Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 6, 2005 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning January 6. 2005 Page 35 of 54 Rohm: Well, we all have -- Borup: It really doesn't have anything to do with this application. I realize that. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Sorry. Zaremba: The motion forthe AUP for five children was carried four to one. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES, ONE NAY. Zaremba: And we have had a suggestion that we have a short break and I think this is probably a good time. We will take about five minutes and we will reconvene. (Recess.) Item 8: Public Hearing: PP 04-040 Request to amend the Preliminary Plat (PP 02-006) to add six additional building lots in location that were previously platted as storm drainage ponds for Tuscany Lakes Subdivision (Amended) by Tuscany Development, Inc. - south of East Victory Road and west of South Eagle Road: Zaremba: Ladies and gentlemen, all Commissioners have returned and we will reconvene the meeting and go on to Item No.8, which is a Public Hearing on PP 04- 040, request to amend the preliminary plat, which was originally PP 02-006, to add six additional building lots in locations that were previously platted as storm drainage ponds for Tuscany Lake Subdivision Amended, by Tuscany Development, Inc., south of East Victory Road and west of South Eagle Road. And we will begin with staff comments. Wilson: Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission, the application before you is for Tuscany Lakes Subdivision preliminary plat to amend it to add six additional building lots. Some background. On August 13th, 2002, the Meridian City Council approved the preliminary plat of Tuscany Lakes Subdivision, with 455 build-able lots, with a gross density of 2.4 units per acre, 38 common lots, and one school lot. The subject property was also granted a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development. That included reduced frontage requirements, block length modifications, and modifications of sidewalk requirements. This property is designated medium density residential on the Comprehensive Plan map and this new -- this revised preliminary plat does include six additional lots, which range .in size from approximately 10,000 square feet to 29,000 square feet. Some special considerations of the application were the amount of -- that the amount of open space not be reduced to such a point that it was below what was required. The approved preliminary plat that went through City Council had a total of 18 acres of open space, which was approximately 9.4 percent of the gross acreage. This preliminary plat -- and you will have to excuse me, these numbers are off of a previous lot configuration and the applicant has submitted a new lot configuration for one of the lots. Numbers will be slightly larger. They, actually, increased the open space a little bit with those revisions. But the calculations that I did at the time, they were reducing the Meridian Pianning & Zoning January 6.2005 Page 36 of 54 open space by approximately .9 acres. So it's actually -- they are actually reducing it by a little bit less than that now with the revised plans and maybe the applicant could speak to some exact numbers. But the amount of open space still remains well above the five percent minimum required. Another concern is the amenities for the subdivision, since it was a planned development. They do provide a tot lot with active open space on Lot 53, Block 1, and there does not appear to be a loss or a reduction in the neighborhood amenities as part of this revised -- this revised preliminary plat. I think I will go into maybe some specifics about a couple of the areas. The area on the screen now is Lot 53, Block 1. This is the one that was actually reconfigured by the applicant. There is some concerns with this lot as far as visibility by the police department. They don't like blind corners in open space lots like this and, as you can see, there are a couple areas that the police department would have some difficulty seeing, being this rear corner from this street here, that's a -- kind of a blind comer there. And from this street here they would also have some difficulty seeing back into there. Because of this -- and this did not make it in the staff report, but a condition that we are recommending is that those two property lines -- north property line on Lot 54 and the south property line on -- I believe that's Lot 38, be restricted to transparent wrought iron fencing to help the police department with those visibility concerns back into those blind corners. And also that Lot 53 would be designated un-build-able due to inadequate street frontage. You can see that it has very minimal actual street frontage there and does not meet the requirements, so it would be designated an un-build-able lot. The second section here, it's a little bit more difficult to see, but -- let's see. I believe if I can find a map I can read here. Sorry for the delay. Concerning Lots 22 and 23 -- and those are Block 7. And also Lots 7 and 8 -- the applicant has reconfigured the lot that is adjacent to the c- to the -- I guess the Ten Mile Lateral to reconfigure the lot to plat a build-able lot and also leave some open space there and, then, the couple of lots further to the east has actually changed configuration there to add a couple of lots as well. This drainage .Iot that's being reconfigured is quite a bit more straightforward. It was one large rectangular lot and is proposed to be divided into the three lots here. I think Bruce might speak a little bit to the specifics of the drainage, but the reason for the platting of these lots that were formally drainage lots -- platting them now as residential lots, ACHD has changed their policy in what type of drainage is allowed, going from drain - storm- water retention ponds in these locations to a drainage system that consists of swales along the subdivision streets. It's my understanding that the wet ponds were determined to not be an efficient means of draining this property and that these swales along the streets will do a better job of handling the drainage for the subdivision, which, apparently, is a little bit problematic in this area of the city, it has a high water table and some drainage problems. ACHD has given approval for the applicant to have one tree within these drainage swales at each property line intersection, which can be -- it's a little bit hard to describe that in words, but, basically, where each property line intersects the ACHD right of way here, they are allowed to have their one tree at that intersection and we would recommend that as -- and it's part of the conditions of approval, that those trees be limited to class one or class two species due to concerns over size and ACHD's concerns for maintenance of that dedicated right of way. And with that I will end my comments and see if Mr. Freckleton has anything to add. Okay. So, with that one staff comment -- Meridian Planning & Zoning January 6, 2005 Page 37 of 54 Zaremba: Commissioners, questions? Rohm: Could you expand on that -- what was that last comment, the species one or two? Wilson: Yes, I can. The City of Meridian in our landscape ordinance adopted -- I believe it's a publication by the city of Boise in regards to tree species that are appropriate for planting, broken into class one, two, and three, three being extremely large trees that -- the largest oaks, maples, and beeches and things of such that they become extremely large, would pose maintenance problems and in the limited space of the right of way are not appropriate, so the class ones and twos, would recommend it be restricted to those. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: I would appreciate a clarification. You made the comment about some ACHD requirements. The only thing I have from ACHD in my packet is their November 9 letter where they clearly state that their staff is not approving roadside swale and go on that there needs to be a further application. Or are you referencing something later than November 9? Wilson: The ACHD approval I referenced was just the trees and the drainage swale, you know, and that was a conversation with the director of the design review of ACHD. I guess I wasn't actually aware of ACHD's comments that you just stated. Zaremba: I assume we all have that in our packets. Borup: Well, my understanding is that the letter is not the approval, that there needs to be a formal process for the approval, which we don't have. Wilson: I'll let the applicant address their conversation with ACHD as far as what ACHD is requiring from them. Zaremba: Okay. Any questions at the present time from the Commissioners? Okay. Let's have the applicant come up, please. Brown: For the record, Kent Brown, 1800 West Overland, Boise, Idaho. I guess a little background. After our approval we started through the process of start getting different phases of the final plat approved and trying to get those on as the demand required. When we came to Messina Hills 2, if you could show the overall, Josh, I'd appreciate it. Messina Hills 2 is the portion that's on this drawing -- basically, it's everything that's located in Messina Hills 1. This is one and two of Village One and it's the remaining piece on the east side of the Ridenbaugh Canal. As we brought that to the City Council, the Council discussed with us what's on your revised drawing as Lot 53 and that portion of 53 and 54 where we were trying to take that storm draining pond, as we discussed Meridian Planning & Zoning January 6. 2005 Page 38 of 54 with the City Council, that layout, we informed them with our original approval we showed that being a wet pond, we would do everything possible to make it not a wet pond, but it looked like it was going to be a wet pond and we wanted to make them aware of that. We mirrored the approval with Public Works Department for sewer lines and water lines for their street approval and, then, got called in by the highway district that they wanted to talk to us about our pond and that they didn't want to approve a wet pond and they are the ones that suggested to us that we use this roadside swale. It's a new policy that they have had, they use it almost on every development that they do in Star, for example, in a couple over there. Their entire subdivision in and around there, Steven Springs is a good example of that one just recently went in, where every street I in the subdivision has these roadside swales and the reason is because of the high ground water. The other place that the highway district allows these is in areas of the basalt. So, in the Kuna area they would allow them and they are also allowing them in what we would consider a rural or estate type densities. Their problem of the past has been with these roadside swales is residential builders filling them in, landscaping them, and, then, not having a swale. And they believe that they have a mechanism for this. I think that when it proves out, realistically, I think this is the trend of the future. What you end up with not having concentration to one spot by channeling in your curb and gutter and taking water, making your streets go up and down to move the water throughout the development. The city of Nampa has adopted the roadside swale and mandates that you put it and you have to ask special permission not to do it in Nampa. And so it's a common practice. Rohm: Those are just small collectors? Brown: It's just -- what we would, growing up, call borrow pits, but they are -- they are not as deep, they are -- basically, what they are is eight foot wide at the top, three feet down, and they are requiring -- you can see on our preliminary plat drawing the cross section that shows the swale there. The thing that makes this really work is that there is a continuous gravel trench that runs through the whole thing and each builder has to deposit 500 dollars -- actually, the developer deposits 500 dollars and upon the occupancy of the house, the developer or the builder can get that money back when they are assured that they haven't filled it in, because of the previous problems. After we went through this and it literally cost us a month of time, because we had to redraw the plans, get the sewer laterals deep enough to go underneath the swales. I think the Public Works department did their efforts to try to make this happen, but it was probably one of the first ones that they did. The Messina Meadows -- or the Messina Hills property number two, they are constructed, they are in, and they have signed off on that -- the highway district has signed that plat. The only reason I haven't recorded that plat is the modification that we are here today trying to get that one extra building lot and so it's .constructed. They signed off on it, which is typical, because they are using it all over the place. One of the things that we have done -- when you look at this area right here, we are trying to get this as a building lot and, then, leave the. rest as open space. Where we are taking this area that was going to be a pond here, we are adding a clubhouse and pool. I have an elevation drawing showing this is what they are looking for the clubhouse and the pool would sit behind and the parking. If you look at this Meridian Planning & Zoning January 6. 2005 Page 39 of 54 really close on your drawing, you can see the clubhouse right up here in the northwest corner, the pool sitting behind, and some parking. That's an added common area lot that wasn't there before that we have added to the development. We have tried to -- in changing what we have done is we have tried to provide more active space than what this passive space that we had before, hoping that the ponds would be dry and that they have multiple uses. So, what we have provided is where we had a large rectangular pond on Lot 54 and 53, now we have a tot lot that would be an active space. We are providing a clubhouse. The other two areas that are up here, they were active, but they also had ponds in them before, now the active part is the pedestrian trail. With our original approval we provided a trail system that goes along our ponds and comes through here, walks down, and, then, along the Ten Mile. You can do loops in there on that. That was a part of our original approval and we are retaining that by the open space that we leave in there. Moe: Well, what are you anticipating doing with Lot 23, as far as access into the lot and whatnot when you're walking path goes right through it? Is that not going to be a build- able lot? Brown: Twenty-three will be the open space lot. Lot 22 will be that one that we have added. Moe: Okay. Brown: And Lot 12 is the one that we have added. Lot 8 is the common area. Moe: Thank you. Brown: We are in agreement with all the conditions, including the wrought iron fencing on Lot 53. We have used wrought iron against the Ten Mile and against our ditches where the Nampa-Meridian's -- when I explained it to my client, he says we will put that in. That's -- we don't know that that's really going to take care of it. There is still going to be a site concern when you consider that they build a house and they build it to their setbacks, which -- I mean they always do and there is -- Newton-Huckabay: May I ask a question on that. On Lot -- we are talking about Block 53? Brown: Yes, ma'am. Newton-Huckabay: And it may not be particularly for you, but is there an option for some other amenity, other than a tot lot, something that might attract a little bit older child, rather than -- maybe like a basketball court or a tennis court or -- Brown: We have a basketball court just right up here, just to the north of that. That was what we put up there. I mean a basketball court is real cheap, we will put in a basketball court, but -. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 6. 2005 Page 40 of 54 Newton-Huckabay: I would just be concerned as a parent with young children, even with wrought iron fencing; I would be concerned about a tot lot that, you know, attracts -- Brown: My client wanted to put in a basketball court and I told him that you probably should do something a little more upgrade, but we would be happy to put in a basketball court. Newton-Huckabay: What about like -- I don't know what the rule is on that -- Brown: Basketball courts are probably the most active, other than the walking, in the developments that we have done. I agree that they are -- Borup: What about a tennis court? Brown: Tennis courts are real difficult. That's a little harder. Borup: They don't get that much use. Brown: We are going to get a lot more use out of the pool and clubhouse. One of the things that -- we have already put in one pool right here, so this will have two pools in this overall development. We have tried to kind of spread them in different places that make them accessible. I think what they told me is like 34,000 dollars for the playground equipment that they would put in there. But if you want another type of active use, sure, we can do that. Rohm: It was a good question. Zaremba: I need one thing clarified a little different than this and that is exactly where are we in the process. Are we talking about a paperwork change or has engineering already been done and grading already done and the roadways designed, so that the water flows to the existing -- Brown: Drainage swales. Yes. Zaremba: It's been redesigned so it goes to the drainage swales, not into the original ponds? Brown: Not into the ponds. Yes. Zaremba: Okay. So, I guess the reason I ask that question is that every time ACHD has a budget hearing or a five year work plan hearing, there is a couple that comes from a subdivision that I -- if I remember correctly, it's in the county and I think it's at Amity and Locust Grove or something, but, anyhow, they have a house the floods every time there is precipitation, that they discovered that it was originally platted as a drainage lot, nobody knows when somebody changed it to build-able lot, but the whole engineering Meridian Planning & Zoning January 6,2005 Page 41 of 54 was done to send all the water onto this lot and even though they built a house on it, it still sends all the water onto that lot and my concern is if you have real stuff on the ground, roads and stuff like that, waving a wand isn't going to change where the water goes. If this is still just on paper, I think it's a good solution, but I need to be comfortable that the water is going to go where you're telling it to go and that everything has been reengineered. Borup: I may make one comment that might pertain to that. Mr. Brown's comment that this is the way of the future, it's really the way of the past. Zaremba: Coming around again. Borup: Yeah. I mean all the subdivisions that -- acre lot type subdivisions that were done in this county in the 70s had -- well, we called them borrow pits, but no sidewalk and no curb and gutter, so the water ran off -- just ran off the roads into that area and there was never any drainage problems. I always wondered why 30 years ago we didn't have to worry about drainage problems and now it is. You know, what's changed in those -- in that time and that's -- it looks to me like that's the main thing that's changed is we have covered everything over, we have got -- we have got full concrete -- I mean sidewalks, curb and gutter and we are -- rather than letting the water drain and absorb where it falls and comes off each lot, we are forcing it to these ponds. That's why -- that's why the water is accumulating in them. Zaremba: I guess my comment is I don't have an issue with this method of dealing with the runoff and drainage. My question is -- Borup: But there is no curb -- Zaremba: -- where are we in the timing. If it's already etched in concrete and it's already engineered so the water flows to the lots that we are talking about -- Borup: But there is no curb and gutter to bring the water to anywhere on this design. Zaremba: Your answer is you can deal with it? Brown: I will be happy to speak when you guys are done. I was letting you go. We have Lake -- Tuscany LakesTwo will be here, Tuscany Lakes Three will be here. This will be Messina Hills Three. Those phases are not etch in concrete. We have gone through our first paper approval with the highway district on Lake Two and Hills Three, all subject to us getting this done, we want the City Council to approve, you know, hopefully, this amendment. That's what we are hoping for with the additional lots. So, we are patiently -- some days not patiently -- waiting, trying to get this submitted and approved. And Hills Two is built and that one was built with the understanding that it wasn't going to take water to that point and when you look at the drainage swale that Josh had up on the screen and it's on the modification, what you have is you have a crown in the road with -- taking the water going either side to the borrow pit and, then, Meridian Planning & Zoning January 6.2005 Page 42 of 54 it's not traveling anywhere where on a -- what we could call a traditional method, it got to the gutter and, then, had to, you know, pick up enough water to carry it someplace else. So, then, you put grates in the streets and make it travel those directions. Rohm: From a maintenance perspective, who takes care of the borrow pit? Brown: The homeowners association does. Rohm: It's not part of a lot? Is it a common lot? Brown: It's the public right of way and the developer had to sign an agreement for the maintenance. This method is, actually, even a little more expensive, because of the type of mixture of soils that they have come up with. They want something to percolate, but they also want them to look nice and -- Freckleton: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Mr. Freckleton. Freckleton: If I could maybe -- a point of clarification. On the maintenance aspect of that, Kent, isn't it true that the ACHD enters into -- they require the language in your CC&Rs for heavy and light duty maintenance and the homeowners association is responsible for the light-duty maintenance, which is the surface -- or, excuse me, the homeowners association or the property owner who fronts that area, is responsible for mowing that grass and surface cosmetic type maintenance. If the sand trench that's in the bottom of these swales plugs up, for instance, then, I believe that the ACHD is responsible for the maintenance on the functionality of that, they would go in and restore or rehab that portion of the facility. So, it's kind of a shared maintenance responsibility. Brown: Which is the same as the ponds are. The ponds have that same kind of restriction. What you have here is you have less concentration, because you're not pooling all the water and having it flow to one spot and so you have less concentration of the water. And that's one of the blessings of it. Qne of the other blessings of it is -- since my wife is not here we can pick on her or talk about her. She over-waters our yard. I mean just turns the sprinklers on and they are on the lawn a long time and you end up in the curb and gutter with this nuisance water that runs down the street. Well, now that nuisance water doesn't go anywhere and if someone is over-watering, the wet spot is out in front of their house. I mean it -- instead of having that run through the streets and -- I live pretty close to Woodbridge and you drive through there and we haven't had storms as much, we have had, you know, near drought, if you will, and their pond is a little wet and it's because people are over-watering their yards and it's running onto the sidewalk and across and into the gutter and so now that's just going into the swale in front of their house. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 6. 2005 Page 43 of 54 Rohm: I guess my only concern on that was that if, in fact, there is over-watering continued and that's all wet -- Brown: You have this continuous trench that takes care of that water. We have twice as much area, for example, in phase two. I did a brief calculation and took what that pond area was and, then, took the eight-foot area on either side of the road and we are almost double that overall site, because you have got eight foot on either side of the road. Rohm: I'm just curious, not growing up -- Brown: And I guess I'm not here for you to approve my storm drainage system, that -- ACHD is the one that approves the storm drainage system. Those are the conditions that are placed upon me that -- you can talk to your own staff and they can reaffirm that. My storm draining system is not what you have wanted authority to decide how I take care of my storm drainage. You have pawned that off on the highway district as part of what they are doing at the highway district and phase two told us what to do and we have taken that consideration, because they said you're going to have the same thing throughout the rest and have adopted that and are running forward with that. I'm here to get the open space that previously had and called out as common area, for you to approve it and give me six more lots. Okay. And I'm not here to have you approve -- Zaremba: My only concern was those aren't going to be wet lots and I think you have satisfied me on that. Brown: Are there any other questions? Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Mrs. DeChambeau. DeChambeau: My name is Mary DeChambeau and I live on 2015 East Victory and I think most of the staff knows me pretty good by now. I want to thank you for some of your very intelligent observations and comments about the drainage system. I think this is more of an issue than just adding six additional lots. Do you have my brother's letter in front of you that he sent from Tucson? You should. He sent it about two or three weeks ago. Our main issue is something that you discussed this very night a little bit about something I have been wondering why the City of Meridian hasn't been doing about this drainage problem. My brother lives in Tucson and they tried these ponds, then, they tried the swales and now they are going back and digging up all the streets and directing all the water into the sewer system and this is exactly what's going to happen here in this area, I can guarantee, because you're already talking about what's going on in the future. First of all, I just want to let you know, I am not a builder, I'm not a contractor, I have absolutely no ties to the building community. I am just a concerned citizen of this area that has sat back and we are kind of questioning policies and things like that and -- because if you will bring up that other map -- stop laughing. I know this is late. Just so you guys know, my property is this, this, and this. Tuscany does not own this, okay? One of the ponds that you were -- he was talking about the open space Meridian Pianning & Zoning January 6.2005 Page 44 of 54 -- is right here. If I was to walk over my fence I would fall right into it. That is how close it is to my fence line. We are still farming, will be farming for awhile, and we have great concern -- that water -- that water in that pond right here that -- the open space they are talking about putting -- adding more additional lots in or -- is standing with water, has never -- the water has never drained from it once they dug it. Okay. I was the one that called ACHD, my family did, and said, look, we really need to re-Iook at the way that you are draining somebody else's property into someone else's property. When Mr. Smith owned that piece of property, whatever we had to get our crops off, he would not irrigate. That piece of property that Tuscany is trying to develop here has never been farmed, except for one time the guy didn't -- couldn't get his crop off. It has always been grass land for a reason. Pasture land for a reason. Our piece of property drains pretty good, because everything in this area drains this way. Okay? So, there has been a drainage problem and when this subdivision first came to light, I brought up this drainage system in 2000, I brought it up in 2001, I brought it up in 2002, talked about it in 2003 -- you guys know I have, right? Okay. Thank you. At least we are validating that. 2004 and here we are in January in 2005 and we are talking about an issue that still needs to be fixed and still needs to be talked about. The problem is I'm at a disadvantage, because I've never been able to get ahold of that particular plat thing that you all have in front of you, I'm at a disadvantage, because I don't have any contacts in this business, I have to call ACHD and hope they call me back. I have to call the DEQ and hope that they have planned this system, so that it doesn't -- the oil and the grease doesn't run into our crops. The next time you buy a loaf of bread or buy some beef, you better hope those cows haven't been eating contaminated, you know; crops that have been grown are contaminated crops. I mean we still haven't even got to that issue yet and I found that I have been bringing up so many issues, because I just have so many questions -- and our family just wonders how -- we feel like you're jumping the gun on adding building lots -- and I don't really care much about this, because I can't -- you know, this is already, basically, done, they have a curb there and the whole thing. But I am concerned about this, I'm concerned of how this -- how your policy is that when they come in and they change these whole subdivisions, if I don't -- because I live right here and I can see it out my window, that's the only way I know that stuff is going on. That's the only way. No one notifies me, nobody ever contacts me. Tuscany Development has never spoken directly to our family about these drainage issues. They have never talked to us about covering up the drain ditch that runs right here -- right here, it goes right here, and, then, it drains in to our place. I guess they are going to tile -- I don't know. It goes right through that lot where they are talking about. We have never addressed that. They have never addressed fences with us yet. I mean there is so many issues. And when I went through all the meetings in 2001, 2002, I think it finally got approved, those ponds were right there and, then, they ended up right here, there was never a hearing about that pond, there was never a hearing about these right here. And now the City of Meridian -- I guess you know about them -- Meridian Irrigation District is having them have to concrete the Ridenbaugh -- let's see, they are concreting it -- I'm not quite sure where they are starting their little part, but they are going all the way around here and they are concreting and they are stopping it right there. The reason they are having to do that is because they had dug all those ponds and what the board of directors of Meridian Irrigation District told me, that they were just praying and Meridian Pianning & Zoning January 6. 2005 Page 45 of 54 keeping their fingers crossed that that water was coming through there with such force this summer they were afraid that our whole back piece of property here would be just completely blown out and that's why they are making them concrete all of this, because there is a drainage problem back in here. I mean these are a lot of issues, I just hope you're aware of, of why I feel a little bit -- you see my anger and my little horns are out, because this has just been a five year endurance span of people not working on it. I know that the red light has gone off, but let me mention that the City of Meridian has failed to notify my family about this sewer issue, so you owe me another three minutes here. When you voted on changing that sewer line, you did. Freckleton: I'm willing to agree to more time. We have nobody else to testify on anything else. DeChambeau: Okay. Well, I was patient. I mean this is a pretty important issue, because I think what's going to happen is -- is I think this is going to be a -- set a precedence for maybe the way the rest of these developers do things. You know, I think that you're looking at cost, but what is the cost to the city ten years from now when all these houses -- and you're absolutely right, that house is going to be nothing but a soppy wet little mess. You know why I know that? Because I bought a house in Gresham and that's exactly what happened to me. And we tried to find the developer and the developer was gone and, then, we did the study of the land and everything, found out it was just -- that was where the water was supposed to be going and they decided to close it in and build a couple more houses there. Exactly what happened. So, I already lived a dreamed, that problem. so, I don't know, I don't -- and I'm at a disadvantage, because I don't -- all I'm using is my common sense. I don't have any information, it's been very difficult to get information from the city and, I'm sorry, you guys don't want to hear that, because it is, I come in and I ask for these plats and they say they haven't been submitted yet. I don't even know what Lot 53 is. All I know is I see what I see out of my back window. So, I don't know if you have any questions. Basically my brother's letter, which should be -- I'm surprised you don't have it. He's from Tucson and I'm actually representing my brother, Monte Morgner from Tucson, my sister Loretta Earnst and also my sister Luann Koontz and there is four of us that own this piece of property. Just a little background. We haye owned that property for 80 years. So, I know the lay of the land, I have irrigated it myself, I know which way the water flows, I'm not somebody that came in and just b0ught this land and wanted to develop it. The development has surrounded us. And, Y<DU know, I'm sorry, you know, I mean that's just what's happened and we are just holding tough for awhile. So, I just wanted you to know that's not - you know, I kind of know what the irrigation situation has been and I guess I'm just a little frustrated, because I bring this situation up at the very beginning and it's never been addressed and I'm surprised that we are this far along in the building process and we are still dealing with the same drainage problem. So, please, look at this very seriously. I'm not -- I know I can't stop development, but let's do it right and let's not infringe on the neighbors' property and make their property worse. So, I don't know. Do you have any questions for me? Zaremba: Questions? Meridian Pianning & Zoning January 6,2005 Page 46 of 54 Borup: Mr. Chairman. I guess after your ten minutes of testimony I'm still confused. DeChambeau: Okay. I know you would be, Keith. I'm ready for-- Borup: You stated you did not want the ponds there. DeChambeau: No. Borup: That's what I heard you say earlier, that you didn't think the ponds should be there. DeChambeau: No, they shouldn't be there. And you know why? Have you driven by my place and seen the corn still standing? There is a reason. Borup: So, they have eliminated the ponds, but you don't want that. That's why I'm confused. DeChambeau: I know. I know. I agree. What I'm trying to say is is that the swales are probably better for us, but they are not the answer. Borup: What is the answer? DeChambeau: The answer I would say is putting this stuff directly into the sewer system. Borup: Okay. DeChambeau: I mean since we are talking oil and grease and in order for these swales to work, they have already been bringing in soil -- Borup: Okay. Then -- now I understand what you -- DeChambeau: And they have to level that land out and the whole land goes like this, so they better make sure -- one of the ACHD requirement is that that land -- that water better not -- it has to go straight down, but if it's not level, it won't, it will all go down the street and it will still end up in our piece of property or down that direction and whoever is on the end. So, they have already been bringing in dirt. Borup: Okay. Thank you. That answered my question. Someone else may have some more. Zaremba: Other questions? Moe: No. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 6,2005 Page 47 of 54 Zaremba: All right. Thank you. I would question the notice part of it. This is a Public Hearing and there are requirements for notice about that. Do we know what notice was provided? Canning: I believe the notice that Mrs. DeChambeau was referring to is when Tuscany Village, which is across -- which street? Locust Grove? Locust -- on the west side of Locust Grove, there was the issue of about relocating the sewer main. Originally, it was going to go up to Locust Grove and, then, and straight down and, instead, the developer requested to angle it. At the first hearing or prior to the hearing Mrs. DeChambeau asked to be notified of that upcoming hearing. She's technically more than 300 feet away. I made a verbal commitment to her that I would and we forgot and so they didn't have the opportunity to attend that hearing. Borup: Wasn't the property posted? Canning: The property was posted. All the legal noticing was done, it was a verbal commitment on my part that I, unfortunately, didn't get in the file and we forgot to notify her. Zaremba: I thought her complaint referred to this hearing tonight. Canning: The item was continued, because improper notice was sent out. Mary came in and pointed it out to us, my administrative assistant didn't act on it right then and so when it came to the last month's hearing or November's hearing, we realized that they had not been properly informed, we continued it to tonight, so that we could get all the proper notices out. Zaremba: Okay. And the evidence of that is she's here. All right. Mr. Brown. Brown: So, I think for the record we should state that tonight the meeting is properly and adequately noticed; correct? Canning: As was the other hearing. It was just -- it was just a verbal commitment on my part. Brown: It has nothing to do with what we are here for, so I -- Zaremba: Thank you. Brown: I guess if there is a specific question -- Moe: I just have one in regards to the lots that you're replacing the drainage with three lots for building. Has that area been tested as far as -- I mean are we going to have a problem with drainage in that area? Meridian Planning & Zoning January 6. 2005 Page 48 of 54 Brown: We have been moving dirt around and we have been grading. The city has a requirement that we are three foot above highest ground water elevation, so we went and dug that area next to Mary's home where we are proposing to put three lots in, now we will have to structurally go in requirement of your staff when we bring in that final plat, which is a pretty standard condition for when we are moving dirt, is that it's tested and certified that it is put back in and we can build -- obviously we aren't going to put it in the hole and so that's -- and Bruce is the one that put that condition on, so as a standard requirement we are required to put that back in and that's what we would do in those spots where we have lowered those anticipating being a pond there and tried to take that dirt and fill it someplace. Now, we will get dirt from somebody and fill that in. And we have had dirt hauled in to raise the elevation, so that we don't have that groundwater problem with the building lots. Moe: Thank you. Freckleton: Mr. Chair? Commissioner Moe, I'd like to maybe add to that just a little bit and that is the fact that the City of Meridian does require the applicant to conduct subsurface soils -- that is to establish a ground water elevation. Mr. Brown is correct, we do require that the -- there is a three foot separation to the ground water -- basically, it's a foot from the bottom of the footing elevation. Got a licensed Idaho professional engineer that's putting his license on the line when he -- he has to certify to our department in writing with his stamp on it that those elevations have been established and that they meet our criteria. So, it's in their best interest to make sure that it's taken care of. Moe: Thank you. Zaremba: Is there an established percentage of how much runoff can go -- can or cannot go onto a neighbor's property? In the ground water studies and surface water studies, all that sort of stuff, is there any rule about how much can run off onto a neighbor's property? Freckleton: Typically, for the purposes of drainage -- drainage discharge to a drainage facility, the irrigation and drainage districts will allow you to discharge predevelopment flows. So, basically, they will look at the land prior to development and based on the slope and the ground cover that's there, they will determine volume of water that historically predevelopment has flowed across the land. That, to my knowledge, is the only way that you could ever really establish, you know, any kind of a number as to what kind of flow ran across the surface. As far as an established standard as far as -- to establish a percentage, I'm not aware of any. Zaremba: Well, I asked the wrong question and you answered the right one. Freckleton: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 6, 2005 Page 49 of 54 Zaremba: So, theoretically, the end result has to be that the DeChambeau's property cannot be affected any differently than it historically has been. Freckleton: That's correct. Zaremba: Okay. Brown: And we have tested the site for many many years and it cycles like it does everywhere else in the valley. You have the Ridenbaugh Canal that's elevated on this site above the DeChambeau or Morgner property and on both sides they have had, if you will, drains that immediately pick up the water as it comes flowing out of the Ridenbaugh Canal. With the lining of the canal that we are doing, it will greatly change that. You can kind of take it two ways. You know, Nampa-Meridian doesn't allow you to flood someone else, but doesn't think very badly about the Ridenbaugh Canal noting and flooding property. Farmers in the past have been excited about getting water, the lining of the canal will stop that water from leaving their facility and to go to our property and it will change the ground water in that area by lining it. To the north up here that lined that portion and it changed that also. So, there is a series of gravel in here. The water generally flows to Ten Mile. Ten Mile has been channelized by farmers over the years, according to our soil scientists, kind of meandered around and probably very wide and probably didn't want that and I'll stand for any other questions and we agree with staff comments and hope it will be approved. Zaremba: Any further questions? Thank you. Any discussion? Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing. Borup: Second. Oh, excuse me. No, that covered it. Zaremba: Moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on PP 04-040. All in favor? Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Josh, a couple things you talked about. I know we discussed the wrought iron fencing for, basically, both the north and south sides of Block -- or of Lot 53; correct? Wilson: Correct. Moe: Okay. And, then, you also -- you also talked about the -- Zaremba: When you reference that, I probably would make that a condition of the adjoining lots as well, so that that common property line has that requirement. Moe: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 6. 2005 Page 50 of 54 Zaremba: Just a comment. Moe: I'm just talking here. And, then, you also discussed the class one and class two trees. That's already within your report here, so that doesn't need to go -- Wilson: Correct. The only additional condition that I didn't mention that's not in the report is the wrought iron fencing. That's not actually in the report. Moe: Okay. I guess my next question would be does it have to be wrought iron? I mean is that -- not a non-sight obscuring fence and you want wrought iron for a tot lot? He's shaking his head that's what he wants. Okay. Zaremba: I think the applicant expressed a preference for the wrought iron. Moe: Yeah. That's what I -- that's fine. Okay. Okay. In that case, Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Mr. Moe. Newton-Huckabay: I thought Commissioner Rohm had a comment. Rohm: Well, no, I -- no. I -- not at this time. Zaremba: Okay. Commissioner Moe. Newton-Huckabay: I'm going to assume nobody liked the basketball court idea. Okay. Borup: Well, I wasn't -- yeah, I wasn't opposed to it. I'm not -- I would assume the developer would like what's going to get the most use and what is going to be the most attractive to the home buyers and I don't know how you answer that question. Rohm: I think they have good logic in suggesting that they have an' alternate to a tot lot adjacent to the canal system. I think that was -- Newton-Huckabay: Well -- and it was the site, you know, you would attract a different clientele for something about -- Borup: Would it be practical -- I mean what would it -- do a basketball court and a smaller tot lot, not as many -- maybe not as many -- not as much playground equipment or something. Newton-Huckabay: I don't feel strongly either way, I was just throwing that out there. Nary: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Mr. Nary. Meridian Pianning & Zoning January 6,2005 Page 51 of 54 Nary: Just a suggestion, maybe, Commissioner Huckabay. You can certainly just direct as part of your recommendation if you wanted to do that, that the applicant and staff work in looking at the whole site and what the amenities are. They have to provide these amenities as part of the PUD, but looking at the whole picture of the site, the applicant and staff can certainly look at whatever would be most suitable and they could probably work that out before the City Council. But, obviously, the applicant is amenable to either type of amenity, but you don't have to decide tonight if you don't want to what specific one, but simply directing that back to the applicant and staff. Rohm: That's a pretty good solution. Newton-Huckabay: I agree. Zaremba: Commissioner Moe, you're on. Moe: Boy, I was ready to go. Okay. We will try this, then. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to City Council recommending approval of PP 04-040, to include all staff comments and conditions of the staff memo dated for the P&Z hearing date of December 2nd, 2004, and a transmittal date of November 29th, 2004, with the following changes: Okay. Let's see here. Under site-specific conditions on page four, I would like to add a number six and that condition to -- Borup: Would it work just to add another sentence to number three, since we are talking about the same lot. Moe: I'll get to the tot lot after I get to -- Borup: Oh, I'm sorry. Excuse me. Moe: Okay. Number six would be to include the installation of wrought iron fencing at the northern property line of block -- or, excuse me, of Lot 53 -- between Lot 53 and 38 and the south property line of block -- of Lot 53 -- between 53 and 54 for that. Then, on -- under the preliminary plat special considerations, item number three, just add another sentence to read that the applicant will work with staff to -- give me a word. Borup: Well, you may want it down under site-specific conditions, rather than special considerations. Moe: Oh, I'm sorry. Where are we at? We are not -- Borup: Same page, but page three and under site specific -- number three under site specific talks about that -- that's the same motion you just made. Yeah. Only it doesn't talk about on the fence line, it talks about on the pathway. So, that number six you added restates the same lots that are mentioned in three. That's why I brought that up. Moe: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were working on the -- Meridian Pianning & Zoning January 6,2005 Page 52 of 54 Borup: So, probably, the amenities would be another number seven in this case. Moe: Well, I'll go ahead and add a number seven under the site specifics and that the applicant will work with staff to -- what word did you say -- determine what amenities will go in the tot lot. End of motion. Rohm: I'll second that. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 9: Public Hearing: AZ 04-033 Request for an Annexation and Zoning of 15.92 acres from C-2 and RUT zones to CoG zone for Stor-It by Avest LP - 355 North Ten Mile Road: Zaremba: Thank you all. Next we will open a Public Hearing, which is Item 9, AZ 04- 033, request for an annexation and zoning of 15.92 acres from C-2 and RUT zones to a CoG zone for Stor-It by Avest LP, 355 North Ten Mile Road and we have a request from the applicant to delay any further comment on this, so do we need staff comments or shall we go straight to a continuance? Canning: Chairman Zaremba, just a quick update. This is another one where the applicant is reconsidering whether they really want to annex into the city at this time. So, we may end up just pulling -- they may end up withdrawing it. We are not sure what they are going to do yet, so if we just continue it for probably two hearings and, then, we will see if he's made up his mind by then. Zaremba: Okay. You're thinking February 3rd or-- Canning: Yes. I have been trying to keep your 20th agenda light, so that -- for the Compass presentation that we talked about earlier today. Zaremba: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: For the 3rd or continue it for two full hearings? Zaremba: February 3rd is the one that I think was being suggested. Canning: I think that should be fine. Borup: Did they express how much time they felt they needed?