HomeMy WebLinkAboutEl Gato Subdivision PPMERIDIAN PLANNING ~ ZONING MEETING
August 4, 2005 PP OS-014
APPLICANT C26 Development, LLC
REQUE~ Continued Public Hearing from Ma ~ ITEM N~• 6
approval of 17 building lots and 2 common tots o ~ 2005 - Re
for EI Gato Subdivision - 7p ~ Black n 5.89 ^crequn a fooPreliminary Fiat
Cat Road P posed R-4 zone
AGENCY
CITY CLERK
arY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT.
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY pI~RIGT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPq MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER: See
C
ot~ed Plat
COMMENTS
See Previous item Packet /Minutes
See otFached Staff Comments - AMENDEp
r~V
V-
`~
(~~ Vv
~F'
ontacted: -
Emailed: Date:
Phone:
Materials Staff Ir11tIgIS:
presented at public meefin s shell become
'~ grope
rfy of the City of Meridian.
MAYOR
Tammy do Weerd ~ a ,
~'~ LEGAL DEPARTMENT
"~' ~d;3°" ~ ,,. (208) 888-4433 Fax 887-4813
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS x~ ~ " • ~+ft
~:.
Keith Bird (:t~[•Y• c:»~ ~R~~'I~~t PUBLIC WORKS
Christine ponn®II -~ .q, BUILDING pEPARTMENT
Shaun Wardle ,p~7~~~-r,, (208) 898-5500 • Fax 898-9551
Charles M. Rountree
~ ~'~~ PLANNING AND ZONING
~ II-3AH0 1 pEPARTMENT
J
~~~•~, ~^' (208) $84-5533 • FAX 888-6854
. '1 ~Yf.17
AMENDED STAFF REPORT:
Transmittal Date: July 25, 2005
Hearing Dates: April 2l, 2005
Continued to May 19, 2005
Continued to August 4, 2005
To: Mayor, City Council and planning & Zoning Commission
From: ~~~~~
Joseph R. Guenther, Associate City Planner %~-
Michael Cole, Development Services Coordinator ('~ ~ ~~°~~ ~ ~ ~~~~
Re: El Gato Subdivision City of Meridian
City Clerk Office
• Annexation and Zoning of 6.34 Acres from RUT to R-3 (Rural Medium
Density Residential), by C2B Development, LLC (File No. AZ-OS-012).
• Preliminary Plat far Eleven (11) Building Lots and Two (2) Common/Other
Lots on 5.36 Acres in a Proposed R-3 Zone, by C2B Development, LLC (File
No, PP-OS-014).
We have reviewed the above referenced submittals and offer the following comments and
conditions of approval. These conditions shall be considered in full, unless expressly
modified or deleted by motion of the Meridian City Council:
APPLICATIONS SUMMARY
On May 19, 2005 the Planning & Zoning Commission held a public hearing on El Gato
Subdivision. At this hearing several issues were discussed as to the completeness of the
application as far as the appropriate legal descriptions and the overall density of the development
in relation to surrounding properties. The Planning and Zoning Commission requested of the
applicant to return with a redesign of the site and to clear up any pending issues relating to the
overall site annexation and plat descriptions. On Jul 25 2005 Meridian Cit Plannin
received an amended Prelimin Plat with the followin than es:
• Request for R-3 Zone instead of R-4 Zane.
Request for l l single family residential building lots instead of l 7.
• Annexation of 6.34 acres from the E % corner of Section 9 4N 1 W to the Oregon Short
Line Railroad Right of way instead of 5.89 acres exclusive of Rights of Way.
• Future Vacation of 20' of ACHD Right of Way (ROW) on south boundary of property to
be added to Lots 7 and 8 of Block l .
AZ-OS-012/FF-OS-014
EI Cato Subdivision
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
August 4, 2005 (P&Z Hearing Date)
Page 2
Applicant is no longer requesting a `step-up' in density.
Calculations for open space are included on the plat and indicate 12,884 square feet of
open space provided in roadside swales, Lot 1 Block 2, and Lot 11, Block 1.
The applicant has indicated a 6' chain link fence will be placed on the Purdarn Drain.
Standards for an R-3 District:
R-3 (detached Single Family Residential)
Setbacks
Front Living Area of
Street side
Side
Rear
Frontage
Lot Size
Required
25
20
7.S/Story
15
90
12,000 sq/ft per DU
Staff has indicated the following outstanding issues with the design dated .July 22, 2005:
The legal description submitted by the Applicant indicates ownership of the ROW of Black Cat
road to the center line. This has been verified by Fublic works according to the legal description
submitted with the deed dated July 30, 2003 as well as condition #1 of ACHD Site Specific
Conditions of Approval indicate the applicant must dedicate 48' of ROW_ Staff is still unclear as
to the status of the existing Black Cat Road ROW in relation to the project. At the time of this
report the applicant has yet to address this issue. Staff recommendation is to widen the ROW
dedication lot to follow the centerline of Black Cat Road. The preliminary plat would then be
equivalent to 5.77 acres.
The applicant has included the 20' ACRD Right of way to the south of the property with the
calculations in Lots 7 and 8 of Block 1. Staff feels that to be consistent with the lot a Vacation
A lication should be concurrent with this a lication as er MCC 12-10-1A. Staff has
verbally indicated this to the applicant but at the time of this report a vacation application had not
been submitted to the Meridian Planning Department. ACHD has indicated with Site Specific
Conditions of Approval condition #7 that they require the off site vacation prior to retardation of
the final plat.
The revised preliminary plat indicates an angled right of way to be dedicated to ACHD from
Liger Court and Bengal Street. Staff recommends these be drafted to be consistent with standard
Rights of Way design and not offset at the intersections as shown on the plan dated July 22,
2005.
The applicant has indicated 12,8$4 square feet of open space. Staff finds the following open
space calculations to apply to the site: Lot 1 Block 2 - 1172 sq/ft, Lot 11 Block 1 - 1155 sq/ft
and the roadside swale 12,317 sq/ft minus driveway cuts of 30'x 8' per lot calculates to 12,004
sq/ft of the 5.77 acres as open space. This calculates to 4.7% of the plat as open space. MCC
nz-os-nlzrnP-os-ota
PlGato.AZ.PP.bGC
Planning & Zoning Coznmission/Mayor & City Council
August 4, 2005 (P&Z Hearing Date)
Page 3
12-13-16-2 requires 5% of open space be provided. It is staffs opinion that the open space will
reach 5% when the site eliminates the angled rights of way and additional square footage is
added to Lot 1 Block 2 and Lot 11 Block 1 by extending these lots to the real right of way line
and therefore meeting the requirement of the ordinance.
The following information is from the original design dated February 15, 2005:
The applicant, C2B Development, LLC, has applied for Annexation and Zoning
(AZ) and Preliminary Plat (PP) approval of 17 Building Lots and 2
Common/Other Lots on 5.$9 Acres. The site is located on the west side of Black
Cat Road, and on the South side of Pine Lane (SO-feet of ROW) and El Gato
Lanes (60-feet of ROW), approximately one-quarter of a mile North of Franklin
Road. This site is currently Single Family Residential and has not been previously
platted.
The subject property is within the Urban Service Planning Area. The subject applications (AZ
and PP) were submitted concurrently to the Planning & Zoning Department for review. Staff
has provided a detailed analysis and recommended conditions of approval for the
requested annexation and zoning and preliminary plat applications below.
LOCATION
The property is located on the west side of Black Cat Road and on the South side of El Gato
Lane, approximately 1,400-feet north of Franklin Road, in Section 09, Township 3 North, Range
1 West.
SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
North: Single-family home on apex 5-acres;, zoned RUT (Ada County)
South: Agricultural, Union Pacific Rail Road zoned RUT (Ada County)
West: Single-family home on apex S-acres, zoned RUT (Ada County)
East: Single-family home on apex 3-acres, zoned RUT (Ada County)
Recent developments to the northeast of this site include an R-8 Subdivision on El Gato Lane
(Castlebraok Subdivision). The proposed subdivision will set the standard for development west
of Black Cat Road when the Black Cat Sewer Trunk is activated.
OWNERS OF RECORD
The property owner of record is Ben Zumhoff, and Ben Zwnhoff has signed the submitted
applications requesting annexation and preliminary plat approval.
ANNEXATION & ZONING ANALYSIS
According to Ordinance 11-15-11, General Standards Applicable to Zoning Amendments, both
the P&Z Commission and Council are required "to review the particular facts and circumstances
of each proposed zoning amendment in terms of the following standards and shall find adequate
evidence answering the following questions about the proposed zoning amendment."
qz-as-olzrnP-os-ola
EIGaCo.gZ.PP.bOC
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
August 4, 2005 (P&Z Hearing Date)
Page 4
The following is the list of standards found in 11-15-11 and analysis by staff:
Please note that items that have been lined with strikethrou h have been char ed from the
on final staff re ort dated Ma 19 2005 Items underlined have been added to the re art based
on the Preliminary Plat dated July 22, 2005.
A. Will the new zoning be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive
Plan and, if not, has there been an application fora Comprehensive Plan
amendment;
In Chapter VII of the Comprehensive Plan, `Low density' is defined as areas including
single-family homes at densities of three dwellin units or less er acre. The applicant is
requesting that all the subject site be zoned R-3 Rural Medium Densit Residential .
The R-3 district allows for a maximum of three 3 dwellin units er acre MCC 11-7-
2.B The R-3 District is consistent with the Law Densit Residential Com rehensive Plan
Desi ation.
> >
AZ-OS-012/PP-OS-014
ElGato.AZ.PP.DOC
Plaruung & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
August 4, 2005 (P&Z Hearing Date)
Page 5
The comprehensive plan states on Page 104, Objective D- Plan for appropriate uses
within rural areas: "Require new urban density subdivisions which abut or are proximal
to existing low density residential land uses to provide Zandscaped screening or
transitional densities with larger, more comparable lot sizes to buffer the interface
between urban level densities and rural residential densities. "
« „.
Staff feels that the preliminary plat submitted on July 22, 2005 more adequately
resembles a transitional nature of the anticipated Low Density Area west of Black
Cat Road and recommends approval of this design. Staff recommends that the
Commission and Council rely an staffs analysis, public testimony received and any
comments submitted from any other agencies or departments regarding whether the
proposed zone and subsequent development is harmonious with and in accordance with
the Comprehensive Plan.
B. Is the area included in the zoning amendment intended to be rezoned in the future;
Staff does not anticipate that the applicant intends to rezone the subject property in the
future. However the Cit Council is considerin amendments to Title 11 of the Meridian
Cit Code that would combine the R-3 and R-2 zanin districts. Staff has added a
condition to the Develo ment A Bement statin that the a licant is in a Bement with
this future zone chan e. This rezone will have no im act to the ro ert owners• the El
Gato lots as ro osed will meet the dimensional standards for the amended R-2 district as
ro osed in the Unified Develo meat Code .
C• Is the area included in the zoning amendment intended to be developed in the
fashion that would be allowed under the new zoning -for example, a residential area
turning into a commercial area by means of conditional use permits;
Staff finds that single-family residential uses are allowed within the requested zoning
district of R-3 Rural Medium Densit Residential
Medium Densit Residential permits the establishment of residential uses and is designed
to protect the integrity of residential development by prohibiting the intrusion of
incompatible nonresidential uses. The accompanying plat demonstrates the land will be
developed with lot sizes, housing types and other dimensional requirements that conform
to the proposed zoning designation.
D• Has there been a change in the area or adjacent areas which may dictate that the
area should be rezoned. For example, have the streets been widened, new railroad
access been developed or planned or adjacent area being developed in a fashion
similar to the proposed rezone area;
AZ-OS-042/PP-OS-014
E1Gata.AZ.PP.170C
Platuung & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
August 4, 2005 (P&Z Hearing Date)
Page 6
Staff finds that recent residential developments to the northeast have been approved for
development similar to the proposed subdivision, with single-family residences.
Development in the area has been limited to sewer capacity. Currently sewer is not
available as the Black Cat Sewer Trunk is not active and development is not encouraged
until sewer connections can be made as approved by Meridian Public Works. The
estimate on the Black Cat trunk coming online is early winter 2005.
Ada County parcel grounds designated low density residential; approximately S acres per
lot dominate the landscape west of Black Cat Road where Castlebrook Subdivision (R-4)
and Chesterfield Subdivision (R-$) to the east of Black Cat Road are both single-family
developments with residential densities between 3.0 dwelling units per acre (Castlebrook)
and 4.63 dwelling units per acre (Chesterfield).
Based on the ACRD Long Range 2030 proposal, Black Cat Road is anticipated to
eventually be a 3-lane roadway abutting this site. However, Black Cat Road is not
currently included within ACHD's Five Year Work Program or in the currently adopted
20-year Capital Improvements Plan for roadway improvements.
Local Streets El Gato Lane and W. Pine Lane are ACRD rights-of--way. ACHD and the
City of Meridian will require the proposed Liger Court to take access to El Gato Lane.
El Gato Lane lines up with El Gato Lane to the east of Black Cat Road. El Gato Lane is a
50' public right-of--way platted under Sky-View Ranchettes No 1 and maintained by
ACHD.
ACRD has made the following comments: "There is 110 feet ofright-of--way (60 feet for
EZ Gato and SO feet for Pine) abutting the north property line of the site. On the east side
of the roadway, EZ Gata has been constructed to serve Castlebrook Subdivision and
improvements for the north side of EZ Gato are in place. These streets intersecting Black
Cat Road are required to align, centerline to centerline. The applicant has sufficient
right-of--way to construct the street within the SO foot right-of--way corridor that is needed
for the alignment. The applicant will have additional right-of-way from Pine Lane
abutting the north property line because the road wild be shifted slightly to the north.
This right-af--way area can be landscaped, with a license agreement. This requirement
will eliminate the two roadways that currently intersect Black Cat Road on the east side,
and will combine the entrance as a single roadway at EZ Gato. The applicant should
provide a connection for Pine Lane to connect to El Gato west of the site. "
ACHD has indicated that W. Pine Lane is a fee simple roadway and holds deeds to 50' of
right-of--way from the western property edge to Black Cat Road. Pine Lane is a privately
maintained right-of--way. According to ACHD Pine Lane is 50' of public right-of way
that ACHD does not maintain. ACRD has made a condition that the applicant shall
landscape the 50' of right-of--way (currently Pine Lane) providing one access point for
Liger Court to El Gato Lane which then will provide connection to Black Cat Road. The
City of Meridian shall require the 50' landscape buffer to be included with the landscape
nz-as-otzrnr-os-ota
~tcaco.nz.rr.noc
.Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
August 4, 2005 (P&Z Hearing Date)
Page 7
plan as per MCC 12-13. The improvements would be considered off-site by the plat but
it would not be offsite if determined as part of the annexation request. The annexation
finding would need to be made that this project is in the best interests of the city, however
the presence of Pine Lane would dictate making landscaping improvements to shift local
traffic from Pine Lane to El Gato (see Annexation and Zoning Finding L).
E. Will the proposed uses be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be
harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character
of the general vicinity and that such use will not change the essential character of
the same area;
Staff finds that the requested zoning and proposed density is a ro riate to ~y
~"- the anticipated range for a law densit urban ~
Comprehensive Plan, staff believes that the existin count prO ect. Based on the
S y parcels in the area (south and
north and east) will redevelop with similar or lower densities in the near future. Staff also
finds that the proposed zoning/uses can be designed and constructed in a manner that will
be harmonious with, and appropriate in appearance with, the existing and intended
character of the surrounding area. Staff does not anticipate that all of the five acre
parcels in Sky-view Ranchettes Subdivision #1 will redevelop and allowances for some
parcels to be maintained with larger areas should be considered.
The proposal does not meet the standards of MCC 12-13-16-2 Residential Subdivision
Open Space which states that "common space shall equal or exceed S% of the gross land
area of the subdivision. This requirement shall apply to all single family residential
subdivisions of S acres or mare." The relimin lot dated 7/22/05 added 2 o ens ace
lots which a roximate 4.77% of the site as o ens ace. The site is extremel close to
the re uired five ercent o en s ace. Furthermore staff feels that the re uired five
ercent will be met when the a licant redraws the ri is of wa on Li er Court and
Ben al Street as conditioned in this re ort.
- - - ------__, _..,.~ ....~..U~a
~•
The existing character of the area will, and is, currently changing, especially upon build-
out of the proposed project and other similar subdivisions in the general vicinity.
However, staff does not find that the proposed zoning/uses will adversely change the
essential character of area. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council rely on
staff's analysis, public testimony received and any comments submitted from any other
agencies or departments regarding whether this property should be annexed as proposed.
F• Will the proposed uses not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future
neighboring uses;
AZ-DS-012/PP-DS-014
ElGato.AZ.PP.bOC
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
August 4, 2005 (P&Z Hearing Date)
Page 8
Staff does not anticipate that the proposed residential uses will be hazardous as long as
the conditions outlined in this report are complied with and construction traffic and house
construction is conducted in a manner consistent with City Code.
Access to Black Cat Road shall be taken to El Gato Lane and subsequently to West Pine
Ave Improvements must be made accordingly to El Gato Lane to shift local traffic from a
publicly non-maintained right-of--way to a maintained street. This change could be
considered disturbing to residents using El Gato Lane for access to Black Cat Road.
However, as per ACHD's condition, traffic Pram Pine Lane should be moved to El Gato.
potentially hazardous waterway which should behfenced in much n xs a steep banked and
combustible and impede all pedestrian access to the Purdam Draina manner as to be non-
The Commission and Council should rely on any public testimon
when determining whether or not the proposed zoning and subsequentl uses w 11 be
disturbing or hazardous to the existing or future neighboring uses.
G• Will the area be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as
highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal,
water, sewer or that the person responsible for the establishment of proposed zoning
amendment shall be able to provide adequately any of such services;
The applicant will be responsible for the extension of utilities to and through this
proposed development. Sizing and routing shall be coordinated with the Public Works
Department.
The applicant and/or future property owners will be required to pay park and highway
impact fees.
On April 27, 2005, the ACHD Commission acted on the subject applications. The ACHD
is recommending approval of this development with site specific and standard conditions
(please see Agency Comments and Conditions at the end of this report).
On April 29, 2005, a joint agency/deparment comments meeting was held with
representatives of key service providers to this property. Based on the joint
agency/department meeting and other comments received from agencies/departments,
staff finds that the public services listed above can be made available to accommodate the
proposed development. The Commission and Council should reference any written
and/or verbal testimony submitted by any public service provider, regarding their ability
to adequately service this project.
H• Will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities
and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community;
AZ-OS-012/PP-OS-014
ElGato.AZ.pP.DOC
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
August 4, 2005 (P&Z Hearing Date)
Page 9
If approved, the developer will be financing the extension of sewer, water, local street
infrastructure, utilities and irrigation services to serve the project. The primary public
costs to serve the future residents will be fire, police and school facilities aiid services.
Staff finds there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and that the
proposed zoning and subsequent development will not be detrimental to the community's
economic welfare.
Z• Will the proposed uses not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment
and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons
general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noisesmokeTyfumese
glare or odors;
Staff finds that the proposed annexation and the development of single-family homes on
this site will not involve uses that will create nuisances that would be detrimental to the
general welfare of the surrounding area.
ACHD projects this development will generate 160 additional vehicle trips per day based
on the preliminary plat submitted 2/15/05. Staff recognizes the fact that traffic and noise
will increase with the approval of this subdivision; however, staff does not believe that
the amount generated will be detrimental to the general welfare of the public. Staff does
not anticipate the proposed annexation and subsequent uses will create excessive traffic,
noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors.
J• Will the area have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be so designed
as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public streets;
The applicant is proposing to construct one public street into the site from West Pine Ave
through El Gato Lane, which will connect with Black Cat Road, a minor collector.
ACHD is supportive of the proposed approach (Eiger Court) location on W. Pine Ave.
The applicant shall provide the stub street to the west which is listed as Bengal Street.
Staff believes that the extension of Eiger Court to W. Pine Lane to the west will allow
better traffic circulation for this area. El Gato Lane is unimproved right-of--way and
should be vacated by ACRD ar landscaped as requested by ACHD at the developer's
expense under a license agreement. The landscaping should be designed in a manner to
shift all traffic from El Gato Lane to W. Pine Ave. If the Eiger Court is designed and
constructed as approved by the ACHD and the City, staff does not believe that the
subdivision will create interference with traffic on the surrounding public streets.
K. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic Feature of
major importance; and
There are some mature trees on this property. Any existing trees larger than 4" caliper
that are removed should be mitigated for, per the Landscape Ordinance. The Purdam
Drain and the Oregon Shortline Railroad right-of--ways provide significant wildlife
habitat for pheasants, quail and other game bird species as detailed in several letters of
AZ-OS-012/PP-OS-014
E1Gato.AL.pp_DOC
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
August 4, 2005 (P&Z Hearing Date)
Page 10
correspondence. Fencing the Purdam Drain along the southern boundary of the
proposal should provide wildlife and open areas adequate protection from residential
uses. Staff finds that the proposed development will not result in the destruction, loss
or damage of any natural feature(s) of major importance if developed under these
conditions.
Staff recommends that the Commission and Council reference any public testimony that
may be presented to determine whether or not the proposed development may destroy
or damage a natural or scenic feature(s) of major importance of which staff is unaware.
L. Is the proposed zoning amendment in the best interest of the City of Meridian. (Qrd.
592, 11-17-1992)?
Staff finds that all essential services are available or will be provided by the developer to
the subject property and will not require unreasonable expenditure of public funds. The
applicant is proposing to develop the land in general compliance with the City's
Comprehensive Plan Staff does not recommend lot
sizes that would be invasive to the properties to the north and west of the subject property
but the lot sizes should be transitional in nature and allow additional low density
residential uses to expand to the west at the owners discretion. Subdivisions of medium
density have already been approved for development to the east and this is a logical
expansion of the City limits from medium density to low density residential uses. In
accordance with the findings listed above, staff finds that annexation/zoning of this
ro ert would be in the best interest of the Cit .
PRELIMINARY PLAT ANALYSIS
AZ-OS-012/PP-OS-014
EIGa[o.A7,.pp.DOC
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
August 4, 20p5 (P&Z Hearing Date)
Page 11
Sections 12-3-3 r.2 and 12-3-5 D read as follows: "In determining the acceptance of a proposed
subdivision, the Commission/Council shall consider the objectives of this title and at least the
following:
A. The conformance of the subdivision with the Comprehensive Development Plan;
Staff finds that the proposed application is in substantial compliance with the adopted
Comprehensive Plan.
,.
o
~~ ` a~ The ro osed densit of a roximatel two dwellin uzuts er acre oss is
within the ex ected ran e for a Low Densit Residential area. Please see Annexation and
Zoning Analysis "A".
B. The availability of public services to accommodate the proposed development;
Staff finds that public services are available to accommodate the proposed development.
(See finding "G" under Annexation and Zoning Analysis for more detail.)
C. The continuity of the proposed development with the capital improvement program;
Because the developer is installing sewer, water, and utilities for the development at their
cost, staff finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital
improvement funds.
D. The public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development;
Staff recommends the Commission and Council rely upon comments from the public
service providers (i.e.- police, fire, ACRD, etc.) to determine this finding. (See finding
"G" under Annexation and Zoning Analysis above, and the Agency Comments and
Conditions at the end of this report for more detail.)
E. The other health, safety or environmental problems that may be brought to the
Commission's attention.
Staff is not aware of any health, safety or environmental problems associated with the
development of this subdivision that should be brought to the Council or Commission's
attention. ACRD considers road safety issues in their analysis. Staff recommends that the
Commission and Council reference any public testimony that may be presented to
determine whether or not the proposed subdivision may cause health, safety or
environmental problems of which staff is unaware.
PRELIMINARY PLAT SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Public Streets and Access'
Connectivit Li er court
AZ-OS-012/PP-OS-014
ElGato.AZ.PP.pOC
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
August 4, 2005 (P&Z Hearing Date)
Page 12
Liger Court is also shown as a comlection to W Pine Ave. The applicant shall extend
Liger court to W Pine Ave under the conditioning of ACHD. The applicant shall
construct the stub street to the west (Bengal Street)
NOTE 2: At the April 27, 2005, ACHD Commission meeting, the District required the
applicant to construct Liger Court to EZ Gato Lane and connect with W. Pine Ave (see
ACRD conditions of approval).
Vacation southern ROW
The a licant shall submit an a lication to the Cit of Meridian for vacation of the
Ri t of Wa south of the ro~ect site. MCC 12-10 and ACHD re uire all vacations to
have a recommendation to the a ro riate a enc .See Site S ecific Condition #6
Black Cat Road:
The a licant has submitted a le al descri tiara showin ownershi to the centerline of
the road on Black Cat Road a minor arterial. The relimin lot shall include the
entire ri t-of-wa to be donated to ACHD 48 feet . The lot shows a 23-foot wide lot
for future ri t-of-wa .See ACRD Site S ecific Condition #1
2. Landscaping Staff is generally supportive of the proposed landscaping design with the
following considerations: fencing should be included on the north border of the Purdam
Drain, and Pine Lane landscaping shall be designed according to MCC 12-13
Landscaping and maintained by the home owners association. See Site Specific
Condition #7 below.
O en S ace: MCC 12-13-16 requires five percent of open space to be set aside for
subdivisions of at least five acres in size.
,Common open
space means land exclusive of street right-of--way and street buffers for Black Cat Road
(MCC 12-13-16-3). The a licant has added two o ens ace lots which a roximate five
ercent of the site based on the ro osal dated Jul 22 2005. See Site Specif c Condition
#5 below.
Tree Miti ation: There are several large trees on this site that the applicant is proposing
to remove or relocate. Any tree over 4" in caliper that is removed from the property shall
be replaced by installing additional trees, being the equivalent number of caliper inches
of trees that were removed. Required landscaping trees will not be considered as
replacement trees for those trees that are removed (MCC 12-13-13-3). The applicant
should coordinate a tree protection/mitigation plan with Elroy Huff at the Meridian Park
Department. See Site Specific Condition #7 below.
4. Ditches, Laterals, and Canals Per MCC 12-4-13, all irrigation ditches, laterals or canals,
AZ-OS-012/Pp-OS-014
EIGa[a.AZ.Pp.DOC
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
August 4, 2005 (P&Z Hearing Date)
Page 13
exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to
the area being subdivided shall be tiled. Staff is unaware of the official status of the
Purdam Drain, it appears to be maintained by Nampa Meridian Irrigation and is of
sufficient size to be used and considered a natural feature anal not require tiling. See Site
Specific Condition #8 below
5- Pressure Irri ation: The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be
supplied by a year-round source of water (MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be
required to utilize any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface
ar well source is not available, asingle-point connectian to the culinary water system
shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be
responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on
the final plat by the City Engineer. An underground, pressurized irrigation system should
be installed to all landscape areas per the approved specifications and in accordance with
MCC 12-13-8 and MCC 9-1-28. See Site Specific Condition #9 below.
6- Existin Residence: The existing residence shall be removed from this site prior to
building permit improvements.
SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRELIMINARY PLAT
1. This Staff Report is based upon the preliminary plat prepared by W&H Pacific on JuIX
2~ 2005 ' e'c; „~"" ' `, '~~^`, and is approved with the conditions listed herein. All
comments/conditions of the annexation and zoning (AZ-OS-012) application shall also be
considered conditions of the Preliminary Plat (PP-OS-014).
2. Construct Liger Court to the north right-of way line to tie in with the amended alignment
of the W. Pine Ave right-of--way.
3.
4- A detailed fencing plan shall be submitted upon application of the final plat. If permanent
fencing is not provided around the perimeter, temporary construction fencing to contain
debris must be installed prior to issuance of building permits. All fences shall taper down
to 3 feet maximum within 20 feet of all right-of--way. All fencing shall be installed in
accordance with MCC 12-4-10
a
, .Based on
the revised lat dated Jul 22 2005 all areas a roved as o ens ace shall be free of wet
onds or other such nuisances. All storm water detention facilities inco orated into the
a roved o ens ace are sub~ect to MCC 12-13-14 and shall be full ve etated with ass
and trees. Sand avel or other non-ve etated surface materials shall not be used in o en
s ace lots exce t as ermitted under MCC 12-13-14. Where the a licant has submitted
AZ-OS-012/PP-05-014
ElCato.AZ.PP.DOC
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
August 4, 2005 (P&Z Hearing Date)
Page 14
a reliminar landsca a lan and where staff has reviewed such lan the landsca in
shall be consistent with the reliminar lan with modifications as ro osed b staff. If
the storm water detention facilit cannot be into orated into the a roved o en s ace
and still meet the standards of MCC 12-13-14 then the a licant shall relocate the
facilit .This ma re wire losin a develo able lot or develo able area. It is the
res onsibilit of the develo er to tom 1 with ACHD Cit of Meridian and all
other re lator re uirements at the time of final construction.
d. Prior to final plat approval by City Council, vacate the unopened right-of--way along the
southern 20 feet of the property as per ACHD conditions of approval. The a licant
shall submit an a lication to the Cit of Meridian far vacation in tom liance with MCC
12-10-1 of the southern ortion to be included with ro osed Lots 7 and 8 of Block 1 of
the relimin lot dated Jul 22 2005. ACHD shall vacate the ri t-of-wa nior to
final lot a roval.
7. The submitted landscape plan prepared by Gaod Earth Landscape, dated 2-11-OS is
approved as submitted, with the following notes/modifications:
• Any tree over 4" in caliper that is removed from the property shall be replaced by
installing additional trees, being the equivalent number of caliper inches of trees that
were removed. Required landscaping trees will not be considered as replacement trees
for those trees that are removed (MCC 12-13-13-3). Coordinate a tree
protection/mitigation plan with Elroy Huff at the Meridian Parks Department.
• Landscape a minimum SO-foot wide buffer in the existing Pine Lane right-of--way and
execute the required license agreement with ACHD. The landscape buffer along El
Gato Lane shall be planted with trees and shrubs, lawn, or other vegetative
graundcover, with a minimum density of one tree per thirty-five linear feet, as
proposed. Said landscape buffer shall be located beyond the requined future street
right-of--way, as proposed.
• Depict a minimum of 5' sidewalk in the Black Cat Right-of--way as required by
ACHD Conditions of Approval.
• All street trees located in the parkway shall be consistent with the street buffer
requirements of MCC 12-13.
The approved landscape plan is not to be altered without prior written approval of the
Planning & Zoning Department.
8. The Furdam Drain shall be fenced appropriately with asix-foot tall non-combustible
material and maintained free of noxious materials.
9• Underground year-round pressurized irrigation must be provided to all lots within this
development (MCC 12-S-2.N). The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation
systems be supplied by a year-round source of water (MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant
shall be required to utilize any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a
surface or well source is not available, asingle-point connection to the culinary water
system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer shall be
AZ-OS-012/PP_OS-O14
E1Gato.gZ.PP.DOC
Planning & Zaning Commission/Mayor & City Council
August 4, 2005 (P&Z Hearing Date)
Fage 1 S
responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on
the final plat by the City Engineer. If the system is to remain private, a draft copy of the
pressurized irrigation system O&M manual must be submitted prior to plan approval.
10. Maintenance of all common area lots shall be the responsibility of the El Gato
Homeowners' Association.
11. Sidewalks within the proposed subdivision shall be built in accordance with MCC12-13-
10-8. The applicant shall provide five-foot detached sidewalks adjacent to Black Cat
Road. The applicant shall also provide Four-foot wide detached sidewalks adjacent to the
internal public streets (with a minimum eight-foot wide planter strip between the
sidewalk and the curb), as proposed.
12. Add a note to the face of the final plat stating: "Garage setbacks shall be measured from
the property line or the adjacent sidewalk, whichever is more restrictive."
13. Sanitary sewer service to this site is being proposed from the future extension of the
Black Cat Trunk line. The applicant will be responsible to construct sewer mains to and
through this proposed development. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and
routing with the Public Works Department. Applicant shall execute City of Meridian
standard forms of easements, for any mains that are required to provide service. Cover
over sanitary sewer mains shall be no less than 3-feet from finish grade to the top of the
pipe. If cover is less than 3-feet from the sub-grade to the tap of pipe, alternate pipe
materials shall be used per the Meridian Public Works Department's Standard
Specifications.
14. Domestic water service to this site shall be via extensions from Black Cat Road anal
provide connections for the property west of the project boundary. The preliminary plat
indicates the proposed water main in Pine to be eight-inch, the City of Meridian master
water plan requires 12-inch; therefore upsizing of the main in Pine shall be required. The
applicant shall be responsible to construct water mains to and through this proposed
development. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Fublic
Works Department. Applicant shall execute City of Meridian standard forms of
easements, for any mains that are required to provide service.
1 S. The landscape plan dated 2/1 S/2005 shows trees planted on each lot line. Meridian
Public Works specifications do not allow any large landscaping within a five foot radius
of water meters. The applicant shall make the necessary adjustments to achieve this
separation requirement and comply with a111andscape requirements.
16. Direct lot access to Black Cat Road is prohibited. A note shall be placed on the final plat
restricting access to Black Cat Road.
17. No variances, exceptions or reductions to the City adopted dimensional standards or uses
are approved with this preliminary plat application. Unless otherwise approved, all
AZ-OS-012/PP-OS-014
E1Gato.AZ.PP.DOC
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
August 4, 2005 (P&Z Hearing Date)
Page 16
minimum lot sizes, structure setbacks, street frontage, and house size requirements of the
RR_3 R-4 zone shall be maintained.
18. A covenant shall be recorded for each lot within El Gato Subdivision statin that the
owner of the lot shall be res onsible for maintenance of the drama e Swale located on
ACHD Ri t-of way_frontin on the lot.
19. The existin house shall be removed rior to the Cit En ineer's si ature on the final
20. Revise the detail of the road side Swale to show ribbon curb instead of the rolled curb
that is shown.
21. An existin domestic wells and/or se tics stems and a urtenances within this ro'ect
will have to be removed from their domestic service er Cit Ordinance Section 9-1-4
and 9-4-8. Wells ma be used far non-domestic oses such as landsca a irri ation.
STAN_ DARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (PRELIMINARY PLAT1
1. All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H.
2. Sidewalks shall be installed within the subdivision and on the perimeter of the
subdivision pursuant to MCC 12-13-10-5.
A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all fencing,
landscaping, pressurized irrigation, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to signature on the
final plat.
4. Street signs to be in place, water system shall be approved and activated, fencing shall be
installed, drainage lots constructed, road base shall be approved by the Ada County
Highway District, and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded, prior to
applying for building permits.
5. All development improvements, including but not limited to sewer, fencing, micro-paths,
pressurized irrigation and landscaping shall be installed and approved prior to attaining
certificates of occupancy.
6. A detailed landscape and fencing plan, in compliance with the landscape and subdivision
ordinance and as noted in this report, shall be submitted for the subdivision with the final
plat application.
7. Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian Public Works Department.
8. Two-hundred-fifty and one-hundred-watt, high-pressure sodium streetlights will be
required at locations designated by the Fublic Works Department. All streetlights shall be
installed at subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire
hydrants. Final design locations and quantity are determined after power designs are
AZ-OS-012/PP-OS-014
ElGato.AZ.PP.DOC
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
August 4, 2005 (P&Z Hearing Date)
Page 17
completed by Idaho Power Company. The street light contractor shall obtain design and
permit from the Public Works Department prior commencing installations.
9• Any tree aver 4" in caliper that is removed from the property shall be replaced by
installing additional trees, being the equivalent number of caliper inches of trees that
were removed. Required landscaping trees will not be considered as replacement trees for
those trees that have to be mitigated.
10. Submit any up-dated groundwater/sails monitoring data, as collected and analyzed by a
soils scientist, to the Public Works Department for review.
11. The applicant shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office.
12- Compaction test results must be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all
building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material.
13. Applicant's engineer will be required to submit a signed, stamped statement certifying
that all street finish centerline elevations are set a minimum of three feet above the
highest established normal groundwater elevation.
14. The applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and
construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to
signature on the final plat per Resolution 02-374,
15. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404
Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers.
16. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES
Permitting that may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency.
17. Staft"s failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of the approved
annexation/conditional use does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for
compliance.
1$. Preliminary plat approval shall be subject to the expiration provisions set forth in MCC
12-2-4.
AGENCY COMMENTS AND CONDITIONS
MERIDIAN FIRE DEPARTMENT
1. One and two family dwellings will require afire-flow of 1,000 gallons per minute available
for duration of 2 hours to service the entire project. Fire hydrants shall be placed an average
of 500' apart. International Fire Code Appendix C.
2- Acceptance of the water supply for fire protection will be by the Meridian Water
Department and water quality by the Meridian Water Department for bacteria testing.
AZ-OS-p12/Pp-OS-~l4
E1Qato.A2.Pp.DOC
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
August 4, 2005 (P&Z Hearing Date)
Page 18
3. Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire
Department.
a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 %" outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle.
b. The Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it.
c. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works spec.
d. Locations with fire hydrants shall have the curb painted red X O' to each side of the
hydrant location.
e. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on corners when spacing permits.
f. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'.
g. Fire hydrants shall be placed 18" above finish grade.
4. The phasing plan may require that any roadway greater than 1 SO' in length that is not
provided with an outlet shall be required to have an approved turn around.
S. All entrance and internal roads shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside
radius.
6. All common driveways shall be straight or have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48'
outside and shall have a clear driving surface which is 20' wide. Said common driveway
shall have a minimum GVW of 70,000 lbs. No parking signs shall be installed on any
common driveway that doubles as a fire lane. Coordinate the location of the required
signage with the Meridian Fire Department.
7. Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in that are S00'-750' in length. The roadways shall
be built to Ada County Highway Standards cross section requirements and shall have a
clear driving surface, available at all times, which is 26' wide. Streets with less than a
35' street width shall have no parking. Streets with less than 39' shall have parking only
on one side. These measurements shall be based on the face of curb dimension. Special
approval required over 7S0' 1FC Table D103.4.
8. For all public streets containing landscape islands, paint the curb red and provide signage
"No Forking Fire Lane".
9. Operational fire hydrants, temporary or permanent street signs and access roads with an all
weather surface are required before combustible construction is brought on site.
10. The roadways shall be built to Ada County Highway Standards cross section
requirements and shall have a cleaz driving surface, available at all times, which is 20'
wide. Streets with less than a 29' street width shall have no parking. Streets with less
than 33' shall have parking only on one side. These measurements shall be based on the
face of curb dimension.
11. The proposed 17-lot subdivision with an estimated 2.9 residents per household would have a
total estimated population of S2 residents at build out.
AZ-OS-012/pP-OS-014
£1G&tO.AZ.PP,DOC
Planning & Zoning Cornmission/Mayor & City Council
August 4, 2005 (P&Z Hearing Date)
Page 19
12. All portions of the buildings located an this project must be within 150' of a paved surface
as measured around the perimeter of the building.
MERIDIAN PARKS DEPARTMENT
1. Standard for Mitigation of trees: The standard established in the City of Meridian
Landscape Ordinance will be followed.
2. Standard Plan for Protection of Existing Trees during Construction: The standard
established in the City of Meridian Landscape Ordinance will be followed.
ADA COUNTYHIGHWf1YDISTRICT
1. The applicant shall do one of the following:
a. Dedicate by donation a total of 48-feet ofright-of--way along Black Cat Road, and
construct a minimum 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk along Black Cat Road, located a
minimum of 41-feet from the centerline of the right-of--way.
b. Do not dedicate additional right-of--way, but construct a minimum 5-foot wide concrete
sidewalk along Black Cat Road, located a minimum of 41-feet from the centerline of the
right-of--way, in an easement provided to the District.
c. Do not dedicate additional right-of--way, but construct a minimum 5-foot wide concrete
sidewalk along Slack Cat Road, located at the back edge of the existing right-of--way.
Accomplish all necessary adjustments to properly accommodate existing drainage and
utilities.
2. Construct Pine Lane/El Gato abutting the site so that when the street is fully constructed
(north and south sides), the street will align with El Gato on the east side of Black Cat
Road. These streets intersecting Black Cat Road are required to align, centerline to
centerline. Construct the street as one-half of a 36-foot street section, with a minimum of
24-feet of pavement, within the 50-footright-of--way corridor that is needed for the
alignment. Curb, gutter and 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk is required on the south side
of the road. The additional Pine Lane right-of--way (south of the road) maybe
landscaped, with a license agreement. This requirement will eliminate the two roadways
that currently intersect Black Cat Road on the east side, and will combine the entrance as
a single roadway at El Gato. Provide a connection for Pine Street to intersect El Gato at
the west property line.
The street layout is approved as proposed.
4. The internal streets shall be constructed as 36-foot street sections with curb, gutter and 5-
foot wide concrete sidewalks within 50-feet ofright-of--way. Tf the applicant chooses to
pursue the alternative street section, then the applicant should provide the District with
information indicating that this subdivision meets the criteria.
P.Z-OS-012/PP-OS-014
~IGato.AZ.PP.pGC
Planning & Zoning Cornmission/Mayor & City Council
August 4, 2005 (P&Z Hearing Date)
Page 20
Bengal Street shall be constructed as a stub street to the west property line, as proposed.
Install a sign at the terminus of the roadway that states "THIS ROAD WILL BE
EXTENDED 1N THE FUTURE".
6. Turnarounds shall be constructed to provide a minimum turning radius of 4S-feet.
7. Vacate the unopened right-of way abutting the south property line, prior to final plat
approval. The vacation should be completed by the applicant prior to final plat approval,
and can take four to six months to process.
8. Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the right-of--way of Black
Cat Road or El Gato Lane.
9. Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval.
ACHD Standard Conditions of A royal
1. Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the right-of--way.
2. All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site
shall be borne by the developer.
3. Replace any existing damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk and any that maybe damaged
during the construction of the proposed development. Contact Construction Services at
387-6280 (with file number) for details.
4. Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in
writing by the District. Contact the District's Utility Coordinator at 387-6258 (with file
numbers) for details.
S. All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District
Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services
procedures and all applicable ACHD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An
engineer registered in the State of ldaha shall prepare and certify all improvement plans.
6. The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building
permit (or other required permits), which incorporates any required design changes.
7. Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable
requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for
occupancy.
Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in
accordance with Ordinance #200, also known as Ada County Highway District Road
Impact Fee Ordinance.
AZ-OS-012/PP-OS-Ol4
E1Gata.AZ.PP.DOC
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
August 4, 2005 (P&Z Hearing Date)
Page 21
9• It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of-
way. The applicant at no cost to ACRD shall repair existing utilities damaged by the
applicant. The applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (l_800-342-15$S) at least
two full business days prior to breaking ground within ACHD right-af--way. The
applicant shall contact ACRD Traffic Operations 387-6190 in the event any ACHD
conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during any phase of construction.
l0• No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in
writing and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an
authorized representative of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon
the applicant to obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway
District.
11. Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of
this application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations,
ordinances, plans, or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the
applicant or its successors in interest advises the Highway District of its intent to change
the planned use of the subject propertyunless awaiver/variance of said requirements or
other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect at the time the change in use is
sought.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Annexation and Zoning (AZ..pg_012) and
Preliminary Plat (PP-OS-014) applications with the conditions listed herein.
AZ-05-012/PP-OS-014
E1Gato.,AZ,pp_DOC
- - -- - ppa -puo~-B[CZF ei CZP NmpHS Sd
- ~ isv - _- - . .. 3wvn 3ne a Mraa ~ora i~_rn•vd 7w:a
o..~..c~onei^ ~a° ~ "g~,~ _ - -- _ -- -- .,.... ~,r,~_ my ,.:II~~IV r-
...n n .. --` .. ` ~
~~~ -,F „R.sP,A°~f,~ = ~- ~,,~~>,: _ :,, _.... ~ ~,Y ~e~d,~z~bwwn3~ad - a
,,.V~, LIB„tl,~. .^/T ~ sm~ i^~d,u NOISIAI48nS Olb'~ 73
nrw:~ - ~., n~.~:13r, id, ~~ dl1021°J 1N3W3°JbNYW 2l3`JNO~
~ ~~ ~~ ILL @
- E. Y
Y
~
y
't
i
nG
- -~ -
-
-
.
e.
- - -
G
- ~ e .. -
"
'
~ __ ~
~ i i i
O I
I
Z g :
- - - s S' ~;.
U
-
'~'
- I
n i%
I i ~
r -
L I ;.
e-
- ~
O z:
--
zr
__
d~ {~ _i
[~i] O = -
~~ __-
/~ - --
W ~:
- I-~_~I ,~i.
{
i ~ it
~ ;;; !I
l
•
Vi $ a r
~
~~. `i ~~
-
X
U -. o
2 I8
- -
-
m
- 'r
x
-
- - 0
~
-
- Ii~~ :,~
- r -
- =
- ~'-=
U
w
~
~
.
2
. -
r-.a
e.?d
a a
0.
n
:~ I'
~I y, ~~ _ 1 .. -.u -
r,,• _ _
-_ _ __ -
ll .. "-._- .._ -..
,.. x - ... Of 4,r.r
' ° -
....n_.___~
+I
~.. ° - ''I
~'~,
~~
~
~1
I
I~;
~f~i ~ ~ I:, ~ fi
'~.~~ I . I i ... + I
c.l
~.
C
L ~ ~ ~~' - o t: "
ICI I - ~..___
~
-I -
}
I
,~r . ~
~i
~ I ~ I
I~
~~
~
~ ~ I _
~ II
~ I =- - --- --
-- ~
~
I
~~ i
it ~ ~ _
-
~~~ o: .I
_ - '~ .,_-- -
-
__ ----
~ _ o~• - - ~ -~ :~
~ I
.-- -- ---
,:. _
-
I
--
~ - -
j ~ -'>~ i ~ I ',
I r~ - ~ III, o
,~:
`
~
~
I
-I ~
_
I
':
-
.I
I }.
r~
~ : i . I
~ I I I
I - ~' II
III k
V
I
y,
l I
L~ y
i
~
~~ I _
~
., ~0.~.
I
I I O
I -
I
I.
r
I
?~
.,.I..i.`
.
.
~~ -,
it I
I 1
-
i
-
-
O
- :.
-
'
;
~.
,
~~
~;
;~
.
I
I
r '.. L___,______...____
•, - -ra~orr an.crax
t
___~ ~ ____
~.. ~~~~, ~~• ,~ ~,,, •.
,
~ ~ --
i:
~ _
_-
,:.
'-- -----~
~ ,
__
. _~~-~-... `G .fit",
_ ~
~~
---
D ~
'
..
$ A `~
C r
8
--
~~ B
8 ~8 „-.. ~ ~.-.
a
a
~ ,~ .,
~ ~ -~
~` L
~~
h~ `
Z~~
a~ „
A
r~'a W
W ~ I,~r--~++
r ~ ~
Y ~ ~
~ +
r-r
U
~~
'U
Meridian Planning ~ Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 6 of 67
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second
That motion carries.
All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Okay.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: Do we need to have a motion to --
Zaremba: Technically probably not, but we have been doing that in the past, just
closing the loop.
Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we accept the applicant's request for
withdrawal of AZ 05-004 and PP 05-006.
Borup: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from April 21, 2005: AZ 05-012 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 6.34 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for EI Gato
Subdivision by C2B Development, LLC - 701 Black Cat Road:
Item 8: Continued Public Hearing from April 21, 2005: 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. Now, we are ready for Items 7 and 8. We will open both hearings
simultaneously. This is AZ 05-012, request for annexation and zoning of 6.34 acres
from RUT to R-4 zone and PP 05-014, request for preliminary plat approval of 17
building lots and two common lots on 5.89 acres in a proposed R-4 zone. Both of these
for EI Gato Subdivision by C2B Development, LLC, 701 Black Cat Road, and we will
begin with the staff report.
Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a request for an annexation and rezone to
an R-4 district for EI Gato. There is 17 lots that the applicant is proposing. The location
is immediately north of the Union Pacific Railroad and off of Black Cat Road, south of
Pine Lane. This subdivision in this area is Castlebrook and that is an R-4 subdivision as
well. The Comp Plan designation for all of the area in this vicinity west of Black Cat is
low density residential. Low density being less than three dwelling units to the acre, as
defined by the Comprehensive Plan. The first issue with this one is there is several
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 7 of 67
natural features to be identified in the area. The first is right north of the Union Pacific
Railroad, it is a large drainage ditch called the Purdom drain and it has been indicated
that an your staff -- I mean an the packet submitted by the applicant that this would be a
portion of the open space of Lot 1, Block 1, that is incorrect. It has been redefined that
this is not a part of the subdivision, it is either owned or maintained -- or owned by Boise
Project Control Board or Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District and needs to be remaved
from the calculation. The second feature is that there is a dual roadway system on Pine
Lane right in this location immediately north of the site, which is a 50-foot wide roadway
and, then, there is EI Gato Lane, which is immediately adjacent to Pine Lane, which
puts together an entirety of 110 feet of right of way north of the site. The reason why
this application was tabled from the previous meeting was to allow ACHD more time to
try and address this issue. With the ACRD recommendation, their recommendation was
to vacate Pine Lane in this location and it was their determination that this was ACHD
right of way. There was some -- if you read the letter that was submitted on the 11th
and 12th, there was some confusion as to who owned that property. Staff is going by
ACHD's recommendation that their staff knows what they are talking about and that it is
ACRD right of way. Regardless of the designation of Pine Lane, we can still annex and
subdivide this property, because we are not looking at subdividing that property for
houses. It is a portion of the annexation which would be brought into the city and as per
ACHD's recommendation, would be mitigated, so that it is landscaped through a license
agreement with ACRD in order to move the traffic from what is existing Pine Lane and --
which is an unimproved surface, gravel surface, to EI Gato Lane, which, actually, lines
up with Pine Street across the -- across the way, which is great in this location and that
is the preferred option for ACRD and staff. Meridian city staff is supportive of that and
has conditioned this application accordingly. The next -- well, I guess I should have
shown this before. This shows where the Purdom drain is on here. This is a very deep,
wide canal. Actually, I'm not sure if it's a canal or if it's just a drainage ditch. With that,
the applicant is -- without that, the applicant only shows the landscape buffer to the
Black Cat Road and, then, internal parkway buffers, which are going to provide eight
feet of off-street landscaping that will be for internal open space calculations. Again,
Pine Lane is shown on here, but the actual access for this internal street system, which
is defined as Ligar Street, would take access to EI Gato Lane, which is, again, 50 feet
north of this site and that's where ACRD requires the connection for a light or court to be
-- to take access. This is a picture I took on Tuesday. I was sitting approximately in this
location, which is right at the intersection of Pine and -- this is Pine. This is EI Gato.
And this is the right of way from Pine, which ACHD claims, and is requiring to be
landscaped and, then, bollarded, so that it moves traffic from Pine onto EI Gata, which
is the improved surface. This is a picture of the Purdom drain. As you can see, it is a
fairly deep, wide drainage ditch and approximately the location of the property line is on
that fence line. This mud in the front is the new sewer trunk that is going in on the Black
Cat Road system and it's normally not that muddy, it was just raining when I took the
pictures. This is a picture from Pine Lane facing south. This is the EI Gato Subdivision
fence line. Again, approximate. The existing house that's on EI Gato would be
remaved and EI Gato goes approximately down to this location, which is -- would be the
Purdom drain. The topography is fairly flat there and we don't see any problems with
anything. This is the property immediately to the west of EI Gato -- or the proposed
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 8 of 67
subdivision. Currently it is being farmed as pasture. One point of clarification. In one of
the letters that was submitted, the -- it was claimed that there was a project going on.
There is currently aproject -- I did get the wrong parcel here. It's not this parcel, it is
one of these two parcels furkher to the west off of EI Gato. This is an Idaho Fish and
Game project, habitat improvement project, which is done at the owner's expense with
the expertise of the Fish and Game staff and it is a program for developing and
maintaining natural habitat for fish and game in the area. And that would lead into the
discussion for the density for the site. Currently, the applicant has shown 17 lots, which
gives an approximate density of -- as they have calculated it, 3.0$ dwelling units to the
acre. As far as I could calculate, the applicant has indicated in his notes that there was
-- in the letter submitted yesterday there was 6.35 acre parcels -- I'm -- staff is very
confused as to what the actual survey parcel size would be. When I calculated it I came
up with a 5.13 acre parcel and 17 homes, that would give a density of 3.31dwelling units
to the acre. And that assumes that all of the right of ways, all of the landscaping, all of
the lots, and all of the roadways are incorporated into that density calculation, which
they would end up changing that slightly. With that, staff -- or the applicant has
recommended -- or requested a density bump up, which is a Comprehensive Plan note,
that indicates that in low-density areas or medium density areas that are residential to
residential uses, the applicant can make the request. It's not a guaranteed bump up, it's
a request to this board for a consideration for higher density. This is not a -- something
that is given to a developer just because they are requesting it and staff has made the
recommendation that you do not increase the density higher than three dwelling units to
the acre. And, even so, would recommend that the portion to the west be reduced in
density further to accommodate larger lot uses. Similar subdivisions that this has
happened on -- we heard less than a month ago for Kingsbridge, which has one --
which had one -- one acre, three acre, and five acre parcels that surrounded their site
and their smallest lot in that subdivision was 12,000 square feet, which is approximately
a quarter of an acre and that is what staff is recommending for the western portion here,
is a minimum of 12,OOQ square feet. That is not a condition of approval at this time. If
this board sa sees fit, in order to make that a condition, then, you can take that into
consideration, but that is staffs recommendation fora redesign, as well as to
incorporate additional open space into this subdivision, because as currently -- with the
-- losing the Purdom drain and a lot of the other calculations in there, they are not
allowed to take into any consideration that they are required to landscape Pine Lane.
That is an ACHD issue. That cannot be calculated into the open space calculations. As
for our -- as to the City of Meridian's landscape plan, Chapter 13 indicates -- or says that
dedicated landscaping has to be within a subdivision and it also has to be exclusive of
right of way, which means that you cannot include the right of way for EI Gato ar -- I'm
sorry -- Black Cat Road or what will be EI Gato in this location. It has to be internal
landscaping for open space. And there is currently no lots designated far open space
within this proposal. Staff has indicated condition number five, site specific condition
number five, and three -- or the minimum residential density and the open space being
those two concerns. The last concern, before I quit talking, is that due to maintenance
issues with the Purdom drain, a lot of times the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District will
burn those ditches and staff has requested anon-combustible fence be put in the
southern portion of that as to not impede any maintenance issues with the Purdom
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 9 of 67
drainage system. At this time I mast likely have -- oh, ane more thing. On page ten,
condition number two, there was a typo in there. It says Locust Grove Road. That
should be changed to Black Cat Road. And that the staff is recommending approval of
this subdivision, as outlined by the conditions of approval listed in the staff report, and I'll
stand for questions.
Newton-Huckabay: Where on the --
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions?
Newton-Huckabay: I have a question on the --
Zaremba: It's the second paragraph of paragraph two. It starts open space and it's in
the very last --
Newton-Huckabay Oh. Okay.
Zaremba: -- on the last line, not quite the last short sentence.
Newton-Huckabay: Joe, on the Kingsbridge development, didn't we, as a Commission,
recommend half-acre lots around the perimeter and the City Council reversed that?
Guenther: Craig Hovd was the planner on that and I'll defer to him, if you will.
Hovd: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, what they did at Kingsbridge was 12,000 square foot
lots along Zaldia Lane. There were some other parameters. The eastern and
somewhat the north that did have some half acre Ivts, that the developer agreed to put
in there at your recommendation, that the Council did require them to do, but there were
some on the perimeter that went down to 12,000 square feet.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thanks.
Zaremba: Other questions? Thank you. Would the applicant care to come forward?
McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Dave McKinnon,
735 South Crosstimber. It's good to be back in front of you again. It's been a few
weeks or months, maybe. Jae did a pretty good job of explaining the subdivision.
There was a lot of really interesting issues and we will jump into those pretty quick, but
just to point out, we have read the staff report. The conditions of approval we agree
with. There is some points of clarification that we'd like to make. You have all received
a letter from me. I hope you have had a chance to read it. I won't be reading it to you
tonight. I think Jae hit on the main issues and I'd like to stick with those issues tonight.
I have prepared a DVD as well, a CD, and I don't think they are working for that tonight,
so I went ahead and made some copies for Joe. We have got some color copies and
he's going to put those on the overhead. Joe, if you could turn the overhead on, we will
just go with those -- the first issue. We'd like to jump just directly right into a discussion
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 10 of 67
on the density issue. Kind of where Joe ended that discussion was with the 12,000
square lots and in the first three pages, basically, the staff report deals with issues
related to density. As Joe pointed out, in the Comprehensive Plan this property -- as
you will see the Comprehensive Plan sitting aver here -- the audience can't see it. I
know we have gat a crowd tonight. Sort of light green to the light density, up to three
units per acre. No matter how you slice this piece of property up with the density -- with
the number of lots we have requested, it's either right under three acres, depending on
which legal description you use, or it's just over three acres, depending an the legal
description that you use. We have got a number of legal descriptions and I will explain
some of the confusion that goes on with that. If you can go to that first slide, Joe, and
give us that, there is a number of pieces of property that Joe mentioned. There is Pine
Street that is 110 feet wide and so, obviously, it would be a lot easier to explain once it's
an the -- the overhead for you. If you could put it so that it's right side up, it would be
awesome. Just for orientation, up is north. With this subdivision -- no, it's not north.
North is that direction. Thank you very much. It's -- okay. This is west. The Purdom
drain -- this is the Purdom drain. The railroad track. As Jae pointed out, the Purdom
drain is not part of our subdivision. That was an error in survey and we have corrected
that. There is, however, a 20-foot right of way that's called out in this back -- on the
back -- south side of this piece of property. A 20-foot right of way. ACHD claims
ownership of that as well and that was discussed at the ACHD hearing. At the ACHD
hearing it was determined in their staff report that we were to vacate that piece of
property. Regardless of whether we vacate it -- and at that hearing they also said if you
don't vacate it, we would understand that as well. Twenty feet wide. ACHD has no use
for it. Twenty feet wide you can't drive two lanes of traffic up and down. It was tied to
the deed and so the deed included a 20-foot wide right of way and, in addition to that,
they included this right of way over here, Pine Street, which is the privately signed Pine
Street. This is the gravel road that you saw that Joe took those pictures of where it jogs
funny. Then we would have EI Gato, which is on the north side. So, the legal
description included this 20-foot right of way, this right of way, this 50-foot right of way.
In addition to that, it showed a prescriptive dedication of right of way an Black Cat to the
center line of the road 25 feet. So, one legal description, we had to provide all of this in
the legal descriptions for an annexation and, then, after talking with Joe initially,
because this initial drawing didn't go to the center line of EI Gato, you had to provide
another legal description to get to the center line of EI Gato to be contiguous with the
city. The contiguity for this project is with Castlebraok caddy-corner, since we had to
provide it all the way to the center-line, instead of just to the very edge of our property.
So, we had to provide a number of different legal descriptions. The first legal
description, which is based off of the deed, came up with 6.35 acres. So, we took the
density based off of that, because this was all one parcel. None of these were
dedicated easements as far as we were initially. And so if you take 6.35, multiply that
by three, you end up with 19 units, plus change. We asked far 17 units. Now, we can
start paring down all the rights of way. ACHD claims ownership of this right of way.
They said we can vacate it. Sa, we add that to our property, in addition to this area.
Can't Gaunt the 25 feet down here. It's already improved as right of way far ACHD. But
this portion right here, ACHD claims ownership, but they say either we own it, we don't
own it, we are not exactly sure. Their best judgment at the hearing was we do own it,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 20D5
Page 11 of 67
it's not yours, we want you to do a license agreement. They give us the option of
vacating it -- if we vacate it because part of our property is part of a subdivision.
Regardless, the homeowners association is going to have to awn and maintain that
piece of property. The deed says this is for aroad --aright of way for this road. It
doesn't say it's the county. It's doesn't say it's ACHD. This was done in 1976 far this
right of way right here. ACHD wasn't organized at that time. ACHD has since been
organized and claims ownership of all rights of way. If you go to your Ada County
assessor's map and you go to the GIS system that the City of Meridian uses, this 20
foot wide right of way and this right of way right here are shown as ownership under
ACHD. And that's on the official records that we use from the City of Meridian and Ada
County uses as well. We will talk a little bit mare about that. As far as density, if you
take out this 25 feet wide section of road that's part of Black Cat and leave the rest of
this property in and this property in, you end up with roughly 5.89 acres, multiply that by
three, it gives you over 17 units. 5.67 acres would equal exactly 17 units. So, we are
right around that 17 unit ballpark number. So, it keeps us around the density for the
Comprehensive Plan. Now, we start talking about the Comprehensive Plan. We had a
lot of discussions; we have had a lot of discussions with you about the Comprehensive
Plan, about how it's a guide. The Comprehensive Plan is just that, it's a guide, it's a
goal, it sets a threshold for what they'd like to see developed. 3.08 dwelling units per
acre, the number that Joe threw out, the number that's in your staff report, is 800ths of a
dwelling unit more than what would be allowed. So, we are right there at the goal. We
are either right under it or right above it. The density is just at what the goal was set for.
We don't have so many units in this site that they are asking for a large bump up. Jae
mentioned that we requested a density increase. There was no request for a density
increase by us. When we looked at this, we said there is enough room on here for 17
lots, it meets the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan. We weren't asking for a
density increase. If we need a density increase to get to 3.08, I guess we are
requesting it at this time. But there is a lot of legal descriptions that are out there for this
and we will try to clarify that. And the legal description, Joe and I talked a little bit about
haw we don't go all the way to the railroad property and so the properties to the south
may not be able to annex, unless we annexed all the railroad properties adjacent to it as
well. So, there may need to be another legal description for this piece of property. So,
sorry for the confusion. It is somewhat confusing, but we are right at the three mark, no
matter how you cut it, you're just under or just over, so we are trying to meet that goal of
the Comprehensive Plan of three units to the acre. The 12,000 square foot that Joe
broached on, up on the north side, these lots are all above the standard 8,000 square
foot. These average 9,500 square feet in size. As Joe pointed out to you, we would be
buffering cows right now. It is agricultural use. If you have seven across here or six,
you're still buffering cows and right now it's an agricultural use. The Comprehensive
Plan anticipated this type of development when they came through. These lots are all
broken up into lots larger than five acres in size. The reason for that is that they are
zoned RUT, which is rural urban transition. That zone is a transitional zone for future
development. They are not broken down into something smaller. We require larger lots
back there. Whatever happens in the future on the next piece of property that develops
is going to have to buffer for those larger lots and so it becomes larger and larger lots as
you go back. We need to set a standard now for what those -- those uses are. We feel
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 12 of 67
that lot size of 9,500 is bigger than the minimum fior that zone. We feel it's appropriate
at this time. There is same things we can do and we will talk about those a little bit later
for maybe making this a little bit bigger. Joe had some pictures for you. Jae, can you
go to the next slide -- the next overhead? Joe had some pictures and we talked a little
bit now the Black Cat trunk was recently constructed in this area. Black Cat trunk is a
multi-million dollar sewer trunk project. The City of Meridian installed this sewer trunk in
order to provide sewer for development that's happening. This runs right in front of this
project. All the neighbors that are here behind me can testify that it's been broken up
for a number of months now and it's going to be nice to have it all asphalted again and
have this large sewer trunk several -- 20 to 30 feet deep in this area. We have gat a lot
of sewer capacity in that area. The City of Meridian is planning on this area for
development. It's turned sideways for you, but what this map illustrates -- you can see
where our project is, it's this green spot right here. I believe this is -- this is Black Cat
Road running right to the left here. This is Black Cat. The Black Cat sewer trunk area
only includes this area that's in brown. The city has drawn a line in the sand with their
Black Cat trunk. They said nothing further west than that area. All that yellow area,
nothing further west can be developed right now until the McDermott trunk is
constructed and recently at -- as recently as last Monday night there was discussion
about what's happening in north Meridian and discussion about the -- when that -- when
that would be able to be constructed and we are two or three years out. I have had
discussions with City Council, they said they don't want to see the McDermott lift --
McDermott lift station and the McDermott trunk be built until the Ten Mile interchange is
constructed. They want to limit development in this area and they have drawn a line in
the sand saying you can ga no further west than this boundary that you see in front of
you. And so all the properties to the west of this area will have to wait several years
before they can be developed. So, we are, basically, one lot in from being able to go as
far west as this sewer trunk will provide sewer to. So, there is a -- there is a boundary
set right now in the City of Meridian for where development can reach and we are just
inside that boundary. Onto the next slide, Joe, if you could. This is where it's going to
get really interesting. We had a few neighborhood meetings with the neighborhood and
both neighborhood meetings focused generally -- and specifically there was a lot of
discussion at both those meetings and at ACHD about what's going on with the 110-foot
wide access to these properties. Joe did a very good job explaining that to you. On the
north side there is a public road that's improved with asphalt. It's not improved to
today's standards, but there is asphalt. And that would be this side. We had our
engineer go ahead and do a rendering as to what it would look like with curb, gutter,
and sidewalk. Across the road with Castlebrook -- you recently approved this
subdivision. They improved this roadway for 24 feet of asphalt and curb, gutter, and
sidewalk an this side and this piece of property right here isn't where the 110 feet wide
right of way is right now. This is a schematic, I don't know if it's to scale, I'm sure it's not
something we can scale off right now, so we went ahead and put a number right here.
From centerline of the road to the ten-foot buffer, this is over 68 and a half feet from
where the new center line will be. The rest of this roadway, outside of 36 feet of right of
way -- outside of 36 feet of curb, gutter, sidewalk and roadway, has to be landscaped
with a license agreement to ACHD. So, you have approximately 50 feet of landscaping
entering into the subdivision. That's a lot of landscaping and in doing our open space
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 13 of 67
calculation, we took only half of that dimension, because the code says you can only
count half of your dimension -- if you do above and beyond your -- above and beyond
the ten foot minimum, you can only count half of your open -- you can only count half of
your open -- you can only count half of your improvements towards your open space
requirements. We only counted half of this area towards that open space. At the ACHD
hearing, Joe put in his staff repork, the perfect comment is on page five from ACHD
explaining what this area -- and it's actually a paragraph long and this might be
something we could look at if you want to. And I'm trying to move through this pretty
quick. ACHD came in and said you either vacate it, make it part of your project, or go
ahead and landscape it with a license agreement and we have chosen to landscape it
with a license agreement and we will have almost a 50-foot wide entry into a subdivision
for landscaping to be maintained by the homeowners association. As Joe pointed out,
this will align with EI Gato. ACRD is in support of this aligning with EI Gato. We are in
support of an alignment with EI Gato, it makes it safer than having 110 feet wide where
you can access this property. From the picture that Joe showed you, you could see that
people further down are, actually, coming off of this road and coming onto the improved
road section and driving it right now. Recently construction for the Black Cat trunk
extension was parking in this area, they are using this as a staging area, and everybody
that lives in this area is unable to use the gravel road, but they are still able to get out
onto Black Cat. And so by eliminating the private road that ACRD claims ownership to,
everybody can still get out to Black Cat. It's better to have one controlled intersection
than a very large intersection without control and two different accesses. And if we get
rid of the gravel road it will probably save on car wash expense as well. Into open
space -- Joe, can you go to the next drawing? This is how we calculated open space
and Joe and I may have a different interpretation of your code, but in open space you
count this area. This is an eight foot wide detached sidewalk. It's eight feet wide.
Typical in subdivisions you will see at five-foot parkways. This is an eight-foot parkway.
We are providing open space. In addition to that, because ACHD is requiring that either
we vacate it and buy this property from them and make it ours or landscape it and the
homeowners association is maintaining and -- maintaining and landscaping, we counted
half of this area towards our open space. We did some calculations down below. In
addition to this open space and this open space section, we actually come up with just
aver five percent open space for the area. We had some neighborhood meetings and
we tried to get through all these issues. As you can see, there is a lot of people --
Zaremba: Your time is up. Can you conclude quickly?
McKinnon: I'm going to conclude right now. We couldn't come to an agreement with
the neighbors. They don't want -- they won't want to see this happen, We think it's,
actually, in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. We would ask for your support
tonight. We are in agreement with the conditions of approval with those clarifications
that have been made tonight and I'll stand for questions at this time.
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions?
Newton-Huckabay: Not at this time.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 14 of 67
Zaremba: I suspect we will defer until we find out what other questions are raised.
McKinnon: And there probably will be a couple.
Zaremba: Thank you very much.
McKinnon: Thank you.
Zaremba: Okay. We have asign-up sheet that I will begin calling names off of and,
again, if you would, please, come to the microphone and state your name and address
and, then, make your remarks. Let's begin with Paul Sharratt.
Sharratt: Thank you very much, Chairman. My name is Paul Sharratt. I live at 5556 EI
Gato Lane. I am speaking for the majority of the homeowners on EI Gato Lane, as well
as West Pine Lane. So, I hope you afford me the ten minutes that you will.
Zaremba: Let me do it this way. Are there people here for who he is speaking, if you
would raise your hand a minute. You have ten minutes, sir.
Sharratt: Thank you very much. Our residence is approximately a half a mile west of
the subject property on EI Gato Lane. I have lived in this residence since 1990. Some
people in the neighborhood have lived there since the mid 1970s when this Skyview
Ranchettes was originally platted. As I said, I am representing the majority of the
homeowners who live on EI Gato Lane. These homes are on approximately three to
five acres lots. We object to the subdivision as platted and want to review some of the
pertinent points that were addressed in letters sent to the P&Z Commission, dated April
14th and May 12th, 2005. We don't believe that this subdivision meets the expectations
of the Comprehensive Plan in several areas. As stated on page three of the staff report
-- let me go ahead and read that. The Comprehensive Plan states on page 104,
Objective D, would require new urban density subdivision, which abuts there in
proximity to existing low density residential land uses to provide landscape screening to
transitional densities with larger, more compatible lot sizes to buffer the interFace
between urban level densities and rural residential densities. This is the main reason
that we object -- one of the main reasons we object to this subdivision is we are one of
those larger acre rural residential areas and believe that we need to have that
transitional area. As stated in our letter dated April 14th, there is a housing -- about the
house philosophy, that a vibrant community needs a good cross-section of housing and,
therefore, must guard against an abundance of subdivisions in like density and price
range. We believe that this is very similar to the Castlebrook Subdivision and other
subdivisions that continue up both Cherry Lane, as well as Black Cat. We believe that
we have -- that we have a transitional area in between the higher density subdivisions
and the much larger lot acreages that we have. We believe that this proposed
development is contrary to Meridian's goal for future development. One of those goals
is to maintain a small town agricultural heritage. Many areas around this proposed
development are actively pursuing this goal of agricultural heritage. There are animals
Meridian Planning ~ Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 15 of 67
being raised, plats of ground actively being farmed by row crops, as well as pasture and
hay fields, large gardens, as well as game habitats have been developed. The point
that we want to make here is that there is one chance to make the right choice for the
west side of Black Cat between Cherry Lane and Franklin. We believe that the largest
possible lot sizes are needed as a transition to the existing homes in this area. There is
no small lots along the west side of Black Cat at this point in time and we urge this
Commission to use their discretion and their judgment, as best as possible, to grant that
large as possible lot size in this development if it's approved. I would now like to
address concerns of our neighborhood that are addressed in Article E and F of the staff
report. We agree with the staff report that the developer has not met the open space
requirements as equal to or exceeding five percent. It looks like they have addressed
same of those issues and I will bring up another issue in a little while as well that will
probably cloud the picture even further. We also believe that as proposed this
development will change the essential character of this area. The staff report is correct
that this area is changing. We realize that and -- we recognize that. Many of the
residents in this area would like it to stay the same. In other words, we didn't want to
see the Castlebrook Subdivision go in. But knowing that it's changing, we wanted to
stay as close to the way it is as possible. By bringing small lot sizes to the west side of
Black Cat, it is our belief that this will be a significant change. Article F. Will the
proposed uses not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses.
We believe that this development will be hazardous and disturbing to the current
neighbors. As stated, there are a variety of uses currently occurring in this area from
animals being raised to ground being farmed. As mare families are added to the area
on smaller lots, the larger agricultural lots become attractive hazards. Animals can be
fed inappropriate food, gates and fences can be damaged or left open, equipment a
source of curiosity and a hazard, all causing problems for us the existing homeowners.
Mast of this area is also irrigated from -- irrigated ground with the source being open
ditch -- open ditches, excuse me, which also become attractive hazards. The point that
I was going to -- one of the points that we want to bring up is the easements and right of
ways on both the north in dealing with the Pine Lane -- the Pine Road issue, as well as
on the south with the Purdom Gulch drain, are complex and need to be understood. As
the staff report says in special considerations number four, staff is unaware of the
official status of the Purdom Gulch drain. So, even the staff is not fully aware of all of
the details and/or possible ramifications that the easements and setbacks on the
Purdom Gulch drain may have. As well, residents of Pine Lane are contesting ACHD's
decision on the status of West Pine Lane as referenced to in a letter from J.C. Brawn,
dated May 11th, 2p05. We do not believe that any development on this site should be
approved until all easements, right of ways, and all of the over issues are understood
and resolved. As stated, the developer has gone in and done several different legal
descriptions of this property, which, there again, continue to cloud the issue of the rights
of ways and easements on both the north and the south ends of this property. We
believe that it should be once and for all finalized with the proper easements and the
directions that those need to go, before any development is done on this property. As
declared in the letters to Planning and Zoning, there are 24 homeowners who objected
to this development as -- excuse me -- as proposed. I would now like to ask those in
support of my comments and opposing this development to please stand up. As you
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 16 of 67
can see, the majority of the property owners that signed the original letters had enough
concern and interest to show up tonight to support hopefully the Planning and Zoning
Commission's either changing of this proposed subdivision or denial of this proposed
subdivision. That's all. I would now entertain questions.
Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners?
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: In your statement you didn't define what you folks feel is
appropriate density.
Sharratt: We would recommend or like the Commission to approve the largest lot size
density as possible. It's our understanding from talking with the staff that half acre lots
would be the maximum lot size allowed, being that it would be annexed into the city.
So, we would encourage the Commission to go with half acre lots, if possible. If the
Commission chooses to make those changes, what we are really looking for is the
transition from smaller density lots to larger density lots which we currently own. And,
like I said and like I stated, we believe that we have one chance at this, that whatever is
decided on this subdivision will detail what is done on the rest of the west side of Black
Cat Road, being that the rest of it has not been annexed into the city and so we urge
and encourage you to go with the largest lot size possible.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. And that's -- where is the middle ground?
Sharratt: Where is the --
Newton-Huckabay: The compromise. I mean in your --
Sharratt: In my opinion -- and I will not speak fior the rest of the homeowners in the
subdivision, because this is my opinion. We would like to see at least -- we would,
actually, like to see one acre lots, if possible, but knowing that one acre lots are
probably not acceptable to the city, half acre lots would be acceptable, in my opinion,
because that decreases the density of the homes in that area, it turns them, then, into
more agricultural type or large lot homes, rather than the smaller lot homes, which, then,
blends better with our neighborhood. And as I stated, that is my opinion, not the opinion
of the people that, you know, I'm representing.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Then I have one other question. Isn't the density of
Castlebrook like eight units per acre?
Zaremba: It's an R-8. I don't know if it's --
Rohm: Yeah. I would say it's probably about five and a half.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 17 of 67
Zaremba: I don't think they achieved an eight density.
Rohm: Yeah. I'm sure it's not eight. It's an R-8, but not eight lots -- not eight lots per
acre.
Newton-Huckabay: On the one south of that -- wasn't there one of them that had eight -
-they had like patio homes and --
Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner, you're correct. The subdivision that is on the south side
of Pine on the east side of Black Cat did have the R-8, but Castlebrook was R-4.
Recognize that the Comprehensive Plan designation is different over there. It's medium
density.
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Black Cat is the --
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
Sharratt: And I believe with that the developer decreased the density on the south end
of that property to accommodate the larger lot sizes that are approaching on the
opposite side of Pine Lane.
Newton-Huckabay: Right. Yes. You're correct. I have no more questions.
Borup: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Borup
Borup: A couple questions. You made a statement that there is still a cloud as far as a
right of way and easements. I didn't know if you had some information that -- that Mr.
McKinnon didn't have, because in his presentation I thought he made it clear that there
was an understanding between ACRD and what -- what was their claim and what the
options were. So, I don't know if you had same other information that we did not have.
Sharratt: As I stated, in reference to J.C. Brown's letter dated May 11th, the
homeowners along Pine Lane are contesting the finding that that is an ACRD right of
way and that there is an ingress and egress right of way to the associated properties
down West Pine Lane and, there again --
Borup: So, do they have any documentation far that?
Sharratt: Yes. If you refer to his letter, he has talked to the Ada County commissioners,
as well as --
Borup: No. I mean as far as that easement. Have they got a recorded easement or --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2pp5
Page 18 of 67
Sharratt: It is recorded with each of the properties that are on West Pine Lane and it's
not an easement per se, it is an ingress and egress across that property and that's the
issue that's clouded, in our opinion.
Borup: Okay. In lieu of at least presently, if that sewer boundary was accurate, it looks
like it's not going to affect too many properties, at least in the near future, but do you
have any information on the immediately adjoining property, the one that the stub street
would go into is --
Sharratt: Is to Mr. Wilder's property? I believe Mr. Wilder is here, so --
Borup: He was the one that raised his hand. Okay.
Sharratt: So, the issue -- if you'd like to address the question directly to him, you're
more than welcome to.
Borup; Okay. Well, I just so -- so many times over the years we have seen similar
things and on -- on these larger lots that some day they get redeveloped and I have
never seen anybody that was willing to -- to guarantee that that would never happen.
Sharratt: Currently there are protective covenants on Skyview Ranchettes No. 1 and
No. 2, which is the entire length of EI Gato Lane, which prevents any further
subdividing of any of the properties along those lines. This property is not in Skyview
Ranchettes No. 1 and/or No. 2.
Borup: Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Sharratt: Thank you very much.
Rohm: Back to this compromise, if we would for just a moment. There is -- currently
there are seven lots that are along the west line of this property and I believe staff had
made a comment about maybe recommending that these lots be at a minimum of
12,000 square feet and if, in fact, you were to go to 12,000, I think that you would end
up having to drop a lot or maybe two lots off of that west line and, then, leave the
balance of it as platted. Is that any kind of compromise that even comes close to --
Sharratt: There again, stating my opinion, we would like to see, really, both sides
increase lot size due to the fact that as you get larger lot sizes, you're going to attract
people that are more like minded to the people that are in the three to five acre lots.
You're going to attract people that want to have large gardens, that want to have
animals, that -- and that's what we are fearful of and we have already seen -- as
stated, we are already seeing changes occur. We are seeing more and more people
from subdivisions across the street being -- walking up and down our road. We are
seeing people on the backs of our properties -- which concerns us, being the fact that
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 19 of 67
many of us have animals and many of us have, you know, livestock -- not only livestock,
but also, you know, habitat -- there is two different habitat properties, one that they
registered with Fish and Game, the other one hasn't, as well as large garden lots. And
so that's a real concern is as -- you know, as the development continues to encroach, it
makes us nervous and is going to cause us grief and hardship in the fact that we are
going to have to continue to either protect our property more, continue to monitor our
fences, you know, it is -- it is not an everyday occurrence, but it's not abnormal for
horses to get out or -- you know, we had the occurrence the other day where a -- one of
our young ladies was riding her horse down the road and one of the trucks from the
construction zone came by and spooked the horse. It probably took her 15 minutes to
get the horse to calm dawn and neighbors came out and helped her -- you know, and
those are the concerns that we have, is you get increased traffic, you know, and they
say there is not going to be that much increased traffic on EI Gato Lane, we believe
there will be and that it will pose a hazard for a hardship, as well as hazards to the
people currently living in that area.
Rohm: Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you. I will continue down the list as you signed up, but if I call a name
and Mr. Sharratt spoke for you, would you, please, just indicate that. Tom Nall.
Nall: My name is Tom Noll. I live at 5947 EI Gato Lane. My wife and I submitted a
letter to you. Paul spoke largely -- and I support and concur with Paul's comments. I
just wanted to add a couple of points of clarification. One is on -- as far as the
compromise, our compromise, the way we see it, is that this is identified as low density
in the Comprehensive Plan and we -- we proposed, you know, one acre lots and we are
compromising to half acre. We think that's a reasonable solution. And I'm speaking for
myself. I believe I'm speaking for some others. I want to also address the easement
issue. The existing easements and ingress and egress rights are held as deeds by
some of these property owners to the west. As was pointed out, the property title here
has -- I couldn't follow what the developer has proposed. I could not follow the
arithmetic and I couldn't fallow all the legal descriptions, you know, this one, and, then,
we changed it to this and we changed it back to this and, then, we had five percent
here, but now it's 3.0 and this -- so I found it -- well, I just couldn't follow it, so -- but,
anyway, the point is that easements are very complex and I believe the developer
needs to do his homework, he needs to get his locker in order, as my dad used to say.
Get your locker in order. And he needs to work with the existing landowners, he needs
to work with the title companies, he needs to work with the county recorder, and he
needs to work and get all those easements vacated prior to development, or else there
are going to be landowner issues down the road and you're going to be hearing about
them. And so I think it's -- he's premature in his development. He hasn't done his
homework. And I think he can do better. That's another thing that we have all heard a
few times and we don't like to hear it, but sometimes it just needs to be said. That's the
conclusion of my comments and I will stand for questions.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 20 of 67
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Thank you. Kathy Farerra. We had a letter
from you with a lot of other names. Are you speaking for a group as well?
Farerra: I think so. I'm sure that they will let you know ifi I'm not.
Zaremba: Okay. Let me just see a show of hands if she's speaking for people. Thank
you. Okay. We will give you ten minutes.
Farerra: My name is Kathy Farerra. My husband and I have lived at our home at 4950
EI Gato Lane for 18 years.
Zaremba: We are discussing whether the same people that gave their time to Mr.
Sharratt are --
Farerra: I think we are probably almost done.
Zaremba: I think we did see some overlap, but I think there was others that weren't.
So, please go ahead.
Farerra: I have something I want to read. I know some of it's already been said, but I
want to read it. The City of Meridian's leaders, having the power to make policies for
areas outside the city limits, also have an obligation to make development transitions
into long established rural neighborhoods in a fashion that is least intrusive to the
residents of those neighborhoods. We believe that the best reasonable way to
transition from a new subdivision from the east side of Black Cat Road into the multi-
acre properties to the west is by limiting these subdivisions bordering Black Cat on the
west, to the largest possible lot sizes allowed by the Comprehensive Plan. We
understand that would be half-acre lots. Homes situated on half acre lots,within what
amounts to only the length of a football field in distance from Black Cat to the adjoining
acreage residential properties, is the most reasonable and responsible manner in which
to accomplish this transition, creating the least intrusion to the long time rural residents,
while still accomplishing the city's goal for future development and establishing a
standard that can be followed along the rest of Black Cat Road to the west between
Cherry Lane and the railroad line. And I would like to comment -- and I'm -- if any of you
agree with this back here, maybe you can raise your hand -- if half acre lots are not
feasible for that entire piece of property, then, I believe that they should be half acre lots
bordering the western boundary and a minimum of 12,OOp square foot lots on the east
side. I don't think we should get into 9,000 square foot out there. It's just not the right
place to do it. Black Cat Road is a natural -- well, it's not natural, but it's there. It's a
border. It's a boundary between the city as it exists in the small unit subdivisions to the
farm ground that mast of us plan to stay on. We don't plan to leave. That's all I have to
say.
Zaremba: Thank you. Questions? Apparently not.
Borup: I had a question, Mr. Chairman.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 21 of 67
Zaremba: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: Just your last comment. I'm trying to understand -- it sounds like you're saying
that we should ignore the Comprehensive Plan as far as future land use designation.
Farerra: No. It was easy for the developer to say that the Comprehensive Plan is
simply a guide.
Borup: No, that --
Farerra: What I would like to say -- that's not ignoring the Comprehensive Plan. That is
allowing, I believe, reasonable transition into these acreage properties and as was
shown on the map, you have like, what, 600 feet that you can go into the existing --
Borup: Well, the Comprehensive Plan calls for medium density rural there, if I
understood that --
Farerra: That may be what the plan calls for, but I believe that --
Borup: Low density?
Zaremba: Low density.
Borup: So,then, it is a bump up in density.
Zaremba: Yes, it is.
Borup; Okay. I needed that clarification. Thank you.
Farerra: Thank you.
Zaremba: Okay. David Farerra. Okay. Has been spoken for. I believe it's Rebecca
Sharratt. Okay. Spoken for. Thank you. Carol Bishop. You need to come to the
microphone, if you would, please.
Bishop: My name is Carol Bishop and I live at 5751 West EI Gato and I agree with Paul
Sharratt and Kathy Farerra and, basically, if I wanted to live in a subdivision, I would
have moved to a subdivision. And that's it. Any questions?
Zaremba: Thank you. Ron Jackson. Oh, you spoke first. Okay. Ron Jackson's
opinion has been given. J.C. and L. Sue Brown. It's been covered. Okay. Thank
you. Amy Dierr and Mike -- I'm sorry. Seward. Spoken for. Thank you both. Let's see.
I need to interpret this one. It's a short name. Something like H.J. Brower'? Brown?
Okay. Spoken for. Thank you. H.J. Brown that was. Ed Wilder.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 22 of 67
Wilder: My name is Ed Wilder. I live at 4961 Pine Lane. I have adjacent properties to
the west. Lived out there -- first person to move on the lane in 1972. As far as I know
on the -- my main question is -- is on the ownership of that ground. We have never
once had a highway department road grader, maintenance, oil. Now that they want to
do a subdivision -- I think I could fax you a copy of my grounds paper that shows
nothing about ACRD owning the front part of my property. If they do that -- that legal
description doesn't quite show the way EI Gato curves off to the north. That would force
all 17 of our property owners, of which over the years has got quite a bit of traffic,
everybody's got kids, grand kids -- they would be pulling out onto EI Gato at -- some of
the cars 60, 70 miles an hour. I was the one that forced the double road there to begin
with. A guy wanted to use my property -- he was a land down when he subdivided that
and Isaid -- and I said no. So, that's how the -- that's how we got the double road to
begin with. That was about 1974 when they -- when they subdivided the north side of EI
Gato. It blows me that they can say they own in front of my house. Looks like a little bit
of a land grab to me. And the back -- the back easement -- now they are saying they
own that. Last year the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation Company was in there and gat their
big tractor stuck on the end of my place about this time of year. I don't think they own
that either. That's all I have got to say.
Zaremba: Thank you. Questions?
Borup: Mr. Wilder, your comment on the easement or whatever it is on the front of your
property, you said you don't think ACRD owns it, but what is your understanding, then?
Wilder: I think it's on my property that --our property line goes to the -- what used to be
down between the separation of the road.
Borup: So, your understand that is a right of way or an egress-ingress --
Wilder: It's a right of way and everybody has gat an egress --
Borup: So, it's a legal right of way?
Wilder: Legal right of way. Yes.
Borup: Okay.
Wilder: Far all the years before -- before that the property line -- not the line, but right
down between the two roads. The fence line was there. The original property. Now --
and over the years I have never had no communication from ACHD that they awn it or
that they are willing to maintain it. Never once.
Borup: All right. Thank you.
Meridian Planning ~ Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 23 of 67
Rohm: I have a question for you, too, then. You're saying that this 20-foot right of way
that is in question between Ada County Highway District and the proposed
development, which would continue west along your south line --
Wilder: Yes. That continues --that continues three lots.
Rohm: And it's your contention that it's not Ada County Highway District's property, that
is -- it's --
Wilder: That's right.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Marilyn, I think it is, Pettingill. Bettingill? Okay. Thank
you. Gene Bray. Mr. Bray.
Bray: Thank you. Yes. I'm Gene Bray and I live at 5654 EI Gato and I'm the one that
has the habitat improvement program with the Idaho Fish and Game, which I have got
20 years invested in. But my main comment is going to be on -- I have been doing
some work on the traffic going down our lane and even though the subdivisions to the
east -- those traffic surveys indicated that there would be no traffic increase on EI Gato
as a result of the subdivisions on the east side of Black Cat and that is just not the case.
We are finding that now probably two-thirds of the traffic that now zoom up and down
our residential lane are people that are not associated with the lane and they are just
trying to escape and, boy, when they get on that 60 foot residential lane, they put the
pedal to the metal and going westbound, even though it -- the speed was 30 miles an
hour, the average speed going westbound is 40 miles an hour. Going eastbound it's --
they slow down a little bit, because as you get passed my vantage paint and the ranges
I have set up there are about a thousand feet of length and I do a timing with a
hundredth of a second stopwatch and as they pass those ranges, so I can get the
speeds very accurately. Going eastbound, the turn -- as the road veers to the south
toward the confluence with Pine Lane and the traffic going eastbound, that is 35 miles
an hour and, again, that's routine day after day, just picking an hour at random to go up
and spot just the speed of cars and going west with a straight shot all the way down to
McDermott. The cars go down there some of them as fast as 50 miles an hour. And
those are people that are not tuned into the agricultural and the pastoral pursuits of the
people that have invested over the 20 and 30 years that -- I have lived there myself for
18 years, just like Kathy --just like the Farerras have and there is a lot of children, there
is a child care facility there, animals, and people who are outside of that area, they just
don't have any sensitivity to the fact that that is a residential lane, they just go as fast as
they can. And I have got the facts and figures to prove it.
Zaremba: Thank you. Questions?
Rohm: I have just a quick question. Do you think that some of the increased traffic that
you're seeing on EI Gato is related to the road construction on Black Cat?
Meridian Planning ~ Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 24 of 67
Bray: I would say that the -- it's a lot of construction tradesmen and I have noted, even
particularly, a City of Meridian maintenance -- I wrote it down -- maintenance
department truck. It was barreling through there, just like the best of them, and so we
have -- you know, we have agency people and -- as well as private individuals bogeying
down through there and I'm afraid it's going to be much more frequent once this -- once
EI Gato gets opened up and gets black topped, because the traffic dawn at the end
there has been pretty impeded, because for the last about three or four months the
passage through there is restricted. So, once they cleared the way through there, boy,
they get on that paved road there going west and 6Q feet wide and they let her -- they
let her rip.
Rohm: Make up for lost time.
Bray: Yes. Make up for lost time, I'm afraid.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
Borup: So, EI Gato doesn't go through clear to McDermott, then?
Bray: Yes. It's just one mile long. Section line to section line.
Borup: So, the subdivision goes that far also?
Bray: Yes, it does. Yes, sir.
Borup: Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you. Bob Ewing. Okay. Thank you. That goes for Maurene Ewing
as well? Okay. Thank you. Fran -- I believe it's Jorgensen. Come to the microphone,
if you would, please.
Newton-Huckabay: She said she agrees.
Zaremba: Oh, I'm sorry. If all you're saying is you agree -- okay. But not yet, let's go
through the rest of the list and then --
Borup: Mr. Chairman, wouldn't it be faster if you just asked if there is anybody else that
wanted to testify? I don't know. Since so many of them have already --
Zaremba: It might be, except that the list is the public record and I want to make sure
it's accounted for. Sorry. Let's see. That was Fran Jorgensen. L. Jorgensen. Okay.
Going to be covered. It looks like John Anson, maybe, or there may be a few mare
letters in there. Spoken for? Okay. Thank you. Okay. So, some of these people are
on bath lists. One moment while I do paperwork here. Okay. Jan Husky. All right.
Thank you. Rick Venteck, Possibly.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 25 of 67
Vincha: Rick Vincha, 5442 EI Gato and I just had one clarification, is a compromise on
density for me would not be half-acre size lots, but I would like to have a lot less density,
minimum of one house per acre.
Zaremba: Any questions? Phil Jeppesen. Spoken for as well. Okay. And -- oh,
probably Jo Vincha. Okay. She's covered as well. Okay. That concludes our list. The
first thing I'll ask if there is anybody who didn't sign up that cares to add anything. And,
then, we have had a couple people ask for Mrs. Farerra to add a few words in their
behalf and we will give you another three minutes.
Farerra: Thank you. I will make this very quick. And it goes to the question of Pine
Lane. We did not have the foresight tonight to bring with us a deed that had all the
attachments with it and there has not been anything that has been filed with the city, to
my knowledge, with you people, or with ACRD, that contained everything that was
recorded with those deeds. The deed for this particular piece of property -- I"m going to
read you something very short out of it. It says this tract of land is subject to a right of
way far a county road along the east 25 feet, semi-colon, a right of way far a road along
the south 20 feet, comma, a right of way fora 50-foot road as now located and
constructed along the north boundary, which would be Pine Lane, and to all other
easements and rights of way. The only reference to the county road for the deeds far
that piece of property is along the east side, which is Black Cat Road. Now, attached to
every one of the deeds -- and there are -- how many of them? Eight? Seven? Seven
deeds from when this property was split. There is a written -- there is an agreement that
is signed by every one of the property owners that is serviced by Pine Lane, saying I
can get from Wilder's house to Mr. Jorgensen's house, to here, to here, to here until I
get home and I can get back out. Us and our family and our friends. ACHD has
addressed this issue by not providing any deeds to say they have -- that they own
anything there. They have -- they said that they have shown through the assessor's
office records that they own that. However, every one of these people is still paying the
taxes on Pine Lane. Every one of them. And when aperson -- a senior supervisor type
person was contacted by Mr. Brown, who could not be here tonight, because he had a
death in the family and he had to travel, that guy did some independent research at the
assessor's office and he said I don't know where they are coming up with that from. I
can't find anything that says they own any of that. So, I think there has been some
material that has been left out and I agree with Mr. Noll, I think this is going to turn into a
stink down the road if it's not cleared up. Thank you.
Borup: Question.
Zaremba: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: What was the date of that deed you just read from?
Farerra: The deed I'm looking at now is the deed for this particular piece of property.
Meridian planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 26 of 67
Borup: Have you got the date?
Farerra: 1976. September 1976. A warranty deed.
Borup: Okay. Is that what most of them are on there? I was just going by --
Farerra: Some of them are, actually, a little earlier and, then, they figured out, as Mr.
Wilder said -- it kind of started with Mr. Wilder saying that he wasn't going to give
access to what is now the EI Gato Lane Subdivision by the use of the road that the
people on Pine Lane had already started to construct.
Borup: No. I understand. And I'm going back to Mr. McKinnan's statement that ACHD
wasn't formed until 197, so they couldn't have --
Farerra: I'm sorry?
Borup: ACHD was not formed prior to '76, so they could not have had that -- a claim
prior to that time, because they weren't in existence.
Farerra: They also have been able to show no claim since then, except that they say
that they own it. And the people on Pine Lane say, wait a minute, I don't think so. And
so that is the official position and that was how the case came to be.
Borup: Okay. I understand. I just wanted to clarify the date.
Farerra: Okay.
Borup: Thank you.
Zaremba: I'm not sure -- remembering now whether it was your letter or somebody's
else letter, but --
Farerra: There was -- I think Mr. Brown wrote a letter.
Zaremba: Okay. Well, there, actually, were several. Just to clarify, ACRD throughout
this entire period has provided no maintenance to it. How has the maintenance been
handled?
Farerra: Mr. Brown has done some. I believe Mr. Wilder has done some. But ACRD
has never spent five minutes on that road. They have ever graveled it, they have never
graded it, they have never done anything. And the neighbors just went in and put in
same speed bumps, because they were having problems with some teenage drivers
who live on Pine Lane. So, they got a little bit of black tap and they put it aver in these
strips across the gravel road.
Zaremba: Great. Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 27 of 67
Farerra: You're welcome.
Zaremba: I believe everybody has had an opportunity that cares to. At least their
viewpoint has been expressed and we appreciate that and we have heard it. Does staff
have anything to add at this point?
Guenther: In discussions with Mr. Hawkins-Clark, our principal planner here, I guess a
little history on the Comp Plan. Mr. McKinnon keeps referring to it as a guide, but in
certain areas -- and this being one of them, it was set up more along the lines of being
more of a detailed layout of how the neighborhood wanted to have their neighborhood
exist and this neighborhood, according to Brad, was very active in the Comprehensive
Plan enactment and was very adamant in that this was a designation that they wanted
and wished to maintain for their very rural lifestyles. The other issue is that Mr.
McKinnon says that an his deed it indicates that there is a right of way. The open space
calculations, even if you wanted to take half of that, still says, according to our Chapter
13, that exclusive of right of way, are not to be incorporated into open space
calculations and, again, if you did choose to go with the neighborhood recommendation
for a compromise to go with large lot sizes, then, I would recommend that the board
draft a condition of approval to -- to the report in order to accommodate that type of an
issue.
Zaremba: Thank you. Okay. The applicant has been taking notes and we will give you
ten minutes, sir.
McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Again, Dave
McKinnon, 735 South Crosstimber. Let me just start with where Joe left off. I said we
would probably have a disagreement early in the way we define open space and the
way he just defined it, let me read it to you, how it says, and you've got your attorney
here tonight, he can maybe help us out with this. It says open space shall mean land
area exclusive of streetlights and street buffers, except for right of way specifically
dedicated far landscaping within a subdivision. It says you can't count street lights -- it
says you can't count street lights and street buffers, except for those -- excepting those
saying you can count these, except for right of way specifically dedicated for
landscaping within a subdivision. I need to get a clarification from you, but the way I
read that when I see it --
Baird: I'll stand with staffs interpretation. We just got that this afternoon.
McKinnon: Did you?
Baird: And we will stand by that.
McKinnon: And the reason why I bring that up is in the past you have counted right of
ways, which are parkways. Parkways between sidewalks and asphalt, so you guys
have a precedence far this. Halfway -- the parkway is between sidewalks and asphalt
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 2$ of 67
and the roadway, curb and gutter, has been counted as open space in the past under
this exception. Those parkways are located in the right of way, typically, with the
sidewalk being outside of the right of way in an easement, which has been counted
towards open space. I don't know if we are going to argue about that tonight, but is this
accepting that, those are the ones you can count. You can't count the ones that aren't
landscaped, but the ones that are specifically landscaped you can taunt. And I have
had discussions with staff about that in the past and in the past they deal with parkways,
they said, yes, you can count parkways towards open space. So, there is some
precedent that's been set by that -- by staff and by the city. And I said there is a
disagreement on that. Regardless of what it is, we have a 50-foot buffer at the entrance
to the subdivision that needs to be maintained by the homeowners association. It is
open space, it's maintained by a specific person and a specific group, and if it's owned
by a specific group, maintained by a specific group, you can't say that that landscaped
area is not open space and, in fact, it is open space, it's being paid for and maintained
by a specific party. Just because the ordinance says that you can't count it, doesn't
mean it doesn't exist and we would suggest that it does exist and should be counted
towards open space. We are onto something kind of fun. Joe, could -- oh, you've got it
up right there. Awesome. Commissioner Rohm touched on something -- touched a
little bit about compromise and it's been touched on by a couple of Commissioners,
Commissioner Newton-Huckabay -- about compromise. And while there was same
discussion going on, I leaned over and met with one of my -- one of my coworkers,
talked about compromise on this site and if we went to 12,000 square feet, what would
that do to this area. We have got, basically, seven units to back up to this one -- one
site. These are all approximately 9,500, 9,000 square foot lots. Some of these are ever
10,000, some of them are a little bit smaller. Regardless, you pick out on the north side,
if would you take -- if you took this lot out and shifted the road up and, then, took the
land that's separated between this, added it to these three, and to these three, shift it
this way over to the north. There is a pie-shapped lot down here, it's a little bit difficult,
we are not going to be able to fit anymore or less in this area if we went to 12,000
square feet. We still have six that would be backing up to the subdivision. If we were to
take out one lot, it actually does a couple of other things. It's kind of neat and it makes
for a good compromise. It gets our density down. We will lose one lot. It gets us down
below three units to the acre, sa it complies with the Comprehensive Plan, regardless of
how you take your legal description. We are below three units to the acre. It provides a
larger buffer, as far as transitional use, if we get rid of one. There is fixed use
requirements for the distance from the roadway down to the south, so this is an
additional stub street. We'd end up with one less lot, so we meet our density
requirements, we would be able to continue to meet our open space requirements.
Some of the major issues with this plat concerning density, concerning the buffers, go
away and, then, we'd just have to deal with the open space issue that we have already
addressed a little bit. And, Jae, if you can go back a couple mare slides that you guys
have. One -- there we go. Perfect. That works. Let's talk a little bit mare about Pine
Street. Pine Street is the private road that's signed as a private road. At the ACHD --
that's this road right here. Commissioner Borup, I think there was some confusion as to
whether or not this road goes all the way through. Pine Road itself goes and dead ends
at this location. EI Gato continues. EI Gato is a public road. It's not a private road. It
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 29 of 67
goes up -- it Games up and -- I don't see that it continues all the way through. Okay. It
right turns and, then, comes dawn -- okay. EI Gata goes through. That I know. Nat
that it was discussed tonight. Again, we have 110 feet of right of way there. StafF is
supportive of reducing that down to one road that lines up with EI Gato. ACHD has a
policy in place that says you line up with the adjacent roadways. When you have tried
to put 110 feet to line up with a 50-foot roadway and a 50-foot right of way, it doesn't line
up. Especially when you have two roads that are coming out at the exact same point
onto the same road. The point that ACHD made -- and this was discussed with their
legal counsel, Mr. Price was at this hearing and Mr. Price's legal opinion was that these
right of ways -- and there is a number of them throughout the county that are signed as
private roads, are owned by ACRD, but not maintained. The right of way maintenance
supervisor got up and said at that public hearing that there is a number of private roads
that are not being maintained with signs on them and those signs that are private as an
indication to ACHD not to maintain those. And the reason why is ACHD will not take
over maintenance of a roadway until it meets their standards. ACRD doesn't build the
roads, developers build the roads. ACRD will not take over maintenance of Pine --
maintenance of EI Gato in this area, or Pine, until it meets their policy. So, that's the
reason why they haven't done any maintenance. It was a surprise to me to hear that
there is a lot of private roads that are actually owned by ACRD. But ACRD claims
ownership of all rights of ways in Ada County from the time that they are organized.
There wasn't a massive process -- go aver deeds and saying this is now all ACRD. It
would have been too cumbersome. But ACHD claims ownership of all the rights of
ways. Mrs. Farerra -- the report, I guess the deed, far our piece of property, talking
about a 20-foot right of way, a 50-foot right of way, and, then, a right of way 25 feet to
center line for a county road. The reason why it says county, instead of ACHD, is
because at that time the county maintains those roadways, not ACHD, because ACHD
wasn't in existence. We have ACRD for better or for worse. They maintain the
roadways and they take ownership of the rights of way and that was their determination.
I think that the compromise -- if we can -- if we can go back to that, Jae. It's in my head
now and there is -- I guess it's something that would be able to work for -- for us, at
least. You know, if we were to reduce this back here, that pushes all of these lots
towards the 12,000 square foot. It may not meet the specific 12,000 square feet, but if
we take one lot out and spread it equal distance around there, if we push those all to 11
thousand plus square feet, maybe just under 12,000 square feet. If we can add a
condition that says we could make this six units on the western edge, rather than seven,
with space of one of these going through ar added as a compromise, we create the
transitional densities, we allow this area to develop within the Comprehensive Plan. It
reduces our density, makes larger lots, which is what the neighborhood has requested
and I think we have a project that is a viable project. It complies with the
Comprehensive Plan and, again, staff is recommending approval of this and we would
ask that you recommend approval as well to the City Council. With that I will end
testimony. Ask if you have any questions on that. I know there is a lot of issues that
were brought up, but I think those cover the majority of the issues.
Zaremba: Commissioners?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 30 of 67
Borup: I do have a few questions.
Zaremba: Commissioner Borup, please.
Borup: I guess I have got to agree, these are nice size lots. Anywhere else in the city
they would be 300,000 plus homes that would normally go on this size lot. But I do
have a couple of -- you had -- I'm sure your client understood from the beginning what
the Comp Plan said for this area.
McKinnan: Three units or less.
Borup: Pardon?
McKinnon: Three units or less. Less than three.
Borup: Well -- I thought we were at low density?
McKinnon: Commissioner Borup, this is low density. Low density on the
Comprehensive Plan is three units or less.
Borup: On the Comp Plan.
McKinnon: Yes.
Borup: Okay. I'm --
McKinnon: This is not already zoned. This is an annexation request
Borup: Okay. Yeah. There is a difference in the definition between low density on the
Comp Plan -- I mean on the Comp Plan low density and the -- on the ordinance. So,
there wasn't any -- you had made a statement that you did not request a bump up in
density. That was when you were assuming that you maybe had more acreage than it
may appear that you do. So, you're -- what you're saying by your last comment is that
by reducing one lot that you would be well under the three units acre, is that what you're
getting, too?
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Borup, if you reduce one lot --
Borup: And I agree with your calculation. That had 11,000 plus square foot --
McKinnon: It would get it down underneath the three, depending on where you take
those measurements from, but, yes, it would put you down below three. If you take one
out, that's how close you are on the threshold of three units.
Borup: It appears you still may have some trouble on your -- I mean on your open
space. Earlier you had stated that ACHD gave you the option of vacating that property?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 31 of 67
McKinnon: ACHD says with right of ways you either improvement it or you vacate it.
Borup: Okay. And vacate it, it would pass to your ownership, then?
McKinnon: It would pass to our ownership and, then, all of a sudden we have --
Borup: And that would be on the open space at that point.
McKinnon: Then, it could be open space. That's correct.
Borup: And why are you -- why are you not pursuing that option, or was that too early?
McKinnon: It's a process that's both cumbersome to the owner and to ACHD. It takes
several months to go through the process. It requires public hearings to vacate right of
way and through the ACRD process there is an exchange of money or property that
takes place as well, because they can't just vacate it for no money, because it's
privately -- it's not privately, but publicly owned land, because it's right of way. There
has to be an exchange of money. They felt that it would be easiest to leave it as ACHD
right of way, with a license agreement. Same thing happens. It's either owned by
ACHD with the homeowners association maintaining it or it's owned by the owners of
the homeowners association maintaining it. Rather than go through a cumbersome,
you know, monthly -- a several month long process, why not just landscape it.
Borup: Thank you.
Zaremba: Other questions?
Moe: Yeah. I'm still kind of hung up in regards to the open space as well. What I'm
hearing staff and legal tell us already is that they pretty much do not believe the right of
way area can be noted as open space in your calculations. So, I guess having said
that, do you have any second plan of attack on this? Because I'm not anticipating that
changing.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Moe, just like Commissioner Zaremba just
mentioned, if we were to take that right of way area, vacate it, purchased it from ACHD
or land swap it with ACRD, then, it becomes owned by the subdivision, the homeowners
association, then, you can count it, according to staff -- all it is is a matter of process. If
it were owned by ACRD, and maintained by us, or it's owned by us and maintained by
us -- does that make sense? Commissioner Zaremba -- Commissioner Borup said if
you vacate it, you purchase the right of way, and, then, all of a sudden it's part of our
subdivision, it's right of way that can be included. You can only count 50 percent
beyond the ten feet that's required. In a local road the ordinance requires ten feet of
landscaping for the local road. We can count half of whatever is extra to it.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 32 of 67
Moe: Okay. Having said that, you already -- you also mentioned that to vacate you got
a time frame to deal with in order for that to happen.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Moe, that time frame typically takes place
during the final plat construction drawings. That's something that takes place through
the final plat construction drawings. That's something that takes place with --
Moe: Okay. We are getting somewhere now. I understand. I want to thank you.
Zaremba: If you have people who have a deeded right to crass this and what today
would probably be called across-access agreement among -- it sounds like seven or
eight property owners here. Isn't that something of value that you would also have to
purchase from them by agreement?
McKinnon: Well, that would depend if -- from what we have been told by public
agencies, ACHD, is that ACRD owns it and if ACRD owns it, these people can still get
out to Black Cat, there is na harm to these people, because you have a rgadway that
will be improved that run parallel to each other. You can get out on one and there is
access to both of them all the way throughout, you're still getting out to Black Cat,
everybody can get through on those roads -- all the way through. It's all getting to the
same point, Commissioner Zaremba -- Mr. Chairman. ACHD says they own it. In fact,
we wish we could have stayed out of this. Our initial plan for this was let's take access
off of Black Cat, we don't have to worry about Pine Street and EI Gato, we don't have to
worry about coming across any sort of easement. We went and sat down with ACHD,
ACRD said, bay, we'd really rather not have another access to Black Cat. We
understand what you're doing, I understand why you don't want to do that. We can live
with that. We met with the city. The city said, you know what, we'd rather you take
access off the side and Joe -- we got to pre-app and said, you know what, why don't you
look into it a little bit more, maybe there is something else going an here. We went back
to ACRD and said what's going on here and ACHD looked at the map and said, you
know what, we own that and it would be best to come in off of that, you know, and even
if you want to come in off of Black Cat and don't come in over here, you're still stuck at
ACHD to either improve or vacate right of way. ACHD would still even make us improve
or vacate that right of way, regardless of where we took access, because they claim
ownership adjacent to this.
Zaremba: Thank you.
McKinnon: So, we are stuck having to appease ACHD, regardless of where our access
was, because they claim ownership. So, we are kind of -- we are stuck between a rock
and a hard place and ACRD said -- their attorney said we awn it and so that's what we
have to go with.
Zaremba: Commissioners, any other questions? Thank you.
McKinnon: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 33 of 67
Zaremba: Discussion?
Newton-Huckabay: You want to close the Public Hearing first?
Zaremba: That's fine if you'd like to. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I recommend we close this Public Hearing on AZ 05-012
and PP 05-014.
Rohm: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second to close these public hearings. All in favor
say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Discussion?
Newton-Huckabay: I think they need to lose three lots.
Zaremba: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: That's -- by my calculation that's about 2.39 per acre.
Rohm: Three lots in the whole subdivision?
Newton-Huckabay: Yes.
Borup: How many acres are you calculating on the --
Newton-Huckabay: 5.98 --okay.
Borup: 5.89?
Newton-Huckabay: That's what the staff report says
Guenther: Commissioner Zaremba, we are not sure what the survey says. They have
indicated -- there is one survey in our application that says 5.51 acres. There is one
survey that says 6.35 acres and there is another survey that says 5.89 acres, which is
the preliminary plat that is in your sub that -- your application.
Newton-Huckabay: That's the one I'm using to make my calculation
Borup: The smallest one.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 34 of 67
Newton-Huckabay: I got to pick -- you know, we got to -- you know, I gat to pick a
number in our scale.
Guenther: That's why there is a condition of approval in the conditions that says that
they have to come back with a proper survey and proper calculations far the overall
density.
Rohm: And to follow Commissioner Newton-Huckabay's thought, if they dropped it by
three lots, does the open space, then -- that issue, does that go away or are we -- are
they clear with that recommended change?
Guenther: Well, with the open space calculations, I did my own calculations today
based on what was presented and what was interpreted by the subdivision. I came up
with -- that they have 7,$65 square feet of open space on -- according to the 5.51 acre
subdivision, which means -- or survey that was submitted. That would mean that they
have 3.2 percent of open space. They only have to come up with another roughly three
thousand, thirty-eight hundred square feet in order to get to where they need to be.
Zaremba: Then, I will express a couple of opinions that I think may surprise a few
people. In the subdivisions on the east side of Black Cat, we received similar testimony
and in that area I admit that I was not convinced and still am not convinced that it has
that much impact on EI Gato. On the west side of Black Cat I feel entirely differently
about it. The Comprehensive Plan envisions in slow-density area a maximum of three
dwelling units per acre and the discussion we are having noodles that limit. I mean
whether we get to 2.99 or 2.9$, I don't think is the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. In
addition to that, as staff has pointed out and others have, there are areas where the
Comprehensive Plan envisions that even that's too much density and the subject is the
transition to the neighbors. I have no problems supporting the idea that half-acre lots
are as small as these ought to be. In addition to that -- and I deliberately didn't put Mr.
Wilder on the spot, but I personally feel that development of this small acreage is
premature. If the two lots combined, if Mr. Wilder same day was thinking of developing
-- and I'm not going to ask him to answer that question. But if you could combine those
to pieces of property, you could do far more with this that would be much more
advantageous, not only to the City of Meridian, but to the neighbors, have larger lots
that would that be a much better transition to their area and what I'm admitting is I feel
much differently about the west side of Black Cat than I do about the east side of Black
Cat. I still feel eventually when Pine goes east, all of those people are going to go east
and stop being a problem. I can admit that they are being a problem now, but I don't
think they have a reason to go that direction once the sewer is done, once Pine goes
east, which could be years, unfortunately. This is different. This is the entryway to this
group. It's part of the existing properties and the Comprehensive Plan envisions taking
into account the existing properties and I will have to say I feel it's premature at this
point even to annex this small piece, which could be made much better for both the city
and for the neighbors by having a discussion with Mr. Wilder as well. That's my
personal opinion.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 35 pf 67
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Mr. Moe.
Moe: I will weigh in, okay? Quite frankly, I have got a couple different issues on this
project. In regards the Comprehensive Plan in regards to the three dwelling units and to
anticipate it to be as per the Comprehensive Plan, which, in my view as a
Commissioner here, we are somewhat under a duty to somewhat follow the
Comprehensive Plan. So, therefore, I would anticipate that by what the developer is
anticipating, reduction of one lot and whatnot, to somewhat get into -- under the three
dwelling units, I happen to like that very much. My biggest problem on this -- and I'm
going to kind of paint at staff a little. I'm a little bit concerned that -- we have a lot of
open issues on this project and in my opinion I do not think that I can vote for this
development when I have to vote far it to go to City Council with all these open issues
still out there. Ithink there is -- and it's been noted by a few people here tonight, there
are issues I still think need to be resolved, i.e., legal descriptions and whatnot, as well
as what we are doing with the open space, realizing that they may take and get the right
of way from the county. I just think there is too many issues in here that I just can't
support an approval tonight of this project. I'm not so sure I want to really deny it, but
don't think I can support it tonight. Thank you.
Borup: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: Just a couple notes on calculations. If we take the lowest number, the 5.51
acres --Ithink that was Commissioner Huckabay was -- was that the number you were
using?
Newton-Huckabay: I used the 5.89.
Borup: Okay. Well, I used the lower one, so it can't go any lower than that. Sixteen
lots would be 2.9 per acre. f=fifteen would be 2.72. So, eliminating one lot would meet
the three per acre. It doesn't address the open space. That's more for information. My
comment would be that Ithink -- I believe -- I believe there should be an implied
expectation when someone looks at the Comp Plan that that's what would be expected
that you can develop in that area. I also feel, you know, that same transition is
appropriate and because of -- because of this location, feeling the neighbors, I don't feel
that there is any need to give any variance or any extra. I mean I -- the staff has
already stated what their interpretation of the open space and right of way is and -- you
know, and everything else is pretty black and white already in our codes and
ordinances. So, I think I'm agreeing with what Commissioner Mae said, I mean these
are larger lots from what we normally see. Ithink there is still a market far larger lots.
At what point you reach where it's not practical to bring sewer and water services in,
don't know. Staff has commented on that in the past, but, you know, I think the
developer can still -- still has a market for larger lots, but I think there still is an implied
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 36 of 67
expectation to be able to develop it as the Comp Plan says and how that's being already
approved and run through the process, but I think maybe they need to work at
complying with all aspects of that. And so I'm agreeing with Commissioner Moe that I'm
not ready to deny it. Whether approving it tonight is -- it sounds like it could be a long
laundry list of things that they would need to do and I'd feel much more comfortable
maybe having that worked out before it goes to City Council also.
Zaremba: Let me ask what you're thinking we should do as a process. In order to get
some of these resolved, we would probably want to continue the hearing, which we
have closed at the moment, but we have in the past reopened and continued. Are you
thinking there are things that can be resolved? I have expressed my personal opinion
that I think this is premature at this point and we have gotten burned other places where
we annexed a piece of property that was too small to really do what needed to be done
there.
Borup: Well, I don't know. See, I guess I look at --
Zaremba: I'm just one person and we were looking for a consensus here.
Borup: I'm in a -- somewhat of a rural subdivision, but -- and five acre lots surround it.
One-acre lots with five-acre lots around it and in our area all the five-acre lots are
developing. We never will. It's too small. I mean ours are too small to ever develop.
You're not going to develop one acres into anything. So, at some point -- and it's not
going to be next year, but maybe at some point something's going to happened here.
Maybe in someone else's lifetime. And a lot of times that's what it would be, but, you
know, that's part of planning is what's going to happen in 40 years. We have got the
sewer line there. I mean the city has already got -- you know, that's saying something,
too.
Zaremba: Let me get the sense, though -- are we thinking that there are issues that
could be resolved that would earn a recommendation to the City Council? I know all of
my issues can be resolved.
Borup: Right. Yeah. You're saying you want half-acre lots.
Zaremba: And the mare we talk about it, the more etched in stone is it, unfortunately,
but there is --
Borup: Well, I feel like Icould -- I could support a redesign with something with fewer
lots.
Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: That's my sense. By my calculation, reducing three lots would be
about an 18,000 -- provided I did the math right, an average, just about a half an acre. I
mean I -- from a land planning standpoint, I don't even know if that would work, but --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 37 of 67
Zaremba: Well, the applicant has expressed a willingness to do that. What about the
open space and easement and --
Newton-Huckabay: You know, I have to confess the open space issue is pretty
convoluted and I'm having a little hard time following it, so I'm just going to defer to Joe
on that, because with the people in the audience, I -- it's kind of a circus of points. But if
we could come back with that resolved, which it seems to be -- everybody agrees that
could happen and three -- you know, three or more or less lots -- it would only take
three less lots, I think. I think it's not a bad design and I don't necessarily think it's
premature to develop -- what you're doing, then, in my opinion, is setting the standard
for how development is going to go to the west and basically you're getting, on average,
half acre lots between Black Cat and McDermott, with a whole bunch of stub streets.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Just a clarification. Commissioner Huckabay, made the comment about losing
three lots and you made the statement that that was what the developer was saying,
thought he was only losing the one lot.
Zaremba: I'm sorry, I thought I heard her say one.
Newton-Huckabay: No. I said three.
Mae: Three.
Zaremba: Oh, I'm sorry.
Moe: Thank you.
Zaremba: No. I agree. The developer has agreed to lase one lot.
Newton-Huckabay: How many were you thinking?
Borup: Two.
Newton-Huckabay: Two?
Borup: Well, I mean it would need to be at least that to get the open space.
Moe: Yeah.
Borup: Three would be a nice size, though.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 38 of 67
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm, do you have an opinion to weigh in here?
Rohm: Well, yeah, I have to voice my two cents worth here. To start off with, the
Comprehensive Plan is something that we use as our guide as we move forward with
development in this area, as well as the entire area of impact and I believe staff has
commented that the people from EI Gato had weighed in and expressed significant
concern about larger developments or dense developments adjacent to their rural
lifestyle and I think that the lowest development that could be assigned was assigned to
this property. The low density, which is up to -- is up to three dwelling units per acre.
Up to does not mean that you have to develop up to three. You don't have to go to
three dwelling units per acre. I think that it would behoove the developer to reconsider
and move to some compromise to address the concerns of the adjacent neighbors. The
issue of the open space, I really think that at the end of the day the open space,
whether they purchase that from Ada County or have it vacated, it's all going to be the
same open space at the end of the process and so, quite honestly, even if we should
not consider it as open space as part of this hearing, if, in fact, it was vacated, you
would end up with the exact same open space at the end of the day and sa I personally
don't think that the open space is as significant of an issue as what has been
expressed, simply because through time that would be resolved and would end up with
the same open space. So, anyway, that's as I see it. So, in conclusion, my thoughts
are that the developer should go back and reconsider reconfiguration with a reduced
number of lots that is in line with what Commissioner Newton-Huckabay had suggested,
with at least a three lot reduction and that would get them down below the three -- I
would imagine that would get it to 2.7 or something like that.
Newton-Huckabay: 2.3.
Rohm: 2.3. And I think that that's working as a compromise to the concerns of the
public and giving credence to the fact that the developer has a Comprehensive Plan
that he's also tried to adhere to and once those issues have been addressed, then,
that's something that we all, hopefully, could live with. End of statement.
Zaremba: Thank you. I would ask a clarification from staff. We often in our discussion
are talking about usable open space and to me I envision a place where people could
actually have a picnic or the kids could play ball. Is usable part of the code or is that
just an interpretation that we make?
Guenther: That is an interpretation that we have kind of defined, as there are no
amenities associated with any type of open space. Typically, with open space we get a
gazebo, a park bench, or a bus stop or something along that line and there is nothing
presented with this. That's what usable is as we interpret it as when we drafted the staff
report.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you.
Rohm: As a suggestion --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 39 of 87
Zaremba: Okay. Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: As a suggestion, I would say that we should reopen the Public Hearing and
continue them to a later date and give the developer an opportunity to come back in
with the -- with a response that addresses the concerns that have been expressed by
this body and come up with a design that addresses the concerns of the public, as well
as the comments made by the Commission here and we will continue it to a point where
they feel comfortable that they can address all issues that have been brought up this
evening. That would be my recommendation.
Guenther: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Would you care to make that a motion?
Borup: Mr. Chairman, there is one other option and I would be interested in the
applicant's feelings on this. I mean the other option is we could just vote on it tonight.
And that may -- you know, that may be appropriate to have them express haw they feel
about that and if we are going to reopen the Public Hearing, we can go either way.
Rohm: Well, I don't think we can ask the applicant for his desires without reopening the
Public Hearing.
Borup: Right. That's correct. Unless he wants to express it to staff. But we can find
out if he would -- if he'd like that idea, to continue it or he'd just as soon that there was a
vote tonight.
Zaremba: I would express, again, regardless of my original opinion being
uncomfortable with a vote to recommend anything that has this many loose ends to it.
Borup: Well, it would be real easy to recommend --
Zaremba: -- has asked us to --
Borup: It would be real easy to make a recommendation far denial.
Newton-Huckabay: Yes. I think that's where we go with that is to recommend denial.
That would be my vote.
Zaremba: I'm not trying to brow beat anybody, but I was already there.
Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we reopen the Public Hearing AZ 05-012 and
PP 05-014.
Moe: Second.
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 40 of 67
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. That motion carries.
Sorry.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Rohm: Okay. With that being said, I guess we just need to talk to --
Zaremba: Do you have any further questions for the applicant?
Borup: I think we can get an answer just by a nod of their head if they would like it
continued or a vote tonight.
Rohm: I'd like a date certain for a requested continuance.
Borup: Well, that's -- yeah, that would be helpful to have that, so we could put that in
the --
Zaremba: We aren't looking for new testimony here. I'll need to ask Mr. McKinnon to
answer this question.
Beecham: I'm, actually, the owner
Borup: I think he can answer.
Zaremba: Okay. Come forward.
Beecham: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Scott Beecham, 405 South 8th Street. I'm an
owner of C2B Development. We would appreciate the opportunity to go back, tie up
some of these loose ends. I think there was some misunderstanding we can work
through pretty quickly and we can redesign and run a detailed pro forma, see if that's
feasible, whether it be minus two lots, minus three lots, and let staff know whether that
makes sense to us or not and we can be back before you or not. I think the direction of
the Commission is clear.
Rohm: Do you have a date certain?
Moe: While we are waiting on that, I do want to make one statement that was -- as I
heard the Commission, it was more like three lots, not two.
Beecham: Yes, sir. I got that very clearly in sign language.
Rohm: It looks like June 2nd, June 16th, or --
Zaremba: Those are both pretty full.
Rohm: Are they both?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 41 of 67
Zaremba: It would be July before we could do anything.
Moe: If I might add, because we still have legal issues on this as well, I mean do you
think it's -- I think the neighbors still have issues in regards to that right of way and I'm a
little bit concerned that we are -- it's going to take a little longer than everybody thinks to
get this thing resolved.
Newton-Huckabay: How about August 4th?
Zaremba: I certainly would want to see something in writing from ACHD and from the
property owners as well.
Moe: Exactly. I mean at some point --
Zaremba: We aren't going to make the legal decision, but there needs to be supporting
documentation.
Moe: A hundred percent agreement.
Beecham: Mr. Chairman, if I could, if we could do a July date, I will go to work on
getting that in writing from ACRD. If we can't do that, I will notify staff in advance and
make sure we are not wasting anyone's time.
Rohm: Thank you. We have got the 21st.
Zaremba: A suggestion has been the 21st of July. That would give staff adequate time,
then -- if this is revised, staff needs everything ten days before the hearing in order to
get agency comments and everything, so that --
Moe: If at all possible, could we make it the 4th of August? I think there is members
that may not be present on the 21st.
Zaremba: That works for me. I'm not making the motion. Would that be a problem?
Beecham: That would work.
Zaremba: Okay. All right. A motion to continue is in order.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue public hearings AZ 05-012 and PP 05-
014 to the regularly scheduled planning and zoning meeting of August 4th, 2005.
Mae: Second.
Zaremba: There is a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That
motion carries.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 42 of 67
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: Thank you all for coming in.
Zaremba: Thank you all. We will see you again.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move we take a short break.
Zaremba: This is the appropriate time for us to take a break. We will reconvene in
about ten minutes.
(Recess.)
Item 9: Public Hearing: AZ 05-014 Request far an Annexation and Zoning of
19.72 acres from RUT to a R-8 zone for Sicily Subdivision by Landmark
Engineering and Planning -south of East Victory Road and west of South
Locust Grove Road:
Item 10: Public Hearing: PP 05-016 Request for a Preliminary Plat approval of 74
building lots 5 other lots on 19.72 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Sicily
Subdivision by Landmark Engineering and Planning -south of East
Victory Road and west of South Locust Grove Road:
Zaremba: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, we will reconvene our meeting and let the
record show that all Commissioners that were here before are here again with us and
we will open the Public Hearing far Items 9 and 10 on our agenda. This is AZ 05-014,
request for an annexation and zoning of 19.72 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone and also
Public Hearing PP 05-016, request for a preliminary plat approval of 74 building lots and
five other lots on 19.72 acres, in a proposed R-8 zone for Sicily Subdivision by
Landmark Engineering and Planning, south of east Victory Road and west of South
Locust Grove Road. And we will begin with the staff report.
Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application
before you is for Sicily Subdivision. It's proposed for 72 building lots, five common lots,
in a proposed R-8 zone. Bordered on the east by the recently approved Roseleaf and
Chatsworth Subdivisions and, then, South Locust Grove Road. On the southwest
property line bordered by the Ridenbaugh Canal and undeveloped RUT properties and,
then, also bordered by an undeveloped RUT property on the north. It is also nearby to
Tuscany Village and, then, across Locust Grave portions of Tuscany Lakes Subdivision.
The Comprehensive Plan designation of this property is medium density residential.
The applicant has proposed 3.75 dwelling units per acre, which is in accordance with
that medium density residential. Actually, on the low end. the Comprehensive Plan
designates medium density residential as three to eight units per acre and this is much
closer to the three than the eight. The staff doesn't have many issues for the
Commission's resolution. I had spoke with the applicant and they are in agreemg~
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PUBLIC HEARING
SIGN-UP SHEET
DATE August 4, 2005 ITEM #
PROJECT NUMBER
PROJECT NAME
~'~ ~ y T....~~„ ,.
,~~~'~ ~ ~~ iR~P~~~~
... - r ate'' :r:,:t: i. ri'._~~cr::
6
PP 05-014
EI Gato Subdivision
NAME (PLEASE PRINT) FOR AGAINST NEUTRAL
~ ~ ~
PP o5-014
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING May 19, 2005
APPLICANT C2B Development, LLC ITEM NO. S
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from April 21,2005 _ 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 - 701 Black Gat Road
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
See Previous Item Packet /Minutes
See attached Staff Comments
Cove
Pl
~~~~
s~
OTHER: See Attached letters from Residents
Contacted:
Emailed:
Date:
Staff Initials:
Phone:
Maferlala presented pt public maetin~s shah became prop~rfy of -he Cify of Meddlan.
MAYQR
Tammy de Weerd '"
,~,,,~„ LEGAL DEPARTMENT
(208) 888-4433 Fax 887-4813
CITY COUNCIL n° "
~~`
MEMBERS -
~
l~~~
c~i I Y• car ~
`
PUBLIC WORKS
Keith Bird ~- ~ _ BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Christine Donnell J _
J _
"`
`, (208) 898-5500 • Fax 898-9551
Shaun Wardle ~
~
~~
Y
f
T
7 ,~.,r
:+
Charles M. Rountree [
/L
L
/
t
~a
~ li;.)r~t-!U f
PLANNING AND ZONING
DEPARTMENT
r ~
\F'
~~ .. (208) 884,5533 • FAX 888-6854
~17E_
'i
~~
~
~ rRIa:VSCJCtt•"".~Al'}
~ StkC[
i9A3
STAFF REPORT: Transmittal Date: March 24, 2005
Hearing Date: April 21, 2005 Continued to May 19, 2005
To: Mayor, City Council and Planning & Zoning Commission ~~ V ~ ~~~
~~+
From: Joseph R. Guenther, Associate City Planner ~; I~A~ ~ ~ ~narJ
Michael Cole, Development Services Coordinator r~- c
CITY QF MERIDIAN
Re: El Gato Subdivision CITY CLERK QF'FICE
• Annexation and Zoning of 5.89 Acres from RUT to R-4 (Low Density
Residential), by C2B Development, LLC (File No. AZ-OS-012).
• Preliminary Plat for Seventeen (17) Building Lots and Two (2)
Common/Other Lots on 5.89 Acres in a Proposed R-4 Zone, by C2B
Development, LLC (File No. PP-OS-014).
We have reviewed the above referenced submittals and offer the following comments and
conditions of approval. These conditions shall be considered in full, unless expressly
modified or deleted by motion of the Meridian City Council:
APPLICATIONS SUMMARY
The applicant, C2B Development, LLC, has applied for Annexation and Zoning (AZ) and
Preliminary Plat (PP) approval of Seventeen (17) Building Lots and Two (2) Common/Other
Lots on 5.89 Acres. The site is located on the west side of Black Cat Road, and on the South
side of Pine Lane (50-feet of ROW) and El Gato Lanes (60-feet of RO
W), approximately one-
quarter of a mile North of Franklin Road. This site is currently Single Family Residential and has
not been previously platted.
As noted above, the applicant is proposing to subdivide the subject site into seventeen buildable
lots. Each lot contains a minimum 8,000 square-feet. The seventeen proposed building lots range
in size from 8,265 square-feet up to 10,592 square-feet. All housing types are proposed as
single-family residential. The applicant is proposing to develop this site in one phase.
The applicant has requested all of the property be zoned R-4 (Low Density Residential). The
applicant has indicated a gross density of the proposed subdivision at 2.89 gross dwelling units
per acre. This presented density is in accord with the proposed R-4 zoning district. The survey
submitted for the site area by W&H.Pacific is listed as 5.51 acres, which does not include
az-as-oiz>Pr-os-oia
);I Gaco Subdivision
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
May 19, 2005 (P&Z Hearing Date)
Page 2
Black Cat Road Right-of--way and calculates the gross density at 3.0$ to the acre. This is
allowable for the R-4 district but does not directly correspond to the Comprehensive Plan
which designates this area as "Low Density Residential." Therefore, the applicant must receive
approval fora "step up" in density for this development (from low to medium) . Please see
Annexation & Zoning Analysis "A" below. The applicant is not requesting any modifications
to the dimensional standards of the requested R-4 zone (i.e. - building setbacks, lot size,
frontage, etc .) .
Anew public street from El Gato Lane (local road), Liger Court, is proposed to provide the only
access to the site.
The subject property is within the Urban Service Planning Area. The subject applications (AZ
and PP) were submitted concurrently to the Planning & Zoning Department for review. Staff
has provided a detailed analysis and recommended conditions of approval for the
requested annexation and zoning and preliminary plat applications below.
LOCATION
The property is located on the west side of Black Cat Road and on the South side of El Gato
Lane, approximately 1,400-feet north of Franklin Road, in Section 09, Township 3 North, Range
1 West.
SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
North: Single-family home on apex 5-acres;, zoned RUT (Ada County)
South: Agricultural, Union Pacific Rail Road zoned RUT (Ada County)
West: Single-family home on apex 5-acres, zoned RUT (Ada County)
East Single-family home on apex 3-acres, zoned RUT (Ada County)
Recent developments to the northeast of this site include an R-8 Subdivision on El Gato Lane
(Castlebrook Subdivision). The proposed subdivision will set the standard for development west
of Black Cat Road when the Black Cat Sewer Trunk is activated.
OWNERS OF RECORD
The property owner of record is Ben Zumhoff, and Ben Zumhoff has signed the submitted
applications requesting annexation and preliminary plat approval.
ANNEXATION & ZONING ANALYSIS
According to Ordinance 11-15-11, General Standards Applicable to Zoning Amendments, both
the P&Z Commission and Council are required "to review the particular facts and circumstances
of each proposed zoning amendment in terms of the following standards and shall find adequate
evidence answering the following questions about the proposed zoning amendment."
The following is the list of standards found in 11-15-11 and analysis by staff:
AZ-OS-D12/PP-05-014 ElGato.AZ.PP.DGC
Planning & Zoning Comrnission/Mayor & City Council
May 19, 2005 (P&Z Hearing Date)
Page 3
A. Will the new zoning be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive
Plan and, if not, has there been an application for a Comprehensive Plan
amendment;
In Chapter VII of the Comprehensive Plan, `Low density' is defined as areas including
single-family homes at densities of three dwellin units or less er acre. The applicant is
requesting that all the subject site be zoned R-4 (Low Density Residential). The R-4
district allows for a maximum of four (4) dwelling units per acre (MCC11-7-2.B).
Although the requested zoning designation, R-4, allows densities consistent with the law
density Comprehensive Plan designation through the `step up' allowance as in residential
areas, other residential densities will be considered without requiring a Comprehensive
Plan amendment. However the density can only be changed one "step" (i.e. low to
medium, not low to high, etc.), The proposed residential density for this site is 2.89 gross
dwelling units per acre as calculated by the applicant, ar 17 units per 5.89 acres.
The applicant has submitted a survey indicating the property to be 5.51 acres which
would calculate a gross density of 3.08 dwelling units per acre in conflict with the
Comprehensive Plan designation of Low Density but meeting the goals of the medium.
density residential comprehensive designation. Net density is approximately 5.6 dwelling
units to the acre if right-af--way and required open space calculations are removed from
the calculation. Net density calculation maybe of importance as the common lots/ open
space provide no practical residential/transitional use buffer, The 10' landscape buffer to
the north roadway and the 25' landscape buffer on Black Cat Road are required (lot 1
Block 1) and the 50' open space lot south of the residential lots is a significant canal
requiring safety fencing. Therefore, these open space lots provide no relief or transitional
buffer to neighboring large lot residential uses. It is staffls opinion that the lot sizes on
the western boundary should be a minimum of 12,000 square feet in order to transition to
the larger rural residential lots on the western boundary.
The Comprehensive Plan does allow a one step increase or decrease in residential areas
without amending the Comprehensive Plan. Similar density of development has occurred
in the one existing subdivision in this area today (Castlebrook, single family lots 8,000-
15,000 square feet), and staff believes that approving a plat with less than 3 dwelling
units per acre could be in the City's best interest. However, because there are many large
lots adjacent to the west of the site, and available urban style single family lot options in
Castlebrook to the northeast, stepping up density to more than 3 dwelling units per acre
may not be appropriate. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council rely an
staffs analysis, public testimony received and any comments submitted from any other
agencies or departments regazding whether the proposed zone and subsequent
development is harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan.
The comprehensive plan states on Page 104, Objective D- Plan for appropriate uses
within rural areas: "Require new urban density subdivisions which abut or are proximal
to existing low density residential land uses to provide landscaped screening or
transitional densities with larger, mare comparable lot sizes to buffer the interface
between urban level densities and rural residential densities. "
AZ-OS-012lPP-OS-014 E1Ga[o.AZ.PP.DGC
Planning & Zoning Cornmissioi>IMayor & City Council
May 19, 2005 (P&Z Hearing Date)
Page 4
In this instance staff does not support the "step up" in density at this site and recoinrnends
to the Commission to maintain the low density designation.
B. Is the area included in the zoning amendment intended to be rezoned in the future;
Staff does not anticipate that the applicant intends to rezone the subject property in the
future.
C. Is the area included in the zoning amendment intended to be developed in the
fashion that would be allowed under the new zoning -for example, a residential area
turning :into a commercial area by means of conditional use permits;
Staff finds that single-family residential uses are allowed within the requested zoning
district of R-4. Low Density Residential permits the establishment of residential uses and
is designed to protect the integrity of residential development by prohibiting the intrusion
of incompatible nonresidential uses. The accompanying plat derr~onstrates the land will
be developed with lot sizes, housing types and other dimensional requirements that
conform to the proposed zoning designation.
D. Has there been a change in the area or adjacent areas which may dictate that the
area should be rezoned. Far example, have the streets been widened, new railroad
access been developed or planned or adjacent area being developed in a fashion
similar to the proposed rezone area;
Staff finds that recent residential developments to the northeast have been approved for
development similar to the proposed subdivision, with single-family residences.
Development in the area has been limited to sewer capacity. Currently sewer is not
available as the Black Cat Sewer Trunk is not active and development is not encouraged
until sewer connections can be made as approved by Meridian Public Works. The
estimate on the Black Cat trunk taming online is early winter 2005.
Ada County parcel grounds designated low density residential; approximately 5 acres per
lot dominate the landscape west of Black Cat Road where Castlebrook Subdivision (R-4)
and Chesterfield Subdivision (R-8) to the east of Black Cat Road are both single-family
developments with residential densities between 3.0 dwelling units per acre (Castlebrook)
and 4.63 dwelling units per acre (Chesterfield).
Based on the ACHD Long Range 2030 proposal, Black Cat Road is anticipated to
eventually be a 3-lane roadway abutting this site. However, Black Cat Road is not
currently included within ACHD's Five Year Work Program or in the currently adopted
20-year Capital Improvements Plan for roadway improvements.
Local Streets El Gato Lane and W. Pine Lane are ACHD rights-of--way. ACHD and the
City of Meridian will require the proposed Liger Court to take access to El Gato Lane.
AZ-OS-012/PP-OS-014 ElGato.AZ.PP.DGC
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
May 19, 2005 (P&Z Hearing Date)
Page 5
El Gato Lane lines up with El Gato Lane to the east of Black Cat Road. El Gato Lane is a
50' public right-of--way platted under Sky-View Ranchettes No 1 and maintained by
ACRD.
ACHD has made the following Comments: "There is 110-feet ofright-of--way (60-feet for E1 Gato
and 50-feet for Pine) abutting the north property line of the site. Qn the east side of the roadway, El Gato
has been constructed to serve Castlebrook Subdivision and inr~proverr~ents for the north side of El Gato are
in place. These streets intersecting Black Cat Road are required to align, centerline to centerline. The
applicant ]ias sufficient right-of--way to construct the street within the 50-foot right-of--way corridor that is
needed for the alignment. The applicant will have additional right-of--way from Pine Lane abutting the
north property line because the road will be shifted slightly to the north. This right-of--way area can be
landscaped, with a license agreement. This requirement will eliminate the two roadways that currently
intersect Black Cat Road on the east side, and will combine the entrance as a single roadway at El Gato.
The applicant should provide a connection for Pine Lane to connect to El Gato west of the site."
ACHD has indicated that W. Pine Lane is a fee simple roadway and holds deeds to 50' of
right of way fronrt the western property edge to Black Cat Road. Pine Lane is a privately
maintained right-af--way. According to ACHD Pine Lane is SO' of public right-of--way
that AC]FID does not maintain. ACHD has made a condition that the applicant shall
landscape the 50' of right-of--way (currently Pine Lane) providing one access point for
Liger Court to El Gato Lane which then will provide connection to Black Cat Road. The
City of Meridian shall require the 50' landscape buffer to be included with the landscape
plan as per MCC 12-13. The improvements would be considered off-site by the plat but
it would not be offsite if determined as part of the annexation request. The annexation
finding would need to be made that this project is in the best interests of the city, however
the presence of Pine Lane would dictate making landscaping improvements to shift local
traffic from Pine Lane to El Gato (see Annexation and Zoning Finding L).
E. Will the proposed uses be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be
harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character
of the general vicinity and that such use will not change the essential character of
the same area;
Staff finds that the requested zoning and proposed density is slightly higher than the
anticipated range for a low density urban project. Based on the Comprehensive Plan, staff
believes that the existing county parcels in the area (south and north and east) will
redevelop with similar or lower densities in the near future. Staff also finds that the
proposed zoning/uses can be designed and constructed in a manner that will be
harmonious with, and appropriate in appearance with, the existing and intended character
of the surrounding area. Staff does not anticipate that all of the five acre parcels in Sky-
view Ranchettes Subdivision #1 will redevelop and allowances for some parcels to be
maintained with larger areas should be considered.
The proposal does not meet the standards of MCC 12-13-16 Residential Subdivision
Open Space which states that "common space shall equal or exceed 5% of the gross land
area of the subdivision. This requirement shall apply to all single family residential
AZ-OS-012/PP-OS-014 ElGato.AZ.PP.DOC
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
May 19, 2005 (P&Z Hearing Date)
Page 6
subdivisions of 5 acres or more." The applicant has not provided useable open space as
defined by areas exclusive of street rights-of--way and street buffers, as well as accessible
by all residents of the subdivision. Lot 1 Block 1 is partially right-of--way buffer to Pine
Lane and Black Cat Road and partially non-accessible, non-landscaped areas utilized by
the Purdam Drain. There are no other open space lots included with this proposal.
The existing character of the area will, and is, currently changing, especially upon build-
out of the proposed project and other similar subdivisions in the general vicinity.
However, staff does not find that the proposed zoning/uses will adversely change the
essential character of area. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council rely on
staffs analysis, public testimony received and any comments submitted from any other
agencies or departments regarding whether this property should be annexed as proposed.
F. Will the proposed uses not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future
neighboring uses;
Staff does not anticipate that the proposed residential uses will be hazardous as long as
the conditions outlined in this report are complied with and construction traffic and house
construction is conducted in a manner consistent with City Code.
Access to Black Cat Road shall be taken to El Gato Lane and not to Pine Lane
Improvements must be made accordingly to Pine Street to shift local traffic from a
publicly non-maintained right-of=-way to a maintained street. This change could be
considered disturbing to residents using Pine Lane for access to Black Cat Road.
However°, as per ACHD's condition, traffic from Pine Lane should be moved to El Gato.
The common lot listed as Lat 1 Block 1 will require fencing to separate Black Cat Road
and the Purdam Drain from residential uses. The Purdam Drain is a steep banked and
potentially hazardous waterway which should be fenced in such a manner as to be non-
combustible and impede all access to the Purdam Drain.
The Commission and Council should rely on any public testimony (oral and written)
when determining whether ar not the proposed zoning and subsequent uses will be
disturbing or hazardous to the existing or future neighboring uses.
G. Will the area be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as
highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal,
water, sewer or that the person responsible for the establishment of proposed zoning
amendment shall be able to provide adequately any of such services;
The applicant will be responsible for the extension of utilities to and through this
proposed development. Sizing and routing shall be coordinated with the Public Works
Department.
The applicant and/or future property owners will be required to pay park and highway
impact fees .
AZ-OS-012/PP-OS-014 EIGaro.P.Z.PP.DOC
Planning & Zoning Comrnission/Mayor & City Council
May 19, 2005 (P&Z Hearing Date)
Page 7
On Apri127, 2005, the ACRD Commission acted on the subject applications. The ACRD
is recommending approval of this development with site specific and standard conditions
(please see Agency Comments and Conditions at the end of this report).
On April 29, 2005, a joint agency/department comments meeting was held with
representatives of key service providers to this property. Based on the joint
agency/department meeting and other comments received fronn agencies/departments,
staff finds that the public services listed above can be made available to accommodate the
proposed development. The Commission and Council should reference any written
and/or verbal testimony submitted by any public service provider, regarding their ability
to adequately service this project.
H. Will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities
and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community;
If approved, the developer will be financing the extension of sewer, water, local street
infrastructure, utilities and irrigation services to serve the project. The primary public
costs to serve the future residents will be fire, police and school facilities and services.
Staff finds there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and that the
proposed zoning and subsequent development will not be detrimental to the community's
economic welfare.
X. Will the proposed uses not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment
and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the
general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes,
glare or odors;
Staff finds that the proposed annexation and the development of single-family homes on
this site will not involve uses that will create nuisances that would be detrimental to the
general welfare of the surrounding area.
ACRD projects this development will generate 160 additional vehicle trips per day. Staff
recognizes the fact that traffic and noise will increase with the approval of this
subdivision; however, staff does not believe that the amount generated will be
detrimental to the general welfare of the public. Staff does not anticipate the proposed
annexation and subsequent uses will create excessive traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare,
or odors.
J. Will the area have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be so designed
as not to create an interference with traffic an surrounding public streets;
The applicant is proposing to construct one public street into the site from El Gato Lane,
which will connect with Black Cat Road, a minor collector. ACRD is supportive of the
proposed approach (Eiger Court) location on El Gato Lane. The applicant shall provide
the stub street to the west which is listed as Bengal Street. Staff believes that the
AZ-DS-012/PP-OS-D 14 ElGaco.AZ.PP.DOC
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
May 19, 2005 (P&Z Hearing Date)
Page $
extension of Liger Court to El Gato Lane to the west will allow better traffic circulation
for this area. Pine Lane is unimproved right-af way and should be vacated by ACHD or
landscaped as requested by ACHD at the developer's expense. The landscaping should
be designed in a manner to shift all traffic from Pine Lane to El Gato Lane. If the Liger
Court is designed and constructed as approved by the ACHD and the City, staff does eat
believe that the subdivision will create interference with traffic on the surrounding public
streets.
K. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of
major importance; and
There are some mature trees on this property. Any existing trees larger than 4" caliper
that are removed should be mitigated far, per the Landscape Ordinance. The Purdam
Drain and the Union Pacific Railroad right-of--ways provide significant wildlife habitat
for pheasants, quail and other game bird species as detailed in several letters of
correspondence. Fencing the Purdam Drain along the southern boundary of the
proposal should provide wildlife and open areas adequate protection from residential
uses. Staff finds that the proposed development will not result in the destruction, 1055
or damage of any natural feature(s) of major importance if developed under these
conditions .
Staff recommends that the Commission and Council reference any public testimony that
may be presented to determine whether or not the proposed development may destroy
ar damage a natural or scenic feature(s) of major importance of which staff is unaware.
L. Is the proposed zoning amendment in the best interest of the City of Meridian. (Ord.
592,11-17-1992)?
The R-4 zoning amendment will provide lots that are similar in nature to existing
subdivisions in the near vicinity. It is staff's interpretation of the proposal that there are
three factors which should be maintained in the best interest of the City of Meridian.
1. The lot sizes of subdivisions west of Black Cat Road should adhere to the Low
Density Residential designation regardless of the zoning designation. The larger lot
sizes would provide fewer residents near large sized, estate style, rural residential
uses and provide a better transition from R-8 densities east of Black Cat Road with
the existing platted residential lots of Sky-View Ranchettes No.l Subdivision.
2. The applicant shall provide the required landscaping buffers to shift vehicular traffic
from Pine Lane to El Gato Lane as required by ACHD. The road section froze Liger
Court shall extend and connect to El Gato Lane under the required street sections as
approved by ACHD.
3. The applicant shall provide a minimum of 5% of useable open space within the
subdivision.
AZ-OS-012/PP-OS-Ol4 ElGato.AZ.PP.bDC
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
May 19, 2005 (P&Z Hearing Date)
Page 9
Staff finds that all essential services are available or will be provided by the developer to
the subject property and will not require unreasonable expenditure of public funds. The
applicant is proposing to develop the land in general compliance with the City's
Comprehensive Plan (if a step up in density is granted). Staff does not recoinrnend lot
sizes that would be invasive to the properties to the north and west of the subject property
but the lot sizes should be transitional in nature and allow additional low density
residential uses to expand to the west at the owners discretion. Subdivisions of medium
density have already been approved for development to the east and this is a logical
expansion of the City limits from medium density to low density residential uses. In
accordance with the findings listed above, staff finds that annexation/zoning of this
property would be in the best interest of the City_
PRELIMINARY PLAT ANALYSIS
Sections 12-3-3 J.2 and 12-3-5 D read as follows: "In determining the acceptance of a proposed
subdivision, the Commissian/Council shall consider the objectives of this title anal at least the
following:
A. The conformance of the subdivision with the Comprehensive Development Plan;
Staff finds that the proposed application is in substantial compliance with the adopted
Comprehensive Plan. However, the proposed density, 3.08 dwelling units per acre (gross)
is above the target density of 3 dwelling units per acre for this area. Staff anticipates the
inclusion of 5% of open space to allow the densities to develop closer to 3 dwelling units
to the acre. Please see Annexation and Zoning Analysis "A".
B. The availability of public services to accommodate the proposed development;
Staff finds that public services are available to accommodate the proposed development.
(See finding "G" under Annexation and Zoning Analysis for more detail.)
C. The continuity of the proposed development with the capital improvement program;
Because the developer is installing sewer, water, and utilities for the development at their
cost, staff finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital
improvement funds.
D. The public fYnancial capability of supporting services for the proposed development;
Staff recommends the Commission and Council rely upon comments from the public
service providers (i.e.- police, fire, ACRD, etc.) to determine this finding. (See finding
"G" under Annexation and Zoning Analysis above, and the Agency Comments and
Conditions at the end of this report for more detail.)
E. The other health, safety or environmental problems that may be brought to the
Commission's attention.
AE-OS-012lPP-OS-Ol4 81Galo.AZ.PP.DOC
Planning & Zoning Coinmission/Mayor & City Council
May 19, 2005 (P&Z Hearing Date)
Page 10
Staff is not aware of any health, safety or envirommental problems associated with the
development of this subdivision that should be brought to the Council or Commission's
attention. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis. Staff recommends that the
Commission and Council reference any public testimony that may be presented to
determine whether or not the proposed subdivision may cause health, safety or
environmental problems of which staff is unaware.
PRELIMINARY PLAT SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
1. Public Streets and Access:
Cannectivit Li er court
Liger Court is also shown as a connection to Pine Lane. The applicant shall extend Liger
court to El Gato Lane under the conditioning of ACHD.
NOTE 2: At the April 27, 20p5, ACHD Commission meeting, the District required the
applicant to construct Liger Court to El Gato Lane (see ACHD conditions of approval).
2. Landscaping: Staff is generally supportive of the proposed landscaping design with the
following considerations: fencing should be included on the north border of the Purdam
Drain, and Pine Lane landscaping shall be designed according to MCC 12-13
Landscaping and maintained by the home owners association. See Site Specific
Condition #7 below.
Open Space: MCC 12-13-16 requires 5% of open space to be set aside for subdivisions of
at least 5-acres in size. The applicant is proposing to set aside 0.6-acres (according to the
plat note) (10.8%) of the site for open space. Most of this open space is at the front entry
into the development, adjacent to Black Cat Road or contained by the Purdam Drain and
not accessible to all lots of the subdivision. Further, common open space means land
exclusive of street right-of--way and street buffers for Locust Grove Road (MCC 12-13-
16-3). See Site Specific Condition #5 below.
Tree Mitigation: There are several large trees an this site that the applicant is proposing
to remove or relocate. Any tree over 4" in caliper that is removed from the property shall
be replaced by installing additional trees, being the equivalent number of caliper inches
of trees that were removed. Required landscaping trees will not be considered as
replacement trees for those trees that are removed (MCC 12-13-13-3). The applicant
should coordinate a tree protection/mitigatian plan with Elroy Huff at the Meridian Park
Department. See Site Specific Condition #7 below.
4. Ditches, Laterals, and Canals: Per MCC 12-4-13, all irrigation ditches, laterals or canals,
exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to
the area being subdivided shall be tiled. Staff is unaware of the official status of the
Furdam Drain, it appears to be maintained by Nampa Meridian Irrigation and is of
sufficient size to be used and considered a natural feature and not require tiling. See Site
Specific Condition #8 below
AZ-OS-Olt/PP-OS-014 ~E1Ga[aAZ.PP.AOC
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayar & City Council
May 19, 2005 (P&Z Hearing Date)
Page 11
5. Pressure Irri ation: The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be
supplied by a year-round source of water (MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant shauld be
required to utilize any existing surface ar well water for the primary source. If a surface
or well source is not available, asingle-point connection to the culinary water system
shall be required. If a single-point connectian is utilized, the developer will be
responsible far the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on
the final plat by the City Engineer. An underground, pressurized irrigation system should
be installed to all landscape areas per the approved specifications and in accordance with.
MCC 12-13-8 and MCC 9-1-28. See Site Specific Condition #9 below.
SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRELIMINARY PLAT
1. This Staff Report is based upon the preliminary plat prepared by W&H Pacific on
February 15, 2005, and is approved with the conditions listed herein. All
comments/conditions of the annexation and zoning (AZ-OS-012) application shall also be
considered conditions of the Preliminary Plat (PP-OS-014).
2. Construct Liger Court to the north right-of--way line to tie in with the 60-feet of right-of-
way for El Gato Lane.
3. Revise the plat to provide a minimum residential density calculation in accordance with
the low density residential designation of less than 3 dwelling units per acre. The
minimum residential density shall be calculated by the number of lots by the overall
acreage that includes only: residential lots, required landscape buffers as required by
MCC 12-13, internal right-of--ways, and useable open space.
4. A detailed fencing plan shall be submitted upon application of the final plat. If permanent
fencing is not provided around the perimeter, temporary construction fencing to contain
debris must be installed prior to issuance of building permits. All fences shall taper down
to 3 feet maximum within 20 feet of all right-of--way. All fencing shall be installed in
accordance with MCC 12-4-10
S. Set aside 5% of the 5.51 acre site for useable common open space, as required. All areas
being counted toward the open space requirement shall be free of "wet ponds" or other
such nuisances. The required open spaces are subject to Ordinance 12-13-14 and shall be
fully vegetated with grass and trees, as depicted on the submitted landscape plan.
6. Prior to final plat approval by City Council, vacate the unused Right-of--way along the
southern 20 feet of the property as per ACHD conditions of approval.
7. The submitted landscape plan prepared by Gaod Earth Landscape, dated 2-11-OS is
approved as submitted, with the following notes/modifications:
• Any tree over 4" in caliper that is removed from the property shall be replaced by
installing additional trees, being the equivalent number of caliper inches of trees that
were removed. Required landscaping trees will not be considered as replacement trees
AZ-OS-012/pp-OS-014
&1Gat0.A7„pp.DDC
Planning & Zoning Cammission/Mayor & City Council
May 19, 2005 (P&Z Hearing Date)
Page 12
for those trees that are removed (MCC 12-13-13-3). Coordinate a tree
protection/mitigation plan with Elroy Huff at the Meridian Parks Department.
• Landscape a minimum 50-foot wide buffer in the existing Pine Lane right-of--way and
execute the required license agreement with ACRD. The landscape buffer along El
Gato Lane shall be planted with trees and shrubs, lawn, or other vegetative
groundcover, with a minimum density of one tree per thirty-five linear feet, as
proposed. Said landscape buffer shall be located beyond the required future street
right-of--way, as proposed.
• Depict a minimum of 5' sidewalk in the Black Cat Right-of--way as required by
ACRD Conditions of Approval.
The approved landscape plan is not to be altered without prior written approval of the
Planning & Zoning Department.
8. The Purdam Drain shall be fenced appropriately with asix-foot (6') tall non-combustible
material and maintained free of noxious materials.
9. Underground year-round pressurized irrigation must be provided to all lots within this
development (MCC 12-5-2.N). The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation
systems be supplied by a year-round source of water (MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant
shall be required to utilize any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a
surface or well source is not available, asingle-paint connection to the culinary water
system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer shall be
responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on
the final plat by the City Engineer. If the system is to remain private, a draft copy of the
pressurized irrigation system O&M manual must be submitted prior to plan approval.
10. Maintenance of all common area lots shall be the responsibility of the El Gato
Homeowners' Association.
11. Sidewalks within the proposed subdivision shall be built in accordance with MCC12-13-
10-8. The applicant shall provide 5-foot detached sidewalks adjacent to Black Cat Road.
The applicant shall also provide 4-foot wide detached sidewalks adjacent to the internal
public streets (with a minimum S-foot wide planter strip between the sidewalk and the
curb), as proposed.
12. Add a note to the face of the final plat stating: "Garage setbacks shall be measured from
the property line yr the adjacent sidewalk, whichever is more restrictive."
13. Sanitary sewer service to this site is being proposed from the future extension of the
Black Cat Trunk line. The applicant will be responsible to construct sewer mains to and
through this proposed development. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and
routing with the Public Works Department. Applicant shall execute City of Meridian
standard forms of easements, for any mains that are required to provide service. Cover
over sanitary sewer mains shall be no less than 3-feet from finish grade to the top of the
AZ-OS-012IPP-OS-014 ElGato.AZ.PP.-OC
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
May 19, 2005 (P&Z Hearing Date)
Page 13
pipe. if cover is less than 3-feet from the sub-grade to the top of pipe, alten~ate pipe
materials shall be used per the Meridian Public Works Department's Standard
Specifications.
14. Domestic water service to this site shall be via extensions from Black Cat Road and
provide connections for the property west of the project boundary. The applicant will be
responsible to construct water mains to and through this proposed development.
Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works
Department. Applicant shall execute City of Meridian standard forms of easements, for
any mains that are required to provide service.
15. The landscape plan dated 2/15/2005 shows trees planted on each lot line. Meridian
Fublic Works specifications do not allow any large landscaping within a five foot radius
of water meters. The applicant shall make the necessary adjustments to achieve this
separation requirement and comply with all landscape requirements.
16. Direct lot access to Elack Cat Road is prohibited, A note shall be placed on the final plat
restricting access to Black Cat Road.
17. No variances, exceptions or reductions to the City adopted dimensional standards or uses
are approved with this preliminary plat application. Unless otherwise approved, all
minimum lot sizes, structure setbacks, street frontage, and house size requirements of the
R-4 zone shall be maintained.
STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRELIMINARY PLAT
1. All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H.
2. Sidewalks shall be installed within the subdivision and on the perimeter of the
subdivision pursuant to MCC 12-13-10-8.
3. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all fencing,
landscaping, pressurized irrigation, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to signature on the
final plat.
4. Street signs to be in place, water system shall be approved and activated, fencing shall be
installed, drainage lots constructed, road base shall be approved by the Ada County
Highway District, and the Final Flat for this subdivision shall be recorded, prior to
applying for building permits.
5. All development improvements, including but not limited to sewer, fencing, micro-paths,
pressurized irrigation and landscaping shall be installed and approved prior to obtaining
certificates of occupancy.
6. A detailed landscape and fencing plan, in compliance with the landscape and subdivision
ordinance and as noted in this report, shall be submitted for the subdivision with the final
plat application.
AZ-OS-D12iPP-OS-014 ElGato.AZ.PP.DOC
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayar & City Council
May 19, 2005 (P&Z Hearing Date)
Page 14
7. Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian Public Works Department.
$. Two-hundred-fifty and one-hundred-watt, high-pressure sodium streetlights will be
required at locations designated by the Public Works Department. All streetlights shall be
installed at subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire
hydrants. Final design locations and quantity are determined after power designs are
completed by Idaho Power Company. The street light contractor shall obtain design and
permit from the Public Works Department prior commencing installations.
9. Any tree over 4" in caliper that is removed from the property shall be replaced by
installing additional trees, being the equivalent number of caliper inches of trees that
were removed. Required landscaping trees will not be considered as replacement trees for
those trees that have to be mitigated.
10. Submit any up-dated groundwater/soils monitoring data, as collected and analyzed by a
sails scientist, to the Public Works Department for review. Any drainage areas
(detention/retention basins) must be designed tv ensure that water will percolate or
discharge with a period of time not to exceed 24-hours for all storms up to and including
a 100-year storm events. Side slopes within drainage areas shall not exceed 3:1. Any
portion of a drainage area not improved with sod/grass seed (ar other approved
landscaping) shall not count towards the required open space area. The project engineer
should pay close attention to the results of field studies determining the groundwater, soil
type & and characteristics during the design and construction phases. The engineer shall
be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet
above the highest established normal groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the
bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above groundwater.
11. The applicant shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office.
12. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be
removed fraxn their domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9-4-8. Wells
may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation.
13. Compaction test results must be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all
building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material.
14. Applicant's engineer will be required to submit a signed, stamped statement certifying
that all street finish centerline elevations are set a minimum of three feet above the
highest established normal groundwater elevation.
15. The applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and.
construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to
signature on the final plat per Resolution 02-374.
AZ-OS-012/PP-OS-014 ElOata.AZ.PP.DOC
Planning & Zoning Coxnrnission/Mayor & City Council
May 19, 2005 (P&Z Hearing Date)
Page 1 S
16. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404
Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers.
17. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES
Permitting that may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency.
18. Staffs failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of the approved
annexation/conditional use does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for
compliance.
19. Preliminary plat approval shall be subject to the expiration provisions set forth in MCC
12-2-4.
AGENCY COMMENTS AND CONDITIONS
MERIDIAN FIRE DEPARTMENT
1. One and two family dwellings will require afire-flow of 1,000 gallons per minute available
far duration of 2 hours to service the entire project. Fire hydrants shall be placed an average
of 500' apart. International Fire Code Appendix C.
2. Acceptance of the water supply for fire protection will be by the Meridian Water
Department and water quality by the Meridian Water Department for bacteria testing.
3. Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire
Department.
a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4'/z" outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle.
b. The Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it.
c. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works spec.
d. Locations with fire hydrants shall have the curb painted red l0' to each side of the
hydrant location.
e. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on corners when spacing permits.
f. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'.
g. Fire hydrants shall be placed 18" above finish grade.
4. The phasing plan may require that any roadway greater than 1 SO' in length that is not
provided with an outlet shall be required to have an approved turn around.
S. All entrance and internal roads shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside
radius.
6. All common driveways shall be straight or have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48'
outside and shall have a clear driving surface which is 20' wide. Said common driveway
shall have a minimum GVW of 70,000 lbs. No parking signs shall be installed on any
common driveway that doubles as a fire lane. Coordinate the location of the required
signage with the Meridian Fire Department.
AZ-OS-012/PP-OS-014
ElGato.AZ.PP.DOC
Planning & Zoning Commissioi~/Mayor & City Council
May 19, 2005 (P&Z Hearing Date)
Page 16
7. Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in that are S00'-750' in length. The roadways shall
be built to Ada County Highway Standards cross section requirements and shall have a
clear driving surface, available at all times, which is 26' wide. Streets with less than a
35' street width shall have no parking. Streets with less than 39' shall have parking only
on one side. These measurements shall be based on the face of curb dimension. Special
approval required aver 750' IFC Table D103.4.
$. For all public streets containing landscape islands, paint the curb red and provide signage
"No Parking Fire Lane".
9. Operational fire hydrants, temporary or permanent street signs and access roads with an all
weather surface are required before combustible construction is brought on site.
10. The roadways shall be built to Ada County Highway Standards cross section
requirements and shall have a clear driving surface, available at all times, which is 20'
wide. Streets with less than a 29' street width shall have no parking. Streets with less
than 33' shall have parking only an one side. These measurements shall be based on the
face of curb dimension.
11. The proposed 17-lot subdivision with an estimated 2.9 residents per household would have a
total estimated population of 52 residents at build out.
12. All portions of the buildings located on this project must be within 150' of a paved surface
as measured around the perimeter of the building.
MERIDIAN PARKS DEPARTMENT
1. Standard for Mitigation of trees: The standard established in the City of Meridian
Landscape Ordinance will be followed.
2. Standard Plan for Protection of Existing Trees during Construction: The standard
established in the City of Meridian Landscape Ordinance will be followed.
ADA COUNTYHIGHWAYDISTRICT
1. The applicant shall do one of the following:
a. Dedicate by donation a total of 48-feet of right-of way along Black Cat Road, and
construct a minimum 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk along Black Cat Road, located a
minimum of 41-feet from the centerline of the right-of--way.
b. Do not dedicate additional right-of--way, but construct a minimum 5-foot wide concrete
sidewalk along Black Cat Road, located a minimum of 41-feet from the centerline of the
right-of--way, in an easement provided to the District.
c. Do not dedicate additional right-of--way, but construct a minimum S-foot wide concrete
sidewalk along Black Cat Road, located at the back edge of the existing right-of--way.
AL-OS-012lPP-OS-014
ElGato.AZ.PP.I7GC
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
May 19, 2005 (P&Z Hearing Date)
Fage 17
Accomplish all necessary adjustments to properly accommodate existing drainage and
utilities.
2. Construct Pine Lane/El Gato abutting the site so that when the street is fully constructed
(north and south sides), the street will align with El Gato on the east side of Black Cat
Road. These streets intersecting Black Cat Road are required to align, centerline to
centerline. Construct the street as one-half of a 36-foot street section, with a minimum of
24-feet of pavement, within the SO-foot right-of--way corridor that is needed for the
alignment. Curb, gutter and 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk is required on the south side
of the road. The additional Pine Lane right-of--way (south of the road) maybe
landscaped, with a license agreement. This requirement will eliminate the two roadways
that currently intersect Black Cat Road on the east side, and will combine the entrance as
a single roadway at El Gato. Provide a connection for Pine Street to intersect El Gato at
the west property line.
3. The street layout is approved as proposed.
4. The internal streets shall be constructed as 36-foot street sections with curb, gutter and 5-
foot wide concrete sidewalks within 50-feet ofright-of--way. If the applicant chooses to
pursue the alternative street section, then the applicant should provide the District with
information indicating that this subdivision meets the criteria.
S. Bengal Street shall be constructed as a stub street to the west property line, as proposed.
Install a sign at the terminus of the roadway that states "THIS ROAD WILL BE
EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE".
6. Turnarounds shall be constructed to provide a minimum turning radius of 45-feet.
7. Vacate the unopened right-of way abutting the south property line, prior to final plat
approval. The vacation should be completed by the applicant prior to final plat approval,
and can take four to six months to process.
8. Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the right-of--'way of Black
Cat Road or El Gato Lane.
9. Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval.
ACHD Standard Conditions of Approval
Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the right-of--way.
2. All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site
shall be borne by the developer.
AZ-OS-0I2/PP-OS-Dl4 E1Gato.AZ.PP.DOC
Planning & Zoning Comxnission/Mayor & City Council
May 19, 2005 (P&Z Hearing Date)
Page 18
3. Replace any existing damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk and any that maybe damaged
during the construction of the proposed develapment. Contact Constructian Services at
387-6280 (with file number) for details.
4. Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in
writing by the District. Contact the District's Utility Coordinator at 387-6258 (with file
numbers) for details.
5. All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District
Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services
procedures and all applicable ACHD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An
engineer registered in the State of Idaho shall prepare and certify all improve~nent plans.
6. The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building
permit (or other required permits), which incorporates any required design changes.
7. Construction, use and property develapment shall be in conformance with all applicable
requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for
occupancy.
8. Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in
accordance with Ordinance #200, also known as Ada County Highway District Road
Impact Fee Ordinance.
9. It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of-
way. The applicant at no cost to ACHD shall repair existing utilities damaged by the
applicant. The applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-800-342-1585) at least
two full business days prior to breaking ground within ACHD right-of-way. The
applicant shall contact ACRD Traffic Operations 387-6190 in the event any ACHD
conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during any phase of construction.
10. No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in
writing and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an
authorized representative of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon
the applicant to obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway
District.
11. Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of
this application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations,
ordinances, plans, or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the
applicant or its successors in interest advises the Highway District of its intent to change
the planned use of the subject property unless awaiver/variance of said requirements or
other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect at the time the change in use is
sought.
RECOMMENDATION
AZ-OS-012/PP-OS-Ol4 E1Gato.AZ.PP.DOC
Plax~.ning & Zoning Cominissior~/Mayor & City Council
May 19, 2005 (P&Z Hearing Date)
Page 19
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Annexation and Zoning (AZ-OS-012) and
Preliminary Plat (PP-OS-014) applications with the conditions listed herein.
AZ-OS-012/PP-OS-014
EIGu[o.AZ.PP.DOC
To: Meridian Plan i ~~
n ag and Zoning Commission
From: Residents of West El Gato and West Pine Lanes, Meridian MAY 1 3 Za05
Date: May 12, zoos ~1TY' flF MERIDIAN
Subject: Supplemental Comments Re: Proposed Development at ~ ~°~'~/ ~ L ~ R K Q ~ r I r h
701 North Black Cat Road, Meridian
Hearing: May 19, 2005
The residents in the area of West E1 Gato and West Pine Lanes submit the following comments
to supplement those contained in our April 14, 2005 memorandum (incorporated herein by reference as
though set forth in full), and the comments regarding existing attractive nuisances e-mailed to Meridian
P&Z by Mr. Gene Bray of E1 Gato Lane on April 14, 2005.
The question of ownership of West Pine Lane remains unresolved.
The issue of whether West Pine Lane is privately owned, allowing ingress/egress to the West
Pine Lane property owners and their invitees, or if it belongs to ACRD and permits public access, was
not resolved at the Apri127th ACRD hearing. (See Attachment "A", May 11, 2005 memorandum from
Mr. J.C. Brown to the ACRD Commissioners.) Any activity which would change the current routing or
use of West Pine Lane is premature and may be illegal until the adverse claims of ownership are
resolved.
The developer has not completed applications required for P&Z approval.
As of May 11, 2005, the developer and/or its agents had not submitted an Application for Land
Use Change, or a License Agreement protecting irrigation lateral and waste way easements, as required
by Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District. In addition, plans have not been submitted to NMID regarding
creation of a pressurized irrigation system to service the proposed development; nor has NM1D reviewed
the developer's plans for a pathway along the Purdam Gulch Drain ditch. (Source: Donna Moore,
NMID.) P&Z's consideration of the project is premature until the developer has complied with NMID's
requirements.
The developer has inflated the potential aesthetic value aF open space amenities.
1. Landsca e/ arkwa stxi alon Purdam Gulch Drain ditch. Conger Management Group, in its
February 12, 2005 letter to the City of Meridian, indicates that it intends to create a "landscape/parkway
strip ... [along] the Purdam Drain" The Purdam Gulch Drain ditch ("PGD") lies along the southern
border of the subject property, between that property and the railroad tracks. It is a deFmed waterway
servicing a tributary of "waters of the United States," as determined by and within the jurisdiction of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Source: Jurisdictional Determination (for Ada County), U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, 2004). The ownership of PGD and its easement are held by the Nampa & Meridian
Irrigation District. Between Black Cat Road on the east and McDermott Road on the west, the PGD is
approximately 40 feet wide at the top of its banks, and 12-15 feet deep; its related easement begins at the
center of the drain ditch and extends 100 feet, north and south, from the center. (Source: Greg Martinez,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Office). This is an open and dangerous waterway during
most months of the year, and it would involve considerable expense to create a safe pathway along its
route. As is relates to the proposed subdivision, such a pathway could be constructed and traversed for a
distance of only about 300 feet roughly the length of a football field, where it would dead-end against
-1-
private property to the west, with na existing or proposed like pathway across Black Cat to the east.l As
noted above, the developer has not yet applied for a pathway along PGD.
2. Potential een belt or athwa in railroad ri t-of-wa . In its Request far Subdivision
Approval Preliminary Plat filed with the City of Meridian, under "Preliminary Plat Features," Item 7, the
developer indicates that the proposed project borders a potential green belt or pathway, i.e., the railroad
right-of--way (Oregon Short Line/Union Pacific rail line, which borders the south edge of the property).
Although we were unable to speak with the Omaha-based Union Pacific employee who manages the
railroad rights-of--way in the Treasure Valley (he was out of town), there is nv indication that the railroad
company has plans to discontinue use of that south-bordering rail line within any foreseeable period of
time. If and when it ever did, Treasure Valley community leaders still continue to eye the existing line as
a possible future commuter rail system. For safety reasons, so long as the rail line is in use it is highly
unlikely that any walking path or green belt area would be allowed within the right-of way.
Reiteration of points in our 4/14/05 comments:
We reiterate our position that rezoning of this traditionally agricultural land is inappropriate at
this time. The proposed density of this subdivision is out of line for its location. A buffer should be
maintained between existing and planned R-4 and higher density subdivisions on the east side of Black
Cat Road and the residential acreage properties to the west, which continue into Canyon County at the
end of El Gato Lane on the west side of McDernaatt Road. There is sufficient potential development
acreage in Meridian's impact area that has already been "pre-zoned" for densities greater than R-1, and
there are no current or near-future expansion needs that justify prematurely changing the ag-oriented
environment of our long-established neighborhood. ("Encourage residential infidd to utilize existing
services').
The Mayor's ad hoc committee has stated that "A vibrant community needs a goad cross-section
of housing and therefore must guard against an abundance of subdivisions fn like density and price
range. " Although the developer has given us few clues about the type/value of homes that may be built,
its proposal calls for homes with a minimum square footage of 1,400 square feet, making the homes
planned for the subject development the same size as those in the subdivisions on the east side of Black
Cat Road.
The future plan requires "pedestrian access in add new developments to link subdivisions
together .... " The proposed project (1) ensures no safe crossing for pedestrians across busy Black Cat
Road to new subdivisions, especially for children on their way to/from pre- or after-school activities
(who would normally be bussed to/from school at regular start/dismissal times), (2) is not located within
a safe walking distance of any school, park, or community center, (3) has minimal open space amenities
far recreation within. the subdivision confines, (4) has active agricultural pursuits within close proximity
(i.e., tractors, swathers, balers, equestrian traffic, breeding caws/bulls [birds and bees]), (S) has a high
vehicular- trafftc route on one boundary, and (b) has another boundary that encompass a deep water ditch
and an active rail line, with "pre-zoned" industrial areas south of the rail line. None of these conditions
are likely to change much or soon. In so~far as linking pedestrian access from a new subdivision to
our existing neighborhood, we are not particularly interested in promoting that .. .
~ Currently, the pasture fence along the south border of the subject property is positioned less
than 20 feet from the north bank of the drain ditch, encroaching into at least 3/4 of the width of the PGD
easement.
-2-
We agree with the future plan's intent, that Meridian should "maintain [aJ small town
agricultural heritage. " However, we do not want curious, unsupervised children in our pastures, barns
and yards. We're friendly people in our neighborhood, but we don't fmd it amusing when strangers try
to pet our cranky cows, catch the chickens, milk the bulls, tight-wire walk on our fences, ride our
young/snorty horses, or take the old John Deere for a cruise across the irrigation lateral. Our
neighborhood has fostered the "small town agricultural heritage" for a long time, and it is an excellent
place to continue that heritage-across Black Cat Road from new developments. We strongly agree that
Meridian should `protect existing residential properties [such as ours] from incompatible Zand use
development on adjacent parcels. "
ConclusKOn.
Our neighborhood, on the west side of Black Cat Road, is and was meant to remain "country,"
and for the reasons stated in our April 14th memo, and supplemented above, the residents of West El
Gato Lane (Skyview Ranchettes #1 and Skyview Ranchettes #2), and West Pine Lane (west of Black Cat
Road), listed on the attached page, continue to oppose the proposed annexation and subdivision at 701
North Black Cat Road, Meridian, Idaho.
Respectfully submitted on May 13, 2005.
,L.t. u..~.~..-
'd
cc: Hon. Tammy DeWeerd, Mayor, City of Meridian
Conger Management Group (Dave McKinnon)
Ada County Highway District (Shannon Cook)
Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District (Donna Moore)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Greg Martinez)
Mr. and Mrs. Ben Zumhoff (Owners, 701 N. Black Cat Rd., Meridian)
Mr. and Mrs. avi Ferrera,
individually, and on behalf of the persons
listed on the following page
490 W. El Gato Lane
Meridian, ID 83442
(208) 888-6740
-3-
Mr. and Mrs. Bill Blair
855 N. Black Cat Road
Meridian, ID 83642
Mr. and Mrs. Bob Ewing
5038 W. El Gato Lane
Meridian, ID 83642
Mr. and Mrs. Jim Pettingill
5150 W. El Gato Lane
Meridian., ID 83642
Mr. and Mrs. Rick Veatch
5442 W. El Gato Lane
Meridian, ID 83642
Mr. and Mrs. Paul Sharratt
5556 W. El Gato Lane
Meridian, ID 83642
Mr. and Mrs. Gene Bray
5654 W. El Gato Lane
Meridian, ID 83642
Ms. Amy Dyer
5658 W. El Gato Lane
Meridian, ID 83642
Mr. and Mrs. Jon Anson and
J&.P Arabians
6220 W. El Gato Lane
Meridian, ID $3642
Mr. Quint Whitman and Family
5151 W. El Gato Lane
Meridian, ID 83642
Mr. and Mrs. Roger Nielson
5377 W. El Gato Lane
Meridian, ID 83642
Ms. Susan Webster
5445 W. El Gato Lane
Meridian, l]] 83642
-4-
Mr. and Mrs. Phil Jeppson
5663 W_ El Gato Lane
Meridian, ID 83642
Mr. and Mrs. Gilbert Pond
5507 W. El Gato Lane
Meridian, ID $3642
Ron Jackson and Carol Bishop
5751 W. El Gato Lane
Meridian,lD 83642
Mr. and Mrs. Jan Huskey
5859 W. El Gato Lane
Meridian, ID 83642
Mr. and Mrs. Tam Noll
5947 W. El Gato Lane
Meridian, ID 83642
Mr. and Mrs. Chuck Sundby
6155 W. El Gato Lane
Meridian, ID 83 642
Mr. and Mrs. Ed Wilder
4961 W. Pine Lane
Meridian, ID 83642
Mr. and Mrs. Errol Jorgenson
5083 W. Pine Lane
Meridian, ID 83642
Mr. and Mrs_ J. C. Brown
5471 W. Pine Lane
Meridian, ID 83642
Mr. and Mrs. John Powell
5255 W. Pine Lane
Meridian, ID 83642
Mr. H. J. Brown
5457 W. Pine Lane
Meridian, ID $3642
Mr. and Mrs. Fred Baunahoff
5623 W. Pine Lane
Meridian, ID 83642
TO: ACHD Commissioners
FROM: Jahn C. ("J.C.") Brown, 5471 West Pine Lane, Meridian, ID 83642
DATE: May 11, 2005
RE: Ownership of Pine Lane, West of North Black Cat Road, Ada County
I, and several other residents of West Pine and West El Gato Lanes in Meridian, attended
the ACHD Commission meeting on Apri127, 2005, for the hearing regarding the El Gato
Subdivision development proposed for the southwest corner of Black Cat Road and West Pine
Lane, at 701 North Black Cat (ACHD File No. MPP-O5-014/MAZ-OS-012 // City of Meridian
File No. PPOS-014). Without ablow-by-blow account of the hearing, you will recall that the
Commission members directed the ACHD staff to, in essence, get to the bottom of the question
of whether West Pine Lane is owned by ACHD or is owned privately by the neighboring Pine
Lane property owners.
Approximately one week later, Kathie Ferrero (El Gato Lane) and I were each contacted
telephonically by ACRD staff member Sharman (can't recall her last name), who advised
us that--even though West Pine Lane has never (not once) been maintained by ACHD, and that
staff research found that the West Pine Lane property owners have paid and continue to pay the
taxes on West Pine Lane, and despite the fact that ACHD is unable to provide retarded
documents that support its claim--it remains ACHD's position that it awns West Pine Lane.
(Shannon also opined that, short of litigation between ACHD and the property owners, the true
ownership of West Pine Lane might never be determined.) We didn't think that conclusion was
quite what the Commission had in mind when it asked its staff to "get to the bottom" of the West
Pine Lane ownership question.
Thereafter, I contacted the Ada County Assessor's office, where Mr. John ("Jack") Clark,
P.L.S., Senior Land Records Analyst, did a considerable amount of research on the subject of the
ownership of West Pine Lane, and then forwarded to me a number of documents, all of which
support the West Pine Lane property owners' assertion that the road is privately owned. Mr.
Clark found no records within the County Recorder's or Assessor's documents that grant ACHD
or any other governmental agency an easement, right of way, or any other interest along West
Pine Lane. The official records support the claim of private ownership. In addition, Mr. Clark
confirmed that the property owners have always paid and continue to pay taxes on that roadway.
Enclosed is a color map Mr. Clark prepared upon which he noted his findings, and another map
which more clearly shows the measurements of the lots, the recording numbers, etc., than the
map that was attached to the ACRD staff report presented at the Apri127th meeting.
Based on readily available public information, the West Pine Lane property owners re-
assert their claim that West Pine Lane is not a public street, but is in fact aprivately-awned road
for the ingress/egress of the property owners (and their invitees) on whose land the roadway runs.
JCB:kf
cc: Meridian Planning & Zoning
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning
April 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 ACRD 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. Any opposed? That
motion carries for both items.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Item 13: 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:
Item 14: 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:
Item 15: 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 Wyndstone 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
Wyndstone Place Subdivision and Public Hearing CUP 05-014, request for a
Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for a professional office complex on
~~
~~ a~
r ~-
z E
a
- ,----
at~a~r'rr~c ~r ~~r3r:~r.~ nrornrn
~ 1. ~ - „k:S
i
i
~~
a ~,
T,
r
m
n
k
s
y
0
0
~~;
~^ ~~_ ,
~II
~~
;~
.. ~~.
H {: ,
^
['"h ~_L''_' ~~~I
~
f...~- ~.~~
`
~
-
r
~ Q
~ ~
~ ~
~ o ~
~ ~ ~
~.- ~'
~ ~ ~
~ ,a
~ .~
'
ti~ .
Ti
~
y
V l C'
'
H~ b
(il O
~i ~'
i
_____. ~
i (~.I (--' 11
i ~
i N
I
I `
I
I
I
,T~ ~ I ~~
~y
~'" _ - -
I/IJ - ~- -
_~
n
`n~
i ~ ~F dY
2 ~:
d.
i a
a
z C"
~ n
o
~ 0
~
a `"'~ ~
v
~ ~
r a
_-z~ ~ ~
~ ~
~ ~'
~
~ a
~ ~ -~
-o ~ ~
M 'i'
V? ~
c
-
y
~ ~ a
O
F
~~~~ 9k
~ 1 Sy ~°
~:
c ~'
t a
v_
-~ ^l~
1
l'
1~
I~
r
°
-
- ~
c ., ..
_. -
CCt023'IIt~?I :]Idl;7kd 1~IOIN~1
__~_.~~.f-t-~t-i~-r.T~...l.l~~ ~___;.~~
,.
i~ ~ ~
; { ~
:~
'
~
i ~
I~ ~~'
~
I
~I
J
i ~1` J I
~
C-] ~~
Q
~
I
~ --- b ~ z
_
------- - ~
~ ~ O
' I `t7
a y
_
--------
~
~
_
~
~
` c ~ ~
~
I ~ r-e -3
i -------------- ~ ,~ ~ ~
I p ~„_,, ~
0
~ ~
i
i ,.~ ~
------
_. ,-- ~ ---------~ o
{ ~
~
:
~~,:
.:,
~~~
~~
'~
~
f
t
~} y ~ ~,.~
~,
^~
n a
- -
-
~
-
- _ ~
r
1
,,~
,I
IVO•LSUZ r
CONGER MANAGEMENT GRbUP
. ~. ~
_.~{ r
!~,'x.C.~r ~~ 1V,~r~~i~az~n
~;i.tT,~ ~;l~~r~: i.~:~~ic~c
DATE: May 17, 2005
TO' City df Meridian Planning and Zoning Commissiozt
RE. El Gato Subdivision Staff Report
Deaz Commissioners,
We have just received a copy of the stai~'report for the proposed El Gato Subdivision and
annexation requests and while we arc appreciative oi' the staffs recommendation of
approval, we disagree with several statements within the report and several conditions o£
approval. The body of this letter will follo~% the outline ol'the staff report, providir~ a
written response or clarification where needed, with a `~,o comrtaent'' response signifying
agreement„
AYYL1CATlONS SUMMARY
Density for dais project was calculated prior to taking out rights-ol=way and opera space
The original parcel was 6.35 acres in size and does not include the Purdam Drain. A.t 3
units to the acre this would result in allowing ly dwelling units. We requested only l 7
units or a density of less than 3 units to the acre. The open space was calculated. •
incorrectly ort tlae submitted plat and we will provide revised open space calculations at
the hearing (as required by the conditions of approval),
LOCATION SURROUNDING PROPERTIES QWNERS OF RF,CORD
No comment.
A,NNE7~AT>ION AND ZONYNG ANALYSIS
A. Regazdless of how~the density is calculated for this project it is just under or just over
the recommended 3 dwelling units per acre., The Comp Plan is just a guide and it falls
extremely close to the goal set by the Comp Plan„
B, No comment„
C,. No comment
Y7. '1'lae ongoing construction of the large F31ack Gat Sewer Trwak directly adjacent to this
site indicates that the City intends for this area to develop, and signifies a large
investment by the City to accommodate gmwih. The new truna: Iiaae will provide sewer to
the proposed development and to the parcel to the west, but was tact desi~med to take in
405 S. 8th Street, Suite 290 • Boise, Idaho 83702.205 336 5355 -Fax 208 336 2282
~IAY 18 ' 05 16 19 PAGE . 02
IVlarlu LuuJ uuU~RI
any other properties to the west.. The pmperlies to the west are in the McDermott Scwcr
Trunk .Area and cannot develop until the McDennou Trunk and Lift Station arc built in
the fixture..
The properties to the west are notronedlow density residential in the County, but rather
are zoned RUT (Rural Urban Transition). This is a transitional zone for County properties
that lie within a city's Area of"impact This zoning prevents the land from being
subdivided in the County into parcels smaller than 5 acres in site, hec:ause if they are
smaller than five acres they become increasingly difficult to redevelop into city ar (sub)
urban densities
AGHD is requiring right-or way for alive-lane road, not athree-lane road as indicated in
this section of the staff report.
The F.l Gato and Pine Street issues are somewhat confusing, but what it all boils down io
is that there is no pressing need for 110' of right of way for a road that has an estimated
existing vehicle count of 300 cars per day (major arterials require only 9G of right-ol=way
by romparison)_ Having two roads where one would suffice does not make sense from a
safety aspect (more road to cross as a pedestrian, simultaneous turning off of the parallel
streets), from a financial aspect (continually maintaining a gravel road when an improved
mad lies adjacent to it) and from a common sense perspecKive (why have two roads
access the same read al the same point?). As the developer we are happy to either
landscape our portion ol'Pine or vacate Pine as the ACHD conditions o1`approval require„
E. the pmperlies in the west and north are expected to develop in similar manner,
however the property to the south is designated as "industrial" not "Low Density
Residential" as implied by the staff report.
!L portion of our open space, the 8-foot landscaped parkway, located between the
sidewalk and roadway was not discussed in this section or in any section of the report.
This area is considered open space and the landscaping of Pine may also be considered
open space per MCC 12-13-16-3..
Staff underlines the word "useable" open space in the staff rcporC, but the MCC refers to
open space as being both active and passive in nature. "!he open space withixt this
subdivision is admittedly passive in nature, but still provides the visual benefits of
improved and natural open space. •lhe landscaping of "Pine Road" will be able to be
counted towards the open space as it is right of way dedicated to landscaping/
The open space calculations provided by W&p1. Pacific do not include the required
landscape buffers as indicated by the staff report,
k'. No cozxument, we will work with NMID to detemnine what type of fencing will be most
appropriate..
G. No comment
PAGE.03
16 19
I41 G r ~ I V~ L V V J J~ V J I 111
H No commenl.
i.. No wmment.
T No comment
K. No comnnent.
x,. (1) The lots within the subdivision are larger lots than typical R-4 lots (averaging over
9500sfl and provide a good transition to the propexty to the west. I£ ].2,000 s£ is
established as a minumum on the west side, the properties to the west will never be able to
develop up to 3 units to the acre as allowed by the Compxehensive Flan (based on open
space and right of way requirements).,
(2) No cozx~ment
(3) With the inclusion of the parkway and other open space lots the subdivision )nas
pxovided the minimum 5% o£ open space
PRELY.IVIYNAR'Y FLAT ANALYSIS
A See above comments..
R-A No comment,.
PR~LI1vIINARY PLAT SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
1 (T,iger Gi) No comment
2.. (Landscaping) No comment
(open Space) Applicant will provide detail of open space at hearing.
(Tree Mitigation) No comment.
4. (Ditches Lateral and Canals) No comrncnt,
5., (1'I) No comment,.
SITE SPECiFiC CONDiTiANS OF APPROVAL PRELIMINARY PLAT
1 ~, No comxnent,~
2,. No comment.,
3.. We will provide a plat detailing the open space as requixed by the MCC..
4-17', No comment.
PAGE.04
MAY 18 '05 16 20
IPI G r I V ~ V V J V~ V J f 141
STANDAXtX) CONnXTTONS OP APPROVAL RELIMINARY PLA
1-I 4 No comment_
AGENCY COMMENTS (FIRE. PAYtI~S, AC>!~~
No comment..
As you are well aware form the number of letters you have received from the
neighborhood there is opposition to ~~rowth in this area.. We have met with the neighbors
at two neighborhood meetings, with a majority of the time at the meetings being spent on
the Pine and Rl Gato Street issues. We have tried to work with the neighbors and have
encouraged them to come to meetings. We are proposing a use in an area. set aside by the
City for this type of development. The City has made an investment in sewer line in this
area to provide sewer to this property in anticipation of development. The owner wishes
to sell his properly and we wish to develop it to its highest and best use potential, in
accordance with the Meridian City Cade and Comprehensive Plan's guidelines,.
i look i`orward to speaking wish you on Thursday night concerning this proposed
subdivision. We feel that the pmject will help to lix the strange intersection of El Gato,
Pine and Black Cat Roads and will provide additional opportunities for low density
housing in the area.
Sincer~
Dave McKinnon
MAY 18 '05 16 20
nMi-
PAGE. 05
iriu~ iv r_vvv vvvl l41
IVO ~ Z;SUZ F' ~ I
. Transmittal
facsimile
To: Tara Green Fax: 208-888-218
Company: Meridian, City of Date' 5/18/2005
From: Dave McKinnon Pages: 5
Re:
^ Urgent ®ror Review ^ Please Comment/lieply ^ Orivinal to Follow by Mail
NoteslComments:
Ca~1FIDENTIAL ------------------•-••
tf this fax has been received in error., please notify us at (208) 336-5355 and destroy your copy
Conger Management Group
q•05 South 8th Street, Suite 290, Boise, Idaho 83702
Phone (208) 336-5355 Fax (208) 336-2282
MAY 1$ '05 16 19 PAG~.01
PrajettManagement/Site Development /Feasibility Analysis
5947 EI Gato Lane
Meridian, Idaho 83642
May 17, 2005
Meridian City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission
33 East Idaho Avenue
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Re: Proposed El Gato Subdivision (Files AZ-OS-012 and PP-OS-014)
~~1 V ~~~
. n.•,
City of M~~iclin~
City Clerk ~~10~
Members of the Council and Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission:
C2B Development LLC has applied for Annexation and Zoning and Preliminary Plat
approval far 17 building lots and 2 other lots on 5.89 acres west of Black Cat Road and
south of El Gato Lane (Pine Lane).
It is inappropriate and imprudent to approve the El Gato subdivision as proposed and we
request that our position against the subdivision to be entered into the record and
considered prior to any action on this issue. What follows are the reasons supporting our
position.
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Staff issued a report on March 24, 2005 and we agree
with many of the points mentioned by the staff in their report. The staff recognizes the
significance of the first subdivision west of Black Cat Road in this area and the
importance of correctly developing this land; "The proposed subdivision [E1 Gato] will
set the standard for development west of Black Cat Road when the Black Cat sewer trunk
is activated." (staff report page 2).
The surrounding area, where developed, consists of single-family residences on large
lots, and many of the residential lots have associated agricultural uses. The staff report
also notes on page 4: "Ada County parcel grounds designated low density residential;
approximately 5 acres per lot dominate the landscape west of Black Cat Road..." The
properties immediately bordering the proposed development are specifically identified
(staff report page 2):
North: Single-family home on appx 5-acres;, zoned RUT (Ada County)
South: _ Agricultural, Union Pacific Rail Road zoned RUT (Ada County)
West: Single-family home on appx 5-acres, zoned RUT (Ada County)
East: Single-family home on appx 3-acres, zoned RUT (Ada County)
The Meridian City Master Plan recognizes the agricultural use and agricultural character
of the land west of Black Cat Road. On pages 8 and 9 staff notes: "Staff does not
recormmend lot sizes that would be invasive to the properties to the north and west of the
subject praperty but the lot sizes should be transitional in nature and allow additional low
density residential uses to expand to the west at the owners discretion."
The proposed El Gato subdivision borders Skyview Ranchettes Number l and is in close
proximity to Skyview Ranchettes Number 2 to the west. As noted in the staff report.
Skyview Ranchettes are existing and platted subdivisions generally consisting of one
residence per S-acre parcel.
The covenants of Skyview Ranchettes specifically mention that the agricultural character
of the development shall be preserved and that Skyview Ranchettes may not be
subdivided into single-family residential parcels smaller than one home site per acre. On
page S of the report, staff notes: "Staff does not anticipate that all of the five acre parcels
in Skyview Ranchettes Subdivision #1 will redevelop and allowances for some parcels
[in the proposed El Gato subdivision] to be maintained with larger areas should be
considered."
C2B development has proposed a net density of S.6 dwelling units per acre for the El
Gato subdivision (staff report page 3). The proposed net density of 5.6 dwelling units per
acre is approximately 2S times the net density in the existing subdivisions in the
surrounding area (platted 5-acre parcels), and about S times the ultimate net density
allowed if the existing Skyview Ranchettes subdivisions were to be redeveloped as one-
acreparcels as allowed in the covenants. As noted earlier, "Staff does not anticipate that
all of the five acre parcels in Sky-view Ranchettes Subdivision #1 will redevelop..." Staff
indicates that Skyview Ranchettes can be expected to remain five-acre parcels far the
foreseeable future.
The proposed net density of S.6 dwelling units per acre is incompatible with the
surrounding land use, incompatible with the surrounding platted subdivisions,
inconsistent with the zoning requirements of the Meridian City Master Plan (staff report
pages2 and3), and inconsistent with the objectives of the Meridian City Master Plan. We
recommend that the El Gato subdivision be rejected based on the incompatible housing
density. We recommend that lot size in the proposed El Gato subdivision be no smaller
than one residential dwelling unit per acre, or no more than S residential lots in the entire
5.89 acres with the remaining 0.89 acres reserved for roadways and easements.
Secondly, ACRD held a hearing regarding the local roadways on Apri127, 2005. Much
of the testimony in that hearing concerned roadway ownership, landowner easements,
and land title issues. The land title issues associated with the proposed El Gato
subdivision property are complex and it is likely that the property is subject to various
land easements. Landowners to the west of the proposed subdivision claim to have
easements across the property. The landowners support their claims with legal land title
documents. These landowners must vacate the easements prior to clearing the title for
the proposed El Gato subdivision. To date, the landowners have not been contacted
regarding vacation of the easements and no easements have been vacated.
In addition, ACHD and the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District hold other easements on
the property. The issues regarding land ownership and exiting easements were not
resolved at the ACRD hearing. C2B Development LLC appears to be largely ignorant or
generally unconcerned with the issues regarding land title and easements on the property.
C2B Development LLC has undertaken no apparent work to identify and resolve the title
and easement issues. The City of Meridian maybe inviting future land disputes if the
subdivision is approved prior to clearing title on the land.
We recommend that no development proceed until the land title for the property is
cleared, the easements held by surrounding property owners are identified, the necessary
land easements held by surrounding property owners are vacated, and the changes in land
titles and easements are duly recorded.
In summary, as noted in the staff report "The proposed subdivision will set the standard
for development west of Black Cat Road when the Black Cat sewer trunk is activated." It
is critical that the work be done properly for Meridian to follow an orderly development
plan. As noted earlier in our letter, we have two key recommendations:
l . Lot size be no smaller than one residential dwelling unit per acre
2. No development occurs prior to clearing the title on the land and that the
necessary land easements are identified, vacated, and duly recorded.
Recommendation 1 is consistent with the staff report as noted earlier; "Staff does not
recommend lot sizes that would be invasive to the properties to the north and west of the
subject property..." Our position is that one-acre lots will provide an orderly transition
from the existing and platted 5-acre parcels to the north and west of the property to the
densely developed residential subdivisions that are so prevalent in Meridian east of Black
Cat Road.
Recommendation number 2 is a prudent action prior to initiating development an any
land parcel. A clear title is necessary to develop any land parcel. We urge C2B
Development LLC to work with the title industry, the surrounding land owners, and the
Ada County Recorder to fully clear the landownership and easement issues prior to
submitting this, or any parcel, for annexation and zoning.
We recommend that annexation and zoning be denied at this time.
Sincerely,
Thomas Noll
Leslie Sargeant
(a married couple)
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PUBLIC HEARING
-- - SIGN-UP SHEET
DATE X111-a-y-:1-~,._ 2005 ITEM #
-_----- -PROJECT NUMBER
PROJECT NAME
RECEIVE~~
MAY ~ ~s; ~ coo ~
Clty of 67er
Clty C~eT'~x P'Y7;
8
PP 05-014
EI Gato Subdivision
f
~'
PP 05-014
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING April 21,2005
ITEM NO. ~ Z
APPLICANT C2B Development, LLC
REQUEST Public Hearing -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
701 Black Cat Road
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
COMMENTS
~~~ ~
~,,~
~9 s
See attached letter of deferral 3
No comment
See attached comments
See attached comments
No comment
OTHER: See attached letters from Citizens
Contacted:
Emailed:
Date: Phone:
Staff Initials:
Malarial: presented dt public meetings shall become property of the Cffy of Meridian.
C ITY O F ME RI DI AN
Pl an nin g & Zo ni ng
r:;:,~
Tae Planning Commission ~,-~ ~~ ;f~ r-f ~ ~~,~ r.,,,-r.. ~_
Friont Joe Guenther, Associate City Planner
CL: Anna Powell, Bruce Fr+edtle4.on, City Cleric, Dave McKinnon (via a-maid, Project File
Dahee April 12, 215
Rae PP-05-014/AZ-0012 EI Gato Subdivision
ACRD has indicated that the report for EI Gato Subdivision is not complete as
ACHD staff is still reviewing the designation of EI Gato Lane.
Meridian City Staff will rat be able to adequately address the impacts of the
proposed subdivision until ACRD has completed their findings and held a public
meeting scheduled for April 27, 2005.
Staff is recommending deferral of PP-05-t114/AZ-05.012 EI Gato Subdivision until May
19, 2005 in order to receive ACHD's report and allow enough time to make recommendation
to the Planning Commission.
int School District No. 2
0
911 Meridian Road • Meridian, Idaho 83642 • (20$) 855-4500 • Fax (208) 8$8-6700
~~c~rv~r
APR ~-1 ~a0
City of Meridian
City Clerk ~4fie~
March 29, 2005
City of Meridian
33 East Idaho
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Dear Planners:
The Meridian School District has experienced phenomenal student growth the last ten
years. The high schools, middle schools, and elementary schools throughout the district
are operating over capacity.
Approval of El Gato Subdivision will have a significant impact on school enrollments at
Cha areal Element Meridian Middle and Meridian Hi School.
We can predict that these homes, when completed, will house five (5) elementary aged
children, five (5) middle school aged children, and four (4) senior high aged students.
Additional students will further compound the current overcrowded situation. Residents
cannot be assured of attending the neighborhood school, as it may be necessary to bus
students to other schools across the district.
School capacity is addressed in Idaho Code 67-6508. The Meridian- School District is
currently operating beyond capacity. Future development will continue to have an impact
on the district's capacity. If you have any questions, please contact me at 855-4500.
Sincerely,
Wendel Bigham
Supervisor of Facilities and Construction
SUPERINTENDENT
Dr. Linda Clark
CENTRAL CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT Return to:
~~ pI5TRICT
~THEALTH Environmental Health Division ^ soise
DEPARTMENT R E C E M V E D ^ Eagle
^ Garden City
Rezone # ~ Meridian
Conditional Use # ~~ ' ' ^ Kuna
City Clerk Offica~
Preliminary /Final /Short Plat ~~- ^ ACZ
~G ~o~}-7~`0 ~ .S D ~/ ^ Star
^ 1. We have No Objections to this Proposal.
^ 2. We recommend Denial of this Proposal.
^ 3. Specific knowledge as to the exact type of use must be provided before we can comment on this Proposal.
^ 4. We will require more data concerning soil conditions on this Proposal before we can comment.
^ 5. Before we can comment concerning individual sewage disposal, we will require more data concerning the depth of:
^ high seasonal ground water ^ waste flow characteristics
^ or bedrock from original grade ^ other
^ 6. This office will require a study to assess the impact of nutrients and pathogens to receiving ground waters and/or
surface waters.
^ 7. This project shall be reviewed by the Idaho Department of Water Resources concerning well construction and
water availability.
8. After wri a approval from appropriate entities are submitted, we can approve this proposal for:
central sewage community sewage system ^ community water well
interim sewage entral water
^ individual sewage individual water
~. The following plan(s) must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare,
Division of nvironmental Quality:
entral sewage ^ community sewage system ^ community water
sewage dry lines ~rentral water
10. Run-off is not to create a mosquito breeding problem.
^ 11. This Department would recommend deferral until high seasonal ground water can be determined if other
considerations indicate approval.
^ 12. If restroom facilities are to be installed, then a sewage system MUST be installed to meet Idaho State
Sewage Regulations.
^ 13. We will require plans be submitted for a plan review for any:
^ food establishment ^ swimming pools or spas ^ child care center
^ beverage establishment ^ grocery store
14. Please see attached stormwater management recommendations Date: ~~
G
^ 15 Reviewed By:
Review Sheet
15728-001 EH0904
• CENTRAL
0• DISTRICT
HEALTH
DEPARTMENT MAIN OFFICE • 707 N. ARMSTRONG PL. • BOISE, ID 83704-0825 (208) 375 5211 • FAX 327 8500
To prevent and treat disease and disability; to promote Healthy lifestyles; and to protect and promote the health and quality of our envira2ntent.
STORM WATER MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that storm water be pre-treated prior to discharge to the
subsurface to prevent impact to ground water and surface water quality. The
engineers and architects involved with the design of this project should
obtain current best management practices for storm water disposal and design
a storm water management system that is preventing groundwater and surface
water degradation. Manuals that could be used for guidance are:
State of Idaho Catalog of Stormwater Best Management Practices For
Idaho Cities and Counties.
Prepared by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, July
1997.
Storrrlwater Best Management Practices Guidebook. -
Prepared by City of Boise Public Worlcs Department, May 2000.
Serving I~alCey, Elmore, Boise, anti Atla Cotttatles
land.l2
Ada /Boise County Office
707 N. Armstrong PI.
Boise, ID 83704
Enviro. Health: 327-7499
Family Planning: 327-7400
Immunizations: 327-745D
Senior Nutrition: 327-7460
WIC: 327-7488
FAX: 327-8500
Elmore County Office
520 E. 8th 5t. North
Mountain Home, ID 83647
Enviro. Health: 587-9225
Family Health: 587-4407
WIC: 587-4409
FAX: 587-3521
Valley County Office
703 N. 1st St.
P,O. Box 1448
McCall, ID 83638
Ph. 634-7194
FAX: 634-2174
~~~~~~~~
APP ~ 3 200
City of Meridian
City ClerlkJO~ffice
L.~~
1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83b51-~t395
FAX # 208-Q63-0092
Phones: Area Code 208
OFFICE: Nampa 4b6-7861
SHOP: Nampa 4b6-Obb3
William G. Berg Jr., City Clerk
City of Meridian
33 East Idaho Ave.
Meridian, ID 83642
RE: PP 05-014 & AZ 05-012/El Gato Subdivision
Dear Will:
Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District has no comment on the above referenced application
for Annexation & Zoning.
However, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District requires that a Land Use Change
Application be filed, for review, prior to final platting. Please contact Donna Moore at 466-
7861 for further information.
All laterals and waste ways must be protected. The District's Purdam Gulch courses through
this proposed project along the south boundary. This easement must be protected and any
encroachment without a signed License Agreement and approved plan, before any
construction is started, is unacceptable.
All municipal surface drainage must be retained on site. If any municipal surface drainage
leaves the site, the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District must review drainage plans. The
developer must comply with Idaho Code 31-3805. It is recommended that irrigation water be
made available tit aL de~~elopments ~.::tl~:n tl'.c r~arnp:~ ~.-P~Ie~~dian irliba%IGn Disb~ict.
Sincerer ~
John P. Anderson, Water Superintendent
NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT
JPA/dbg
[': Board of Directors
Secretary/Treasurer
File
APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES
RIVER FLOW RIGHTS - 23,000
8015E PROJECT RIGHTS - 40,000
5 Apri12005
RECEIVED
APR 13 2D05
City of Meridian ~~
City Clerk Of~c 1
1503 FIR5T STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83b51-4395
FAX # 208-463-0092
Scott Sherrow
W & H Pacific
3130 S. Owyhee Street
Boise, ID 83705
Phones: Area Cade 208
OFFICE: Nampa 466-78b1
SHOP: Nampa 466-0663
- _ - = -=RE: - - L--and Use-C-hangs Application -- El Sato Subdlvfsivn- -- - - - -_ _ - __ .
Please note the District now requires three (31 sets of plans
Dear Mr. Sherrow:
Enclosed please find a Land Use Change Application for your use to file with the Irrigatian
District for its review on the above-referenced development. If this development is under a
"rush" to be finalized, I would recommend that you submit a cashier's check, money order or
cash as payment of the fees in order to speed the process up. If you submit a company or
personal check, it must clear the bank before processing the application.
Should this development be planning a pressure urban irrigation system that will be awned,
operated and maintained by the Irrigation District, I strongly urge you to coordinate with John P.
Anderson, Water Superintendent far the Irrigatian District, concerning the installation of the
pressure system. Enclosed is a questionnaire that you must fill out and return in order to initiate
the process of contractual agreements between the owner or developer and the Irrigation
District for the ownership, operation and maintenance of the pressure urban irrigation system.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to call on me at the District's
office, ar John P. Anderson, at the District's shop.
Sincerely,
~~ v ~ ~.
Donna N. Moore, Asst. Secretary/Treasurer
NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT
DNM/smc
cc: File
Water Superintendent
Will Berg, City Clerk, Meridian City
C2B Developments, LLC, 405 S. 8th Street, Suite 290, Boise, ID 83702
Ben Zumhoff, 4976 W. Classic Drive, Meridian, ID 83642
enc.
APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES
RIVER FLOW RIGHTS - 23,000
8015E PROJECT RIGHTS - 40,000
7 April 2005
Hp r. 14. 1UU7 j:l~l'NI
No. 0836 P. 1
shifferb~meridlancity.org, 03:38 PM 4/14!05 -0fiOD, Proposed 701 N Black Cat Development
Tv: shifferb~meridiancity.org
From: "Cer-e E. Bray" ~gebray~mindspring.com~
Subject Proposed 701 N Black Cat Development
Cc:
BCC:
Attached:
j~ECEIVE
APR.1 ~ 2005
GITY.OF MERIDIAN
CITY CLERK OFFICE
Please append these comments to those submitted this date (April 14, 2005) by and on behaff of
the residents of West E) Cato and Pine Lanes. The hearing is currently scheduled for April 21,
2005.
Attractive Nuisances
The proposed Subdivision is separated from like developments on the east side of Black Cat and
is contiguous with very dissimilar parcels and land use practices on the west side. This
juxtapositional situatiion interferes with the agricultural heritage of over three decades duration
enjoyed and invested in by the almost two dozen property owners immediately to the west ff
approved, the stage will beset for more conflicts and risks; and less certainty in the continued
pursuit of the life style and ambience enjoyed here since the original holdings were retired from
large scale farming.
Specfically, urban folks and their children are unaccustomed to prudence and strictures that are
second nature to people with ag interests and bacl~grounds. Common sense with regard to not
burning in high winds; neighborly roundup techniques for stray livestock; dealing with slow ag
and animal husbandry vehicles and equipment; safe beharrior regarding livestock and wild
animals; property rights of acreage owners; and not planting conflicting plant species (or even
invasive exr~tics lilw purple loasestrffe), is not a common commodity in many urban
neighborhoods. A situation of this type was successfully negotiated with Canyon Courrty a few
years ago across McDermott and the density proposed was greatly reduced to afford a
reasonable transition from the higher densities further to the west off Star Road. Why can't our
awn county (Ada) and neighboring city of Meridian be as considerate and accommodating?
Of specific concern is the mix of frequently unsupervised children from urban enclaves at all
hours of the day and night with "attrac#ive nuisances" common in ag and hobby farmer environs:
1) The deep, treacherous, (unfenced in Section 9) Purdam Drain.
2) The Kennedy Lateral, swift, deep and unfenced also in Section 9.
3) Numerous animal husbandry pursuits invohring livestock (horses, cows, goats and already
over-run to the east, alpacas and sheep), alt of which invah~e both perils to the animals and more
importantly to inquisitive and inexperienced children and even their parents if present.
4) Two notable five acre parcels (mostly) devoted for the last decade to habitat restoration for
upland gam a birds and ducks. These areas are valuable for other wildlife in a functioning
ecosystem of this type, such as foxes, coyotes, badgers, beaver, field mice (prey for raptors and
owls), snakes and watchable wildlife. The parcels in question are mid-sera) with dense groves
Printed for "Gene E. Bray" gene@westernwatersheds.org?
No. U~jb
shifferb maridianoiiy.org, 03:38 PM 4114!05 -0600, Proposed 701 N Black Cat Development
of shrubs and trees that unfortunately are also attractive for youth hangouts and as escapes
from parental supervision. These restorations are exceedingly valuable according to Idaho
Department of Fish and Game, but are very vulnerable to vandalism, especially fire. Without
fencing and regular patrolling, even fitough posted, an innocent, clandestine camp or coolang fire
or even smoking by trespassing youth could start a conflagration that would blacken these
important 4 acre nYfuges in their entirety. Such would destroy a decade or more of effort plus
investments of roughly:
Plantings $1 to 2K
Cumulative Water Fees $2 to 3K
Irrigation Piping $3K to replace
Weed and gopher abatement $1 K, and
cause loss of high biomass content per acre that is eadremely importantfor carbon
sequestering, a badly needed environmental function to counter global warming caused by
accelerating, non-sustainable use of fossil fuels. Such a loss would completely thwart the
irYtentions of the current property owners and irreparably damage their investments. These
areas have potential for conservation easements orfor bequests #o Ada County, IDFG, The
Nature Conservancy or Meridian City as parks or green reserves for mitigation for
overdevelopment elsewhere.
5) Other agricultural pursuits inwlving seed com production and other seed stock are at peril
from cross-pollination by ag-insensitive neighbors.
Meridian P8Z is urged to reduce these risks and conflicts by requiring a mare sensitive,
transitional density in the proposed subdivision to bridge between the densities east of Black Cat
and those of the nominal five acres eaosting immediately to the west
Gene E. Bray; 5854 EI Cato Lane; Meridian ID $3F4,2
(208)88$-3293; ~gebray~mindspring.coma ;FAX (208)888-0317 (by request)
Printed for "Gene E. Bray" gene ar?westernwatersheds.org?
2
PAGF_0~
~.
ti
To: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission ~ { ~1; a~ V'~~
From: Residents of West El Gato and West Pine Lanes, Meridian
Date: April 14, 2005 APR 1 ~ X005
Subject: Proposed Development at 701 North Black Cat Road, Meridian
Hearing: April 21, 2005 CITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY CLERK OFFICE
The purpose of this memo is to present the reasons for our opposition to the proposed
annexation and subdivision development at 701 N. Black Cat Raad, Meridian, Idaho. The source
document quoted in the objections listed below is the Planning and Zoning Comprehensive Plan,
Chapter 7, adopted in July 2002.
The proposed development could contribute to an imbalance of housing types.
In the Planning and Zoning Comprehensive Plan document, the Mayor's ad hoc
committee stated in their housing philosophy that "A vibrant community needs a good
cross-section of housing and therefore must guard against an abundance of subdivisions
in like density and price range." (p. 91) If this proposal is approved, not only would it
add mare of the same type of subdivisions that are so prevalent here, but it also could
open the door to further development of these higher-density subdivisions on the west
side of Black Cat road. Our established subdivisions of small acreages (approximately
3 - 5+ acres) are in danger of being crowded out. Please consider stopping the sprawl at
the east side of Black Cat Road, between Cherry Lane (I~ and the railroad tracks (S).
The proposed development is contrary to Meridian's goals far future development.
One of Meridian's goals for future development is to "Maintain [aJ small town
agricultural heritage." (p. 92) Another goal is to "Ensure a variety and balance of land
uses...." (p. 102) Objective C of that goal is to "Maintain integrity of housing areas to
preserve values and ambiance...."
Within the impact zone, our area is one of the few remaining sections of established small
acreages with mature trees, livestock, and crops of hay, corn, grain, etc., which have not
already been zoned for R-4 to R-6 development. One of our El Gato Lane residents has
a large, commercial, organic garden; many of the neighbors have built or renovated
barns, equipment buildings, and hay sheds to enhance their agricultural pursuits. Nlost of
the neighbors are mindful of preserving habitat for pheasant, quail and other wild birds,
and one has actually dedicated most of his 5 acres to an Idaho Fish & Game habitat
improvement program. These small farms and ranches represent the kind of country life
that we enjoy living, and that most people enjoy seeing. We believe they should be
preserved as part of Meridian's agricultural heritage.
The proposed development would be in a location that does not link to other similar
subdivisions, and is not favorable to pedestrians, especially school children.
Another one of the objectives for our city is to "Encourage residential infill to utilize
existing services." (p. 106) This objective requires "pedestrian access in all new
developments to link subdivisions together and promote neighborhood connectivity." (p.
106) The proposed development would be isolated from other similar subdivisions.
Pedestrians would have to cross Black Cat Road to access another subdivision, which
would prove particularly dangerous for children. Further, the south end of the subject
property is bordered by a Union Pacific rail line, which is still in regular use. No schools,
parks, playgrounds, or other public activity centers exist or are planned for the impact
area bordered by Cherry Lane (N), the UP railroad tracks (S), Black Cat (E), and
McDermott Road (W).
The proposed development may not have space allowance far future road widening.
We have been advised that Black Cat Road will likely be widened to four or more lanes
in the near future. This could have a negative impact on a small subdivision, particularly
one built on such a shallow parcel as that proposed at 701 N. Black Cat Road. A wider,
busier Black Cat Road would further increase the hazard to pedestrians.
The proposed development is contrary to Meridian's goal to minimize conflicts and
maximize use of land.
One of Meridian's goals for future development is to "Encourage compatible uses to
minimize conflicts and maximize use of land." Objective C under that goal is to
"Encourage residential inflll to utilize existing services." (p. 106) Although the
landowners' desires to sell their properties may not always meet developers' demands for
building sites, significant numbers of acreage properties within the impact area have
already been zoned for medium-density development. We believe that those inflll
opportunities should be exhausted before considering the re-zoning of additional,
traditionally agricultural parcels from RUT to any density greater than R-1 outside the
existing city limits.
In addition, Action Step 1 of Objective C states the following: "Protect existing
residential properties from incompatible land use development on adjacent parcels." (p.
106) .The residents along El Gato and Pine Lanes are concerned about liability issues
with livestock and agricultural equipment. The owners of the two parcels closest to the
proposed development both have bulls in their pastures, and cows that are protective of
their calves. Within a very few minutes' walking distance down El Gato and Pine Lanes
from the subject property, there are more pastures of cattle, and many residents keep
horses. Black Cat Road is the obvious logical buffer between subdivision developments
and agricultural properties. Because of the inherent risk to bath subdivision children and
our livestock and equipment, we feel that the proposed development at Black Cat and
Pine is incompatible with our established agricultural endeavors.
ote: Mr. and Mrs. George Haneke, whose properties sit along the east side of Black
Cat between the UP tracks and Pine, and between Pine and Quarterhorse Lanes, across
from the newest subdivisions bordering Pine on the east side of Black Cat, have been
compelled to construct a large dirt berm between their fenced-in livestock and Pine Lane
because of trespassing problems. Specifically, youngsters, and mothers with toddlers in
hand and pushing strollers, ignored the Hanekes' requests not to trek across their pasture
to visit the Hanekes' mature rams. Rams can be quite aggressive during the breeding
season, and the Hanekes became concerned far the safety of the pedestrian trespassers,
who seem to consider the Hanekes' livestock operation to be a neighborhood zoo. The
construction of the dirt berm to protect the new subdivisions' residents, as well as to
safeguard their sheep and alpacas, has been at considerable expense to Mr. and Mrs.
Haneke.)
Issues regarding the ownership of West Pine Lane, and whether it will be required to be
vacated to accomplish the construction of a new subdivision at 701 N. Black Cat Road,
remain to be resolved.
The residents of West Pine Lane maintain that it is owned by the individual property
owners along Pine; ACHD claims that it has ownership rights to West Pine Lane. The
developers have been informed by ACHD that ACHD does not intend to maintain two
closely paralleling roads (although Pine has never been maintained by ACHD), and it
suggests that either Pine or El Gato be vacated as part of the planned proposed
development. The developers have advised that ACHD will hold a special meeting to
discuss these matters on Apri127, 2004, but no one on either El Gato or Pine Lanes has
yet received notice of that meeting.
For the reasons set forth above, the residents of West El Gato Lane (Skyview Ranchettes #1 and
Skyview Ranchettes #2), and West Pine Lane (west of Black Cat Road), listed on the attached
page, oppose the annexation and proposed subdivision at 701 North Black Cat Road, Meridian,
Idaho.
Respectfully submitted on April 14, 2005.
f ~. .~-~ .~r,
Mr. and Mrs. David Ferrera,
individually, and on behalf of the persons
listed on the following page
4960 W. El Gato Lane
Meridian, ID 83642
(208) 888-6740
cc:,~'ammy DeWeerd, Mayor, City of Meridian
Conger Management Group (Dave McKinnon)
Ada County Highway District (Andrea Tuning)
Mr. and Mrs. Ben Zumhoff (7p1 N. Black Cat Rd. owners)
Courtesy copies also provided to:
Mr. and Mrs. George Haneke
4600 W. Quarterhorse Lane
Mr. and Mrs. Bob Burt
1123 N. Black Cat Road
Mr, and Mrs. Jack McDougal
1035 N. Black Cat Road
Mr. and Mrs. Clayne Sonderegger
1155 N. Black Cat Road
Current Owners
1155 N. Black Cat Road
Current Owners
702 N. Black Cat Road
RESIDENTS OF WEST EL GATO LANE (SKYVIEW RANCHETTES #1 AND
SKYVIEW RANCHETTES #2) AND WEST PINE LANE, WEST OF BLACK CAT
ROAD, OPPOSING THE ANNEXATION AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSED AT 701 NORTH BLACK CAT ROAD, MERIDIAN, IDAHO:
Mr. and Mrs. Bill Blair
855 N. Black Cat Road
Meridian, ID $3642
Mr. and Mrs. Sob Ewing
5038 W. El Gato Lane
Meridian, ID 83642
Mr. and Mrs. Jim Pettingill
5150 W. El Gato Lane
Meridian, ID $3642
Mr. and Mrs. Rick Veatch
5442 W. El Gato Lane
Meridian, ID 83642
Mr. and Mrs. Paul Sharrett
SS56 W. E1 Gato Lane
Meridian, ID 83642
Mr, and Mrs. Gene Bray
5654 W. El Gato Lane
Meridian, ID 83642
Ms. Amy Dyer
5658 W. El Gato Lane
Meridian, TD 83642
Mr. and Mrs. Jon Anson and
J&P Arabians
6220 W. El Gato Lane
Meridian, ID 83642
Mr. Quint Whitman and Family
5151 W. El Gato Lane
Meridian, ID $3642
Mr. and Mrs. Roger Nielson
5377 W. El Gato Lane
Meridian, ID .83642
Mr. and Mrs. Chuck Sunby
6155 W. El Gato Lane
Meridian, ID 83642
Ms. Susan Webster
5445 W. El Gato Lane
Meridian, ID $3642
Mr, and Mrs. Gilbert Pond
5507 W. El Gato Lane
Meridian, ID $3642
Ron Jackson and Carol Bishop
5751 W. El Gato Lane
Meridian, ID 83642
Mr. and Mrs. Jan Huskey
5859 W. El Gato Lane
Meridian, ID. 83642
Mr. and Mrs. Tom Noll
5947 W. El Gato Lane
Meridian, ID 83642
Mr. and Mrs. Phil Jeppson
5663 W. El Gato Lane
Meridian, ID 83642
Mr. and Mrs. David Ferrera
4960 W. El Gato Lane
Meridian, ID 83642
Mr. and Mrs. Ed Wilder
4961 W. Pine Lane
Meridian, ID 83642
Mr. and Mrs. Enrol Jorgenson
5083 W. Pine Lane
Meridian, ID $3642
Mr. and Mrs. J. C. Brown
5471 W. Pine Lane
Meridian, ID 83642
Mr. H. J. Brown
5457 W. Pine Lane
Meridian, ID 83642
Mr. and Mrs. John Powell
S2S5 W. Pine Lane
Meridian, ID 83642
Mr. and Mrs. Fred Baumhoff
5623 W. Pine Lane
Meridian, ID 83642
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PUBLIC HEARING
SIGN-UP SHEET
DATE April 21, 2005 ITEM # 12
PROJECT NUMBER PP 05-414
PROJECT NAME
EI Gato Subdivision
NAME (PLEASE P
FOR I AGAINST (NEUTRAL