BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS - 40,000 PO BOX 7571 PHONE, 344-2471 COpy SETTLERS' IRRIGATION DISTRICT BOISE. IDAHO 83707~' 57 i FAX: 343-1642 September 16,2004 RECEIVED SEP 7 2004 City of Meridian CIty Clerk Office Shawn Nickel Land Consultants 52 N. 2nd Street Eagle, Id 83616 ~ -~~~~- -~-~ -Re:-~l'I'O4,O3A l'reliminary .platforMilliron.subdi~_- ~ -~ -- -- -, -~- - ~ -~--~ Dear Mr. Nickel: After review of the Preliminary plat of the above-mentioned application Settlers Irrigation District requests the following: I. All irrigation/drainage facilities along with their easements must be protected and continue to function. The facilities involved are the Settler's Canal (30' easement), Milliron Lateral (20' easement), and the Stewart Lateral (20' easement). 2. A Land Use Change Application must be on file prior to any approvals. 3. A license agreement MUST be signed and recorded prior to construction of any S.LD. facilities, or within its easements. ' 4. Any changes to the existing irrigation system such as relocation, tiling, and landscaping must be approved by Settlers Irrigation District. 5. All stonn drainage must be retained on-site 6. The development must supply irrigation access to all lots within the above-mentioned subdivision. If the developer wishes to have Settlers Irrigation District own, operate, and maintain the pressure irrigation system an agreement needs to be in place prior to the pre- construction meeting. 7. This property is also located within Settlers Irrigation District. If you have any questions please call 343-5271. S~4elLf:) /~~ Nathan Draper, Manager Settlers Irrigation District Enclosures Cc: Will Berg, City of Meridian (w/o enclosures) Bruce Freckleton (w/o enclosures) Scott Campbell (w/o enclosures) CITY OF MERIDIAN PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET October 21,2004 ITEM # 11 DATE PROJECT NUMBER PP 04-034 PROJECT NAME Milliron Subdivision FOR AGAINST NEUTRAL x L " '1 I!y¡¿jerso/l. .v- %t:~~:J:v s~ ~ f'\i7"""" ~d<eI5D '\ ~~~t. " O\(~ ~