Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 21, 2005 P & Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning Aprii 21, 2005 Page 18 of 49 Item 12: Public Hearing: PP 05-014 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 17 building lots and 2 common lots on 5,89 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for EI Gato Subdivision by C2B Development, LLC - 701 Black Cat Road: Zaremba: Okay, I will open the Public Hearing for both AZ 05-012 and PP 05-014, both of which related to EI Gato Subdivision, and remind the Commissioners that we have a request from the applicant -- I'm sorry, from staff as well to continue this item to our meeting of May 19th, so that we may have the ACHD ruling and the staff report following that. Rohm: Mr, Chairman, I move that we -- close or continue? Borup: Continue, Zaremba: Oh, I'm sorry, Continue, Yes, Rohm: Continue Public Hearing AZ 05-012 and Public Hearing PP 05-014 to our regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning meeting of May 19th, End of motion, Borup: Second, Zaremba: We have a motion and a second, All in favor say aye, Anyopposed? That motion carries for both items, MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, TWO ABSENT, Item 13: Item 14: Item 15: Public Hearing: AZ 05-010 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4,63 acres from RUT to L-O zone for Wyndstone Place Subdivision by Quasar Development, LLC - 1151 South Wells Street: Public Hearing: PP 05-012 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 8 building lots and 3 common lots on 4,63 acres in a proposed L-O zone for Wyndstone Place Subdivision by Quasar Development, LLC - 1151 South Wells Street: Public Hearing: CUP 05-014 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for a professional office complex on 4,63 acres in a proposed L-O zone for Wyndstone Place Subdivision by Quasar Development, LLC - 1151 South Wells Street: Zaremba: Okay. Next we will open the Public Hearing AZ 05-010, request for annexation and zoning of 4.63 acres from RUT to L-O zone for Wynd stone Place Subdivision. Also Public Hearing PP 05-012, request for preliminary plat approval of eight building lots and three common lots on 4.63 acres in a proposed L-O zone for Wynd stone Place Subdivision and Public Hearing CUP 05-014, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for a professional office complex on '~r Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21,2005 Page190f49 4.63 acres in a proposed L-O zone for Wynd stone Place Subdivision. These are all by Quasar Development, LLC, at 1151 South Wells Street and we will begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The subject site is located on the northwest corner of Freeway Drive and Wells Street, just north of the westbound 1-84 on ramp. The property is commonly known as Lot 19 of the amended Magic View Subdivision, which was recorded in 1983. There is an existing home on the site. You can see it there on the east side of the site. There is some outbuildings. The applicant is proposing to remove all the existing structures. The surrounding properties to the north are single-family homes. This parcel is zoned RUT in Ada County. This parcel is zoned R-1 in Ada County. To the west is Locust Heights Subdivision, also zoned R-1 in Ada County. Across Wells Street is the recently approved Hotel, zoned C-G to the south of the interstate and the on ramp. Here is a copy of the proposed preliminary plat. There are eight build-able lots. They range in size from 12,676 square feet to just over one acre in size. The applicant will be improving the front of Wells Street and Wells Circle with this application, including pavement widening, curb, gutter, and sidewalk. They are proposing cross-access for some of these internal lots that do not have frontage on those streets. There is a condition in the staff report that they do record cross-access easements, so all the lots have access to the public street. There are two driveways proposed. One to Wells Circle in this location, one out to the intersection of Freeway Drive and Wells Street. Here is a couple of landscape plans. City code requires a 35-foot wide landscape buffer along the on ramp. The applicant is depicting a 35-foot wide landscape buffer. However, about eight and a half feet of that 35, starting somewhere in this area, and going back, is within ITD right of way as an existing right of way fence. That's about eight and a half feet off of the property line. There is not any -- are not any trees within that eight and a half feet, but the applicant is showing dense trees, shrubs, landscape materials in there and staff is supportive of that. Along the eastern property line -- or, excuse me, western property line, the subdivisions -- the single family residences, they are depicting a 20-foot wide landscape buffer and along the streets there are ten foot wide landscape buffers. Here is a copy of the proposed amenities for this development. This is near the entrance off of Wells, so Freeway Drive would be here. They have a lot of future -- kind of -- it doesn't show up very well here. A water feature on -- in this general location and the same over here with this sitting area. Here are a couple of sample elevations with two stories. Office building. And here is a single story. I did just want to touch on a couple of the requirements here. The Ada County Highway District is requiring the applicant, along with this curb, gutter, and sidewalk, the requirements that I mentioned, to improve Wells Circle and provide a tumaround in the existing right of way with a 45-foot radius. There are several encroachments within that right of way, fences, trees, shrubs, a fire hydrant, all of those things it appears will have to be -- I don't know how they can be saved. It looks like they are all within that radius, so just to kind of point that out a little bit. There are some encroachments there. There are some irrigation concerns. I have talked to several property owners in this area, they all have concerns with the flow of irrigation water in this area. Historically water has flown in different directions from the box that is here, under the freeway, some of it has gone to the east and some of it back to the west Meridian Planning & Zonin9 April 21.2005 Page 20 of 49 and north to serve this subdivision this direction. I'll let the applicant or the applicant's engineer touch on that maybe a little bit more. Did you see a letter in the packet from ITD regarding noise abatement? It's a pretty standard letter they send out when something abuts their right of way. However, those are typically more geared towards residential developments, office and commercial developments. They don't require noise abatement, so they seem to have attached their noise abatement letter to an office development that didn't apply. I did receive today two things from the applicant. The revised legal description requested on page nine to have shown the right of way on the east side of Wells for whatever reason when the Comfort Suites was annexed there was a little description, it didn't go to the center line, so to clean that up, we have asked this applicant to go all the way across the street and they have provided that. And also received a stamped approved plan from Sanitary Services Company approving the dumpster locations for this project. They originally had concerns and those seem to have been addressed recently. Finally, I guess I'll let the -- the applicant, it was my understanding, was going to possibly make some commitments requiring that irrigation and any commitments, I guess, I would just ask you to include those in a motion, so we can make sure that they get written down and aren't just on the record there, but we can have a record in the staff report with site specific conditions. Staff is recommending approval and I will stand for any questions you may have. Zaremba: Commissioners? Borup: None at this time. Zaremba: I had two clarifications to ask, if I may. One is on this, which I -- if I'm understanding correctly, is an existing street. There are obstacles at this end. Does ACHD already own the entire right of way with the turnaround? Hood: That's correct. There is 50 feet of right of way coming off of Wells Street, it's called Wells Circle to confuse things even more, but the pavement ends approximately in this location, so there isn't a turnaround -- an improved turnaround, but there is a 45 foot right of way from the center of what would be a turnaround. So, that is all existing right of way. Zaremba: That ACHD already has, even though it's not improved? Hood: Correct. Zaremba: Okay. And, then, I wasn't clear whether the centerline of this driveway lines up with the centerline of Freeway Drive. Hood: I'm not sure if it exactly aligns, but it's going to be pretty close. I can look at the staff report. Zaremba: Close enough. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21. 2005 Page 21 of 49 Hood: ACHD has approved that location, so it meets their location for that, so -- Zaremba: If there are no other questions, we are ready for the applicant. Nickel: Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. Shawn Nickel, 52 North 2nd Street in Eagle, representing Quasar Development. I'm not going to go into any great detail. Staff has done an excellent job at laying out the subdivision and our request. One thing I will add -- and this is all in your staff report, but we are asking for a PUD or a PD application with some modifications to interior setbacks and frontage, which staff is recommending approval for and he does a good job analyzing that in your staff report, so I won't go into any detail on that. Craig, could you put the colored picture up? As you can see, we have applied quite a lot of landscaping and we have taken into consideration the buffering to the existing residential uses to the west and to the north, in addition to our own buffering along the freeway. We do believe this is a great buffering transitional use between those existing residences and the more intense commercial that you were going to get further up towards Eagle Road and also the noise from the 1-84 corridor. We did have a meeting on site yesterday afternoon with the neighbors to discuss mostly irrigation issues. There is three neighbors here tonight that are going to comment. We are going to defer our responses until after they comment. We have agreed verbally to address all their concerns. I believe we have. We are in agreement with them and we do have -- my engineer is here and he can address some specific after -- during rebuttal. So, I'll stand for any other questions have you right now. Borup: I have none at this time. Thank you. Zaremba: Let's see. The next person signed up to speak is -- is that Edward Rennison? Elwood. I'm sorry, sir. Come forward, please. Rennison: My name is Elwood Rennison. I reside at 990 Mustang Street, Meridian, Idaho. My phone number is 888-6448, and I live adjacent to the property there. I'm just a couple blocks over as you move over to the -- right here. Borup: Right there? Rennison: And I'm president of the water users association and I have several handouts for you, which I think will be very helpful, and if I can hand those out to you right now, I'd appreciate it. I have them for everybody. And there are two pages -- Canning: Sir, you need to wait -- Zaremba: -- not to talk while you're away from the microphone. Rennison: Okay. Meridian Plannln9 & Zoning April 21.2005 Page 22 of 49 Zaremba: You're welcome to hand them out, but, then, wait until you're back on the microphone. Rennison: I appreciate your patience while I handed these out. One of the problems we have had over the several years is that we have not been able to put water to Bob Middleton's property, because of B&F Enterprises representing Jim Fehrman, would not allow it. Last summer I got with the Ada County -- I got a -- received a call from Ada County and they asked me if they'd please help me with a problem. So, I went over and I surveyed the location where the water line was supposed to be placed. Okay? And drew up drawings and you will find those listed in here as you read through this. I drew up the drawings, they went to Ada County, they reviewed them, they made one comment, they came back, the drawings were revised, and those drawings are drawings of record now with Ada County and at this date, as we speak right now, those drawings are on record as a system that should be put in, according to Ada County, and that was a phone call today made to Mr. Mills. Okay? Now, one of the problems -- with all the trees and shrubs and everything that are planted here to really make this a nice park -- and we like this, okay? We are not against having an industrial park there and the offices. Okay. The main thing we'd have a problem with is that we are on a rotating irrigation system, it is not continuous flow, and they only have nine hours of irrigation from 9:00 o'clock Sunday night to 6:00 o'clock Monday morning and that certainly isn't going to keep all their plants alive. Okay. Now, the water table in our area has dropped down ten feet in the last 12 to 15 years, so a deep well would not really possibly be a viable solution. The only solution that they really are going to end up with is city water and supplement from the irrigation, if they were able to do that, and those would be the alternate sources of water for the system that they would use to irrigate with. Comfort Suites was originally going to tie into Five Mile Creek and they started to do that and they abandoned it and they went to city water. I found out yesterday. I thought they had a system in there and we were very well pleased to be able tell the people for Wynd mere -- or Wyndstone -- thank you very much, gentlemen -- for Wynd stone that they would be able to tie in with that and I went and had a meeting with the Nampa- Meridian Irrigation District to see what could be done to help them and we don't have any real good options right now for them to use. Okay? We do require that they put in 24-inch reinforced concrete pipe and that the drawings that they come up with will be approved by us and the Meridian Irrigation District. They suggest the reinforced concrete pipe, though their drawings show a CMP. We don't want CMP, we don't want the ABS with the smooth bore, because there is so many gophers out there they would chew through it and in order to get the water over to the water users, which would be all the people, we would have to come in with maybe some kind of a siphon drop to get the water -- because if we leave the high point of the ditch and we have to go along the freeway and come back along the fence line of the subdivision and they would have to come up with some way to get that water there, so we would have it for the lateral. We have a main lateral that runs down through and you will find this in one of the exhibits in here. I prepared that for you, if you look at it. Okay? Zaremba: I do need to ask you to conclude -- Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21. 2005 Page 23 of 49 Rennison: The state law -- Wynd ridge -- Wyndstone. Excuse me. Wynd stone, they really just can't come in and dig into the ditch without having some type of permission. You know, you can't cut into the banks and that. So, they need to sit down and work out a plan that's workable by all parties and right now we are going to start cleaning the ditch on Sunday, put water in on Wednesday. Mr. Bob Middleton has no water. B&F Enterprises, represented by Jim Fehrman, refused to put any line across the front of his place in the irrigation easement last year and that's where the Ada County called me and got me involved in it. Okay? And so -- Zaremba: Just for clarification, is that a previous owner of this property that you're talking about? Rennison: No. That's the current owner. Zaremba: Okay. Rennison: B&F Enterprises. Quasar Development, LLC, they are the developers and hope to buy the property. You know, they have got a paper that you -- you know, and everything is pretty well put in place, but Mr. Fehrman will not turn loose of his property and the question -- or the current purchaser has come up with a plan to put a ditch through the field and get it over to Mr. Fehrman. Ada County has no problem with this as a temporary system. However, we ask that these issues be addressed before you approve their permit. Okay? Zaremba: We will have the applicant do that. Do you have another issue besides the irrigation? Rennison: Yes, I have. Zaremba: Okay. Please do it quickly. Rennison: The lighting that goes in the facility, you know, needs to be subdued, okay? Because 50 foot off their fence are people's backyards, porches, upstairs. They have two story houses. So, they need to have some subdued lighting in there, because they have a parking lot right up by the fence and we all recognize we -- when we have a secretary get off work, we don't want her walking out into a dark parking lot. That's not good. Okay? And so we need to do something to subdue the lighting and, yet, provide for the people who get off work at night, especially in the wintertime, just for safety reasons. Okay? Zaremba: There is a standard requirement in Meridian that their lighting must be down- shielded and pretty well prevented from bleeding off into neighboring properties, so -- that's a standard ordinance. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21,2005 Page 24 of 49 Rennison: Right. Right now Comfort Suites has all their lights on in their pool and it's just like a spotlight shining in everybody's back windows over there. So, we want to prevent it from happening with anything else that's put in. The building height -- Zaremba: Actually, this is a separate issue, but they would be in violation, if you care to call the enforcement officer at the police department, they will get those lights aimed properly. Rennison: Thank you very much. Appreciate the comment. Okay. And the building height, although 35 feet isn't exceptional, it would block some of the freeway, except it's just a peak on the building and if it's possible to change the building height to a maximum of 30 feet, that would be quite nice. That's just a request. It's not a demand. Okay? And-- Borup: I had a question on that. Mr. Rennison, I just had a question on that. They are proposing single story and two story buildings. I assume you're okay with two story? Rennison: The two story building looks really quite nice and, then, they have right above the entrance a big peak and that's -- Borup: So, that's what your concern was was on the -- on the architectural there? Rennison: Yes. Uh-huh. They have, actually, done a very nice job laying out the whole system, you know. You can't fault them for that. They have worked really hard, you know, and we will work with them any way we can and we met with them last night and we talked about a lot of these issues. Okay? And we tried to resolve them and they have worked very hard today to try to get Mr. Fehrman to give them access across their property and I got a phone call at 2:30 saying you're trying to screw up my million-dollar sale. If you screw it up, I'll get you, it's going to cost you, I will take you to court, you know, and blah, blah, blah. So, I just -- Zaremba: Even though the future owner is agreeing to what you're asking for? Rennison: Yeah. The bypass system for irrigation was paid for last year by others. Okay? Comfort Suites would have paid for all of it. The county would have done everything within the road, there was no cost out of Mr. Fehrman's pocket and he refused to let anybody on his land, so we -- Borup: Which property is Mr. Fehrman's? Rennison: Pardon? Borup: Where is Mr. Fehrman's property in relation to this? Rennison: He owns B&F Enterprises, along with another partner. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21.2005 Page 25 of 49 Borup: Okay. All right. Rennison: Yes. Borup: So, it is the same property? It is the same property? Rennison: It's the same property. Thank you for asking the clarification and -- because of some of these issues, I'm asking that you place a hold on the preliminary plat application until they are resolved, not hold it for three weeks or anything like that, but hold it for just a short time until it can be resolved. And that's basically -- Zaremba: Try to resolve them tonight. Rennison: Yes. Have it resolved tonight and I appreciate Shawn's comments. I mean as I told them on the phone, they are very ethical people, I like working with them, I have worked with a lot of people in my life, I'm a construction engineer and have worked all over the country and worked with all kinds of people and they seem to be very nice and ethical and I trust that. But they don't want to be unethical with me. Nobody does. Okay? And with yourselves. So, I appreciate your listening to me and please take the documents I gave you under consideration, if you will. Rohm: I just have one question, Mr. Chairman. Zaremba: Certainly. Rohm: This letter submitted by yourself, sir, Mr. Rennison, this irrigation water, pressure irrigation system with five items, A through E, that is the proposed system that -- that you have put your hand to and if, in fact, the applicant agrees to that system, that's acceptable to you; is that as I understand it? Rennison: There currently isn't any true system designed. That has to be designed. They, basically, have -- running down -- excuse me. I will walk over there, Zaremba: There is a pointer-- Rennison: Thank you. The current line basically comes in through here -- it comes through a siphon under the freeway. Okay? And it comes over here and they have it just basically as a CMP pipe running clear up to the corner up there with no provision for in here and it runs clear down here to this distribution box right here, And there is no provision for, you know, any details of any kind. I'm sure they will work something up, but this area right across here, this easement that we are -- the pipe would have gone through if we had been able to put it in last year, and last year Mr. Middleton received no irrigation water, so that's a rather serious situation. He's entitled to his water and Mr. Fehrman won't -- Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21,2005 Page 26 of 49 Zaremba: Was there at ditch at some time that somebody covered over and that's what we are trying to undo? Borup: In other words, Mr. Middleton had water up until last year? Rennison: Yeah. He had water prior to last year. However-- Borup: I don't know if -- Rennison: - we were using the Cary Bower ditch and the county, when they developed Comfort Suites, the county had to change back to some of their regulations and their regulations were that you can't run any water in a county ditch, you have to maintain it and keep it within your property boundaries. Okay? So, they came and called me and asked me to help them and we have, over at this far comer right here, when this was designed, we have a tap right here, a 12 inch tap, that runs off -- it would run off and feed Mr. Middleton's property. And when the whole interstate was designed, I worked with the state and we come up with -- came up with all the boxes and all the distribution system to maintain a complete lateral. The main lateral came through here, ran across through the field, back through this fence right here, and down through the back and off through a random path that we will see on the drawings, through -- into Five Mile Creek, which is where it still goes. Borup: So, up until last year Mr. Middleton received his water from a barrow pit ditch, rather than from a separate users ditch? Rennison: That is correct. Borup: Okay. Rennison: We had the tap there and he just pulled it out of that tap and the county, of course, they said as we develop people use barrow ditches all the time and as we develop the barrow ditches are going to be -- Borup: Okay. Rennison: So, we got caught in a crossfire right there. But the county seriously has bent over backwards to assist in the problem, Are there anymore questions? Zaremba: You have a great deal of historical knowledge on this and I have appreciated the education and the knowledge. I think we have asked our questions as we went along. Commissioners, any other questions? Rennison: One comment. I have worked with the -- been, basically, chairman of the water users association since about 1981 and we draw the water from the Ridenbaugh Canal, it comes all the way from the canal up Overland Road to the Overland-Eagle intersection, it crosses there to the northwest corner and starts through a field and, then, Meridian Planning & Zoning Aprii 21. 2005 Page 27 of 49 it goes through a subdivision and, then, it wanders through another field, which is 36 acres, which will be soon coming under development also. And the corner of the -- the northeast corner of Eagle and Overland is going to go under development there, too, so we have to work out the irrigation system with these people, So, we have got to go out and burn all of the ditches this weekend, so we have our work cut out for us, but it looks like it might turn out quite nice in the future for us. Zaremba: You have a job keeping your eye on what everybody else is doing. I appreciate that. Rennison: We have had people get pretty irate if they don't get their water, but it's on a -- on a basis -- we took the total acreage, we took 24 hours a day, seven days a week, came up with 168 hours, we took three hours for wetting time in the ditch, where ever it had to be, and we took those hours, divided into the acres -- or divided the acres into the hours, we came up with how many hours per acre is allocated for each individual's irrigation system. Borup: Is this the Magic View and the Locust -- Rennison: Locust Heights. Borup: What, the water had been used by those two areas, Locust Heights, plus Magic View? Rennison: That is correct. Borup: And does it go any further west from Locust Heights? Rennison: No. Borup: It stops at Locust Grove Road, then? Rennison: We used to go through Windmere -- Woodbridge Subdivision, but in all their revamping and changing, they took our line and turned it and ran right along the canal. Borup: Okay. Rennison: The south fence. Borup: I just wanted to get a feel for how many properties this was serving. Rennison: Yeah. We have 44 properties that are involved in this, anywhere's from, like I say, .34 acres to 39 acres, that use the water and so we try to monitor pretty carefully and if somebody doesn't put their gate in and the water is still running through the person down below, he can irrigate. So we have flexibility to accommodate everybody in every situation and we try to maintain that quite carefully and if you will, please, look Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21. 2005 Page 28 of 49 through the different exhibits here, you will see the system that we have, where the irrigation ditch runs, you will see one picture in the exhibit that shows all the areas that this ditch irrigates. Okay? It comes down through Keystone and EI Dorado, through that area there. And so if you will, please, review the documents and make your decision, I would appreciate that. Zaremba: Thank you. We will do that. Rennison: And I'd like to turn this over to -- Zaremba: Have you given a copy of each of those to Mr. Nickel? If you have more copies than you handed out, could you hand him - oh, he does have a set. Thank you. I appreciate that. Rennison: If he needs another one, I have a couple extras. Thank you very much for your time. Zaremba: Thank you. Actually, we don't have anybody else signed up, but, again, the opportunity to speak is yours if you wish to. Buckert: I am Wanda Buckert, 971 Wells Circle, Meridian. I am Lot 20. That circle. You see next to his property. Borup: This is your home here? Buckert: Yes. The reason there is an encroachment -- I gave the City of Meridian 20 feet of easement to put in the water main, although I'm still in the rural county. You have -- when people come in -- I had my place for sale. They come in, you tell them I'm zoned R-1. I am zoned R-2. There is two gentlemen in the audience, Mr. Rennison and Mr. Middleton is one, that was at that meeting where it was passed by the Ada -- the Ada County board, the staff, so I am zoned two and the reason of the encroachment is because when the City of Meridian put in the water, in my contract I was to have a stub for future -- a water stub to the water main. I was to have a fire hydrant. It's in, but now Ada County developers tell me it's almost in the middle .of the circle, which Ada County claims that's their property. In fact, there was a surveyor -- I'm not sure yet who it was -- the came out while I was gone about three weeks ago, tore my fence down, drove out in the driveway -- I mean out in my field while it was soft and left the fence. I'm a single lady living by myself, so the reason that is there is because of the mistake of the City of Meridian. Borup: The fire hydrant is what you're referring to? Buckert: Pardon? Borup: The fire hydrant is what you're referring to? Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21, 2005 Page 29 of 49 Bucket: Yes. Yes. Borup: And the fence. Bucket: It's-- Borup: Just the fire hydrant? Buckert: No. Borup: Okay. Buckert: Also, the water stub. The stub -- I believe it's a six-inch stub and that's in the middle, but they did assure me that they will move it. I took their word for it. I just wanted it on record. Also, that means -- there was some existing fence when I bought that in April of '82. Twenty-four years I have lived there. And I was told that was my property line and that's where my fence is now. But they have cut me down an awful lot. One other thing. I have a 24-year maple -- 24-year-old maple tree they tell me they have to remove. I have bushes. My telephone connection is there. My sprinkler system is there where they have to take out all of the shrubs and the tree, So, I just wanted to make that clear why it is encroached upon. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Any other questions? Anyone else care to speak on this subject? Sir, come on up. Middleton: I'm Robert Middleton, 955 South Wells Street. I'm the property that does not get the water. I had received water up until the time, as stated by Mr, Rennison. When we initially purchased the property there were no easements and the roads were all private. The easements for this that the county is wanting everything in, appeared in 1983, when they did their amended survey, but they also assured us at that time and required us to sign a letter requiring -- that they accepted as it was before they would take it. They took the irrigation ditches the way they were until last year. This is when the problem occurred. I believe that we probably have a solution with the developers of this property. Okay. They seem to be very easy to work with and just happy as can be. Now, all we have to do is get it done. I just wanted to clear up that point, that we are not trying to take something that we did not own, it was there -- in fact, I have a title policy that shows that there were not easements when we purchased that property and that's where the original irrigation was. So, if you have any questions on this, I would be happy to try and explain it, because it's a bad situation. Zaremba: I appreciate that input. Middleton: Thank you. Meridian Pianning & Zonin9 Aprii 21. 2005 Page 30 of 49 Zaremba: Thank you. There appear to be some legal issues and I would ask our legal counsel whether you care to comment now or should we have Mr, Nickel offer his solutions first? Baird: Mr. Chair and Members of the Commission, if you have a specific question, I would be pleased to answer it. However, I anticipate that Mr. Nickel may be able to clear up the bulk of this, so if there are any remaining legal issues after his rebuttal, I would be happy to answer specific questions at that time. Zaremba: Thank you. Let's proceed with Mr. Nickel, then. Rohm: Before we do that, though, I have a question of staff. Through this testimony there was reference to the irrigation system not having sufficient waters to irrigate this development through their nine hours or however many hours that they are allowed and I think that the intent was to put this on city water for their irrigation and I'd just like to get some staff comment on that and see if they are in concurrence. Freckleton: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Rohm, the application, as I remember it -- I don't remember that it specifically talked about any problems with irrigation water. So, it's something that we are definitely going to have to address with the -- with the applicant and his engineer through the -- through the process. From the testimony tonight and what was submitted by Mr. Rennison, it does appear that there is some water available. Maybe not enough to provide 24-7 type service, so, you know, there might have to be some sort of a system with a supplement connection to city water. Until we see the details it's kind of hard to -- to tell how this is going to work out. We do require that, basically, all other forms of irrigation water source are proved out before we consider using city water for the source of water, so -- Rohm: It kind of sounded to me like the city would need to supplement this, but not necessarily be the primary source, and that being said, at such time that we move forward, I'd like to get some input on how that should be phased, because I think that we should make that part of any motion that you might think about that as we -- and maybe Mr. Nickel will have some comments that he will help resolve that as well. End of questions. Zaremba: All right. Thank you. Mr. Nickel, let's proceed with -- okay. You are sharing your ten minutes, I think it? Erickson: Ross Erickson. 5293 North Schubert, Meridian, Idaho. I'm the applicant's engineer. We met with Mr. Rennison and the rest of -- let's see, Mr. Middleton, Mrs, Buckert, and the main bulletin -- yesterday I was working with them and all throughout today trying to get some clarification for me this year. And for the most part, actually, in the entirety we are in agreement with the irrigation concern. There is a lot of history, as you guys are aware now, with some of the difference being kind of relocated along the property and points to the diversion being moved around throughout the years and people not getting water, people getting projects and the intent of our project -- we fully Meridian Piannin9 & Zoning Aprii 21. 2005 Page 31 of 49 intend to supply water to all the property owners that are currently getting water, and, in addition to that, we are going to make a provision for Mr. Middleton, so he can receive water. Once this project is built. In addition to that, as acting as kind of a go-between the neighbors and Mr. Middleton and the property owner Mr. Fehrman. I put together a sketch and I will just toss that to you guys real quick. This says -- the sketch has been faxed back and forth a couple times, but you have done a pretty good job of explaining what we are doing. There is an existing head-gate located along the -- along the ITD right of way there and currently there is no means for this property here to get irrigation water, so in the interim, prior to constructing this project and providing a pipe to gravity source to Mr. Middleton, to his property, we are proposing to construct a temporary fix from this point, across the property, and, then, connect it up. There is, actually, a pipe located underneath Wells Circle here that Mr. Middleton can receive water through to irrigate his property. So, we have gotten Mr. Fehrman's signature on this drawing that authorizes our agents to go in there and actually construct this little V ditch, which will be nothing more than probable, you know, something like this, to supply some water to him in the interim until the project is built. As far as the design of the system, you know, at this point of the project everything is pretty conceptual as far as the horizontal line that the pipes are going and things and, then, we will be working with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District throughout the process to design to the standards and things for block sizes, material types, pipe sizes, et cetera, So, as far as the plans go, you know, once we get to that point as far as working up the specific details, that work will all be coordinated and approved by the irrigation district. As far as the irrigation system for the landscaping for the project, it is our intent to utilize as much of the surface water as we can to irrigate the landscaping and, then, use a secondary connection to the city's primary system to supplement, because it looks like we already have some issues or some surprises with having a full-time pressure irrigation system from surface water. So, it will be kind of a combined system that would help us coordinate some details with the city once we get to that point where we are putting construction drawings together and things. Mrs. Buckert had a few comments regarding some of the encroachments into the right of way. One of this is along the front of her property. In ACHD's staff report it indicates that we are going to have to relocate that hydrant that is located within the right of way to a location outside of the right of way and we are in agreement with that. We will take care of that with our project, as well as, you know, she has got some utilities -- there is a telephone pole out there. There is some comments in the staff report that say we can't have her service down for, you know, a length of time and we will make every provision we can to minimize any interruption to her service, you know, during construction. Zaremba: Would you be willing and able to reassemble her fence outside of the right of way? Ericksen: I guess I'm not sure specifically what she's talking about. I think she's talking about the fence just along the end of the cul-de-sac here. And, you know, we do that -- I think it's -- at this point it's just a -- like a three strand or a four strand barbed wire fence with some metal posts and we are going to have to be moving those improvements to pave out the cul-de-sac for the turnaround anyway, so I don't see a Meridian Planning & Zonin9 April 21,2005 Page 32 of 49 problem with those -- taking and resetting those posts and restringing wire. It's re- connective fence, so it's secure, so if you have animals or stock or anything on it. Yeah, We can do that. There are a couple of items in Mr. Rennison's comments that he handed out that I agree with, just thought I would mention. He currently operates the gates to kind of control the water throughout the delivery system in this whole area and I talked with him earlier today and he had requested that we put a gate at this location, so he can access through this from -- from this side down to the head-gate that will be at this location also at this location. So, we will probably have forms we can get through to operate those gates, As far as the lighting goes, at this point we haven't put together a site plan, so it's a little bit preliminary for that, but once we get to that point, we will, you know, design according the city standards some plants and things and go through the process to make sure that we are not generating some sliding things for the neighbors. It think that's alii had. I will stand for any questions. Zaremba: He answered all of mine. Rohm: I just have something that I've written up here that I'd like to add to the staff report as part of a motion and before I do that I want to get some concurrence from you folks that this meets the needs of the water users and acceptable to you, so I'm just going to read it to you and see if there is some word-smithing that might need to take place. On the site-specific conditions, I would propose that we add an Item 11 that says applicants shall design an irrigation system sufficient to satisfy all adjacent properties currently being served by the existing system to include the Middleton property, even though it's not currently being served, that property, as well as all others currently being served. I think that addresses the irrigation issue, without coming up with a specific design. Erickson: Yeah. I would agree with that and that is our plan to provide Mr. Middleton water as part of our project, so I think that condition would be suitable. Rohm: Okay. That's alii had. Zaremba: I also see Mr. Middleton shaking his head yes. We may have agreement on that one. Did you have another one? Rohm: No. I that would be it. Zaremba: Okay. Erickson: All right. Thank you. Zaremba: All right. Thank you. I'm not -- I don't know whether there is time left or not. Mr. Nickel, do you need to add anything? Okay. Freckleton: Mr. Chair? Meridian Planning & Zonin9 Aprii 21. 2005 Page 33 of 49 Zaremba: Where did that voice come from? Mr. Freckleton, I believe, Freckleton: A voice from the beyond. To address Commissioner Rohm's question earlier, I believe site-specific comment number five on page 14 adequately covers the concern regarding the availability of surface water. The tail end of that comment says the applicant shall be required to utilize any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If the surface or well source is not available, a single point connection to the culinary water system shall be acquired and, then, it goes on to talk about payment of assessment, since that is the case, so I think we are covered. Rohm: Thank you, That was the point that I brought that up for. Thank you. Okay. Zaremba: And in spite of my earlier comment, I think if we are finding agreement between the applicant and the neighbors, I don't have a question for our legal -- Borup: Well, I do have a question for Mr. Nickel. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: And I think my other questions have been answered. I just -- we have not received any comment from the two neighbors to the west. Has there been any discussion with them? I just find that curious that -- Nickel: Mr. Chairman, Shawn Nickel for the record. And Commissioner Borup. Other than Elwood, who lives right here -- Borup: Right. The-- Nickel: We notified these folks a couple times, because I messed up my neighborhood meeting notification, so we noticed them a couple of times and I don't -- I don't recall ever hearing from them. I do not recall every hearing from them, Borup: Okay. Zaremba: The applicant gets to have the last word, so we are -- we have moved on to that point. Nickel: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, it sounds like there might have been some language barriers between one of the neighbors and a work conflict with the other, so I would be more than happy to maybe meet out there or go door to door to those two, just to make sure that they are okay and I would imagine that Mr. Rennison would also help me with that and we would see no problem with just making sure they are comfortable with that, if -- Borup: And I don't know that I'm asking that. It's up to -- Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21,2005 Page 34 of 49 Nickel: We have no problem doing -- Borup: Well, if there had been any -- I mean I realize it's very preliminary, but as far as building heights on the two western buildings, has there been any discussion at all on that? Nickel: No, sir. Borup: But just from past experience, it's -- you know, it's -- the adjoining neighbors, you have some concern. I know office buildings is a much preferable use to almost anything. Just about everything. Zaremba: A lot of other stuff that could be there, Borup: But you're maybe looking at a reduced setback, plus perhaps two story buildings and a combination of both was my concern. Nickel: I don't believe we are asking for the reduced setback. Borup: Did that change? Nickel: Are we asking for reduced setback on the west boundary? Borup: No. The rear of the lots. Nickel: I think that's the -- Borup: Did I misunderstand that? Hood: That was the internal. So, there are two lots along Wells Circle that actually go below the street side or rear setback or -- Borup: So, the building setback would be to the 20 foot? Nickel: That's correct. Borup: Okay. Yeah. I understand that. Nickel: They were encroached to the -- Borup: No. That was my understanding on that. Nickel: But, again, I would have no problem, as a courtesy, tojust inform those folks. Zaremba: My personal opinion would be since they have not appeared tonight at this noticed Public Hearing, that we would not wait for their input, but I would appreciate Meridian Planning & Zoning Aprii 21. 2005 Page 35 of 49 your offer to talk them and the value to that would be that you would not be surprised by their testimony at the Public Hearing before the City Council, which follows this. Nickel: Yes. I agree. Zaremba: I think that's a good solution and it doesn't impact our decision for tonight. Borup: And that's -- yeah. I wasn't intending for it to -- anything for tonight. Hood: Mr. Chair, to throw a little bit of a late wrinkle onto this and to let Shawn know when he does talk to those property owners, there is a sewer line and easement along that west property line. The Public Works Department has just informed me they don't want any trees in there, so our typical land use buffer now has to contain just shrubs. The applicant is proposing a six foot vinyl fence that will provide some of that buffer, but a lot of the nice trees that are still shown here, cannot happen and they need to have their access maintained -- there are actually manholes on the back side there as well, so we are going to need to work with them a little bit on -- on landscaping back in there on that side of things. So, just to let you know those trees are not going to go about like it's proposed here, it doesn't seem like, so -- Borup: Mr. Hood, the -- I assume that would not affect the existing trees, though? It looks like there is some pretty extensive existing trees that are off site from this, right along the property lines, so -- Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Borup, yeah, there are several trees. They are on the other side of the 25-foot easement that basically is on the western boundary of this site and goes east 20 feet, so they are just from the outside. I think there is one six-inch tree that will have to be removed. Borup: But there is about, what, 19 others that -- Hood: Yeah. There is several -- yeah, there is several others that can remain on the other side of that fence that's proposed. So, there is some screening on the other side of the fence for those property owners, but we will just need to work on coming up with a different scheme for that side of the development, so -- Nickel: Mr. Chairman, if staff is comfortable, we can work that out prior to final plan or-- I don't know if you want to have a revised landscape plan prior to City Council, I'll leave that up to staff to make that recommendation. And if I could add one other thing. I did talk to Mr. Rennison and his comments with regards to the lighting were from the neighbors to the west and so I believe we did get some input on that and we can address that again with the design of those lighting -- that lighting. I'm still going to make a -- make a pit stop over there to talk to them, but I think that's some of the comments that have been presented tonight. Zaremba: Great. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning April21,2005 Page 36 of 49 Nickel: Thanks. Rohm: Mr. Chairman -- Zaremba: Let me just ask a quick question of staff. The apparent agreements between the applicant and the neighbors and their willingness to work the other issues out with staff, is that comfortable for everybody? Hood: Yeah. Zaremba: I see and hear a yes. Okay. Commissioners? Rohm: All right. Mr. Chairman? Borup: Let me -- sorry. I was still back on -- well, I was looking further my concern for the building height and such, but I mean I look at the location here and I guess I'm thinking if I lived there that would be a nice buffer from the freeway and it might be an improvement almost. Zaremba: Do we have an aerial view that would show how far the neighboring residences are from this property? They don't appear to be backed right up against it. Borup: No. One's here and one's here. Okay. Zaremba: Yeah. Borup: Excuse me, Mr. Rohm. Zaremba: Thank you. Rohm: Mr. Chair, I move we -- Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we close the public hearings on AZ 05-010, PP 05-012, and CUP 05-014. Borup: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Meridian Pianning & Zoning April 21,2005 Page 37 of 49 Rohm: Okay. The other thing that I was going to add to the site specific conditions is to replace that fence at the end of -- the west end of that cul-de-sac and I think that the appropriate place would be the site specific conditions or -- Zaremba: Or the CUP? Rohm: Well, I'm not sure if it would be the CUP or -- Zaremba: A recommendation from staff as to where to mention that. Canning: The issue we were jabbering about, if that's what -- was not so much where to add it, which as to the wording to add it and we would prefer that you note that it is a commitment made by the developer, rather than a condition we have placed upon them, because it is off site. So, if you could just make it clear that it's a commitment the developer has made and go ahead and list it out. Just semantics, but -- Zaremba: But during the annexation discussion or plat discussion -- Canning: Probably in the annexation discussion would be best. Zaremba: Okay. Rohm: Okay. Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: All right. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-010, to include staff comments for the hearing date April 21 st and received on April 14th and for the AZ no changes. Borup: Second. Zaremba: Did you want to comment on the offer to restore the fence? Rohm: I was thinking I'd put that on either the preliminary plat or the CUP, but you think it should be on the AZ? Borup: That's -- well, that's true. It's not a -- it's not a condition, so I guess it doesn't matter where it goes. Zaremba: It's doesn't make too much difference where it goes. Rohm: Yeah. Since I have already finished my motion, I -- Borup: And I seconded it, I think. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21,2005 Page 38 of 49 Zaremba: There is a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Rohm: All right. Moving on. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval PP 05-012, to include staff comments for the hearing date April 21 st, 2005, and received on April 14th, 2005, with the following changes: On page 15 we need to add item number 11 and it is to read: Applicant shall design an irrigation system sufficient to satisfy all adjacent properties currently being served by existing irrigation system and to include the Middleton property as well. That's the end of item 11. Item 12 shall read: Applicant agrees to replace the fencing removed at the end of the cul-de-sac on the northwest part of the property and this is not a condition set forth by the city, but it's agreed to by the applicant. End of motion. Borup: One comment. Rather than say replace, I might use the word re-install, as we are not talking about inventing a new fence, but -- Rohm: Okay. Re-install the fence that has been or will be taken down for the installation of the cul-de-sac. Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: Second that. Zaremba: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of CUP 05-014, to include staff comments for the hearing date April 21 st, 2005, and received on April 14th, 2005. Borup: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries as well. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Zaremba: Thank you all very much. We have reached 9:00 o'clock and even though we only have one big item left, we traditionally take about a ten-minute break at this point and we would appreciate doing that and we will reconvene in ten minutes. (Recess.)