Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 6, 2006 P&Z CommMeridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 19 of 136 Zaremba: I did not. No. Borup: That is an off-site improvement. Wilson: Right. If you want to tie them to that, then, that would probably have to be done as part of the development agreement, I think. Borup: Do the arborvitae need to be limited to 25 feet at full growth? Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I'm ready to take a stab at the motion. Rohm: Ready. Zaremba: After considering all stafF, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-002, PP 06-002, and CUP 06-004, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 6, 2006, with the following modifications to the proposed development agreement: I would add a paragraph ten that says that the applicant has volunteered to place arborvitae on the neighbor's property. On the site specific requirements for preliminary plat, I would add a paragraph 1.1.13, says the applicant will continue to work with ITD on the possibility of acceleration-deceleration lanes on Chinden, as referenced in ITD's letter of March 30, 2006. I would add a paragraph 1.1.14, that applicant will reference the Right To Farm Act on the face of the plat. I would add a paragraph 1.1.15 that says that the applicant has volunteered to limit the heights of the buildings on Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5 of Block 10, and Lot 10 of Block 8, to a height limit of 25 feet. I would add a paragraph 1.1.16 that applicant will work with the staff on Lot 9 of Block 6 to solve the common drive and buffer problem and that that needs to be finished by ten days before the City Council hearing. End of motion. Mae: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-003, PP 06-003, and CUP 06-004, to include all staff comments with amendments as stated by Commissioner Zaremba. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from March 2, 2006: AZ 06-005 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 58.56 acres from RR to R-4 (32.86 acres), TN- C (14.54 acres) and C-C (11.16 acres) for Knight Sky Estates Subdivision by Sea 2 Sea, LLC -northwest corner of Chinden Boulevard and Linder Road: Item 8: Continued Public Hearing from March 2, 2006: PP 06-004 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 126 residential lots (22 townhouse lots and Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 20 of 136 102 detached single-family lats), 7 commercial lots and 26 common lots on 55.83 acres in a proposed R-4, TN-C and C-C zones for Knight Sky Estates Subdivision by Sea 2 Sea, LLC -northwest earner of Chinden Boulevard and Linder Road: Rohm: Thank you all for your participation in this matter. At this time I would like to open the continued Public Hearing from March 2nd, 2006, for AZ 06-005 and PP 06- 004, both of these items related to Knight Sky Estates Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. As you mentioned, this item was on the March 2nd agenda. We did not actually have a presentation by staff or hold the hearing, we were waiting to get comments from ACHD. I thought that they were going to be pretty pertinent comments and wanted to have those in hand before I formulated a complete staff report and made a recommendation to the Commission. I do have those now for this project. I guess before we go too far, let me describe the project to you a little bit more. There are three applications. One is far annexation and zoning of 58.56 acres through three different zones. An R-4 zone is about 32.68 acres. A TNC zone, which is the traditional neighborhood center, that is just aver 14 acres. And a community business, the C-C zone is at 11 acres. That's one application. There is also a preliminary plat that has been submitted that includes 126 residential lots, 24 of those lots being townhouse lots, and the remaining 102 are detached single family lots. As mentioned, there are seven commercial lots and 26 common lots. The third and final application is for a private street. There are actually two private streets and I will point those out to you when we talk about the plat here in just one second. The site is located on the northwest corner of Linder and Chinden and this lot was plated as a 75 percent open space lot for the county subdivision back in 1991, Brandt Subdivision, which is the build-able lots in Brandt, as you can see, are just to the northeast of the parcel that's being developed. The subject property is within the area proposed to be part of the City of Meridian's area of impact and proposed urban service planning area. It was recently acted on by the City Council to amend our Comprehensive Plan future land use map and include this area. But has not become part of our area of impact yet, as those negotiations with the county are still going on. So, here is an aerial view of the project. As you can see there is -- the Brandt Subdivision lots are one acre lots in Ada County. That is within Eagle's area of impact. To the north are some five acre lots in Almaden Subdivision. To the south is Lochsa Falls. The vacant stuff that you see there on Chinden Boulevard are office lots that will be the subject of future hearings before this board. Here is the preliminary plat. Just to point out a few things with the plat. They are proposing one public street access to Chinden Boulevard located at their western boundary. The driving range far the golf course is just to the west of that. There is also an access -- the pointer is dying. There is also an access to Linder Road for the project. Those are the two public street access to the existing public streets. Staff made some comments in the staff report. The applicant has revised the submitted preliminary plat to include most of staffs comments that are. before you in the staff report for tonight's hearing. I will point out a few of those changes. They did remove one of the lots that were on the northwest side of the property and all of these lots now Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 21 of 136 along the northern boundary of the property are in the 15,000 square foot range. One of the changes that was not was made is staff is recommending that a stub street be provided to -- you can kind of see the parcel lines for the five acres. There is one there and there is another one I believe right here. Staff is recommending that a public stub street be provided to one of these two five acre parcels, so that when those redevelop in Eagle, those folks will have access to Chinden Boulevard and will not have to go through the Linder intersection. It also helps with the purpose statement of the TNC zone, making it a focal point for a neighborhood within a one to two mile area that way folks can walk to the services that are going to be provided in this area and really make this a focal point, a community center, if you will, for this area. Staff is recommending that they amend the legal descriptions for the project and just have three C-C lots, which is a more intense commercial zone property and, then, make these remaining TNC lots -- rezone these to TNC, provide new legal descriptions for those lots. There are some single family residences that are pretty close to all of this, the road, and I thought that would be a better fit far the neighborhood. I did want point out, though, that the TNC does have a minimum two story height requirement for -- in the TNC. There aren't many other standards for development in the TNC. This is the first application that we have actually processed with TNC, I believe. It does require all buildings to be two story within that zoning designation. So, just to call that out. I did also ask the applicant in the staff report to clarify some of the amenities and things that are shown on the site plan. There are quite a few amenity ponds shown. There has been concern by at least one neighbor that I have talked to about what do these ponds look like, as well as the drainage ponds that they showing, being mosquito breeding grounds and those types things. So, I just wanted clarification an -- is there a fountain in the middle of it? How is this going to look? Those types of things. Also, the clubhouse -- there is a clubhouse talked about here, but we do not have any elevations or square footage or any details on what this clubhouse is and, again, the TNC is -- makes it -- it's supposed to be the focal point for the neighborhood and I think that will have a huge impact on how well this area works. There weren't too many other changes. I guess I will talk about a couple that ACRD required. ACRD required a stub street to this three acre parcel that Spurwing has actually acquired. I believe they are going to put their tennis courts there, but there is a stub street to it now. Their commissioners did approve the location of this public street, Knights Park Drive, I believe it's called, to where it intersects Linder Road. There has been concern by neighbors that the existing Brandt - - entrance to Brandt Subdivision is not too far off. ACRD did approve it. I have to assume that it meets .their policy. I have not verified that, but it was an their commission a couple of weeks ago, I believe. I do have several letters from neighbors in the area. I hope you all have those as well. There is too many to mention them by name. We also received apetition/statement letter late this afternoon. I hope all that is in front of all of you as well. And the final thing, I guess, is a public works comment. There is in the development agreement -- and Mike can correct me if need be. There is a lift station that's going to be built in this project. In order take that lift station off line in the future, an easement is needed through this out parcel. It's not part of the subject parcel. A 20 foot wide easement I believe it is. So, that that can be taken off line when, in fact, the main is constructed in the future to gravity flow back. So, I did just want to point that out. That is a little bit of an odd ball condition, an off-site odd ball condition. I hope you Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2D06 Page 22 of 136 had a chance to read through the rest of the staff report and the conditions. With that, though, I will stand far any questions you may have. Rohm: Thank you. Thanks, Caleb. Any questions of staff? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would ask one and, actually, of Mr. Cole. One of the things that's going to be mentioned by the neighbors is the position of the rain water runoff ponds, I guess we are calling them, and the question about whether they are likely to foul nearby wells. Is there a staff opinion on that? Cole: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the Public Works, City of Meridian, doesn't own the roadways ar the runoff that comes off it. That is reviewed by the Ada County Highway District. However, the professional engineer that will design that will probably use DEQ's best management practice policies. There is really not BMP that talks about storm water ponds to private wells. There is one that relates to public wells, a deep well that would serve an entire city, like the City of Meridian's public wells. And the best management practice for that the DEQ requires is 50 feet. I think they are further than 50 feet from these wells -- from these ponds to their wells. I haven't measured it exactly. If they were to go through an infiltration basin of some nature, a seepage bed, instead of a pond, then, it would go to 150 feet would be DEQ's requirement. That requirement, again, is to a public well system. There is, actually, not a requirement to private_ wells. However, general practice is to follow the same BMP for the private wells as the public wells. And I'm sure as these plans are reviewed by DEQ that they will hold the design engineer to those standards. Zaremba: Thank you. Rohm: Any other questions of staff? Okay. At this time I'd like the applicant to come forward, please. Nickel: Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. Shawn Nickel. 839 East Winding Creek, Suite 201, in Eagle. Rohm: Shawn, before you start, I would like to just give you a little help here, if you don't mind. There is a significant number of people that have signed up to speak to this and I'm presuming that you had a community meeting or probably multiple community meetings before bringing this proposal before the Commission and what I would like -- you know, you can make your presentation in any fashion you want, but I think something that might help to go through this process is to address those issues in your presentation that you believe have come to resolve, so that at such time that your presentation is completed, then, there may be less issues for public testimony after your presentation. But it's certainly your liberty to speak as you choose. Nickel: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I do think that's a good idea and we have -- indeed, had -- we did have one formal neighborhood meeting early on in the process. I have had meetings subsequently with property owners to the north, both at my office Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 23 of 136 and, then, at ACHD meetings we have sat afterwards and met with them. So, I can address those up front and I do believe there is a lot of -- some things we have accommodated the neighbors on. There is some things that they will have questions on and my engineer is here to address specific questions about the drainage, so I will let him -- I will defer those to him. And I will be very brief, because staff did a good job, both in his presentation and in his staff report. I will just touch on the highlights. Knight Sky Subdivision is, as you know; on the northwest corner of one of the major intersections in the city -- or future intersection in the city, Linder and Chinden. And as you recall, we recently changed the Comprehensive Plan to have amixed -- kind of a mixed development, mixed used along Chinden and medium density up here in the residential portion. What we have tried to do in the design is design some higher intensity commercial at the corner and, then, transition to townhouses along the boundary of Chinden and, then, transition up residential and, then, finally to the northern property to those larger lots. I think we have done an excellent job at that. Staff is recommending that we bring this property here back to the TNC zone. So, in other words, the TNC zone would be to this point right here, with this being the commercial. We are fine with that. We -- there is a conditional of approval that we will submit a new legal description for the zoning and annexation portion. In addition, we do understand that these will be two story offices or retail in this area right here. I do have some samples that will show you in a little bit of kind of the concept we think for the design of these. As far as the single family, they do transition in size up to -- and, again, we agreed with staff. We took out one lot to the north, made these all a minimum of 15,000 square feet along the north, and I do think that the neighbors appreciated the larger lots up there. We do have, as you see, pathways and open space, a clubhouse with a pool. We also redesigned per your staffs request this townhouse concept here. So, the plan you have right here in front of you is not the revised -- if, Josh, could you put the -- I have got colored in highlighter. You can see that now -- I'm sorry, it's so poor. Every townhouse lot now backs up to open space and those open space are mews as they are sometime called, will provide additional view and amenity. Those will be ponds, lined ponds in between those and there is open space areas. We have coordinated with your fire department on providing secondary emergency access to this area in here, in addition, we have met and worked with the highway district, both ACRD and ITD, on the locations of these entrances. We did try to get another entrance, right-in, right-out an Chinden. We were turned down by ACHD -- or by ITD. And, as you know, the city would have also denied that request, too, but we felt it was important to at least try to get that second access out on Chinden. Staff is recommending a development agreement with this application. I think that would cover some of the proposed architectural standards that we propose in here. We are fine with that and we will work with Mr. Nary on getting that at the property time. The one -- the one, I guess, concern - - and I think that's what some of the neighbors are here far, was the request by your staff to have the stub street to the north. When we did go through ACRD, that issue came up, the neighbors that live in these houses to the north did testify in front of the highway district and the highway district removed that recommendation to the city to have a stub street. It had to do -= and the neighbors will give you a better understanding, but it had to do with just the future intent of these -- of this subdivision up here and the fact that it is Eagle's impact area. They have a larger minimum lot size Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 24 of 136 and so the chances of those redeveloping are really slim. I will let the neighbors gets up and expand on that. I am going to stop right there and, please, ask me any other questions you have and we can defer some of those to my engineer on the engineering issues. Rohm: That's fine. Thanks, Shawn. I appreciate that. Any questions of the applicant? Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Mae. Moe: Mr. Nickel, the only question I had was in regard to enlarging the lots to the north, no consideration for the lots on the east? Nickel: We felt -- and I believe your staff did, too, that it's for the transition, the ane acre lots that we are abutting to the east, we did provide a compatible transition. I'm sorry that the -- you can't see the lot lines, but I think we are one and a half to one on the ratio here. I think because these were five acres lots up here, we felt that it was more appropriate to have some larger lots on the north, but that was the reason far that. Moe: Thank you. Rohm: Any other questions of the applicant? Borup: Just one. I have seen two different layouts and that's the grass strip greenbelt area on the north. Is that -- one of the neighbors requested that to be removed, but what -- how did you end up on that? Nickel: Thanks for bringing that up. We did remove that, so the lots -- these lot lines now go up to the property line. We originally had a concept of having a pathway back here to link up to our open space areas here. Per the request of the neighbors we removed that to provide a little more privacy and so those lots increased size for that reason also and we removed that. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: Mr. Nickel. Nickel: Yes, sir. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 25 of 136 Zaremba: The concern raised by Public Works about the need for an access easement for -- or not access, but I guess utility kind of easement across the outparcel, which, apparently, now belongs to Spurwing, has anything happened? Any progress or -- Nickel: No. We will be working with Spurwing. That does concern me, making that a condition that we have to get that easement, because they could can deny us that easement. So, we will work with your staff. I don't know if they have had discussions with Spurwing on obtaining that. I do understand the need for that. I don't have an answer yet. I'd prefer not to have a condition, something that can hold us up if we were not able to get that easement. I don't know -- and I can find out, I guess. I don't know if they have to go through any process through Ada County to develop that tennis court, like a Conditional Use Permit. I don't think they do. But if they did, that might be a time to possibly get that easement. But we are concerned with that. I just don't have an answer for you right now. Zaremba: I guess my question would be is there an alternate -- if that's simply not possible, is there an alternate way to access the sewage system? Cole: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Zaremba, the genesis of that condition in the DA -- this property isn't currently serviceable. It's going to flow, eventually, to the North Black Cat. You have heard a lot of us talking about the Black Cat trunk. This would go to the North Black Cat. And it's at the outer reaches of that North Black Cat. They ask for the permission to run a temporary lift station -- was granted by one of our staff engineers in Public Works, but the location that they have it now in the west -- upper northwest corner with outparcel, if we don't have an easement through that tennis court lot, is what they are calling it, the mains would come up through the road and we would never be able to take that lift station off line, essentially. It's possible that we could work another way to reroute the sewer, place the -- place the lift station in a different lot that would be more accessible, possibly. I'm just worried that we are setting ourselves for a temporary lift station that's temporary -- Zaremba: Temporary forever Cole: -- forever. Zaremba: Is it likely that 5purwing will be sewered to the North Black Cat trunk? Cole: If Spurwing were to come in and request annexation from the City of Meridian, they would -- they would sewer to the North Black Cat through mains in their -- there is a road that runs right through here that the main would come up to serve everything, but the outparcel is -- I don't want to call it a spite strip, it's a space between where we would take it off line to get in there to take that off line and I don't know if it has to be an easement through there, but, definitely, I would like same assurances by the applicant that they were -- sit dawn and coordinate with us for some acceptable solution far a future passibility to take that lift station off line and your wording -- we could definitely word that. Meridian Planning 8 Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 26 of 136 Zaremba: Thank you. Nickel: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners -- and I agree with Mike and I think that was very important. One thing that we can look at and we will work with Mike on, is now that ACHD is requiring that stub with that right of way to this point right here, it may be possible to somehow route that and get -- Mike's hearing this for the first time, so -- but if that stub street is there when this redevelops and, then, again, if the city was to provide sewer to Spurwing as a condition of that, I think we would have a better chance if it is in a right of way, of that subbing to the property to get that. And so does that sound right, Mike? Cole: Mr. Chairman, yes, I think if we can just reword the condition to something wishy- washy along the lines of the applicant shall coordinate with Public Works for an acceptable solution for -- to decommission the lift station at a future time, once gravity means become available, something of that nature. And I think that we can get something worked out. Nickel: And, Mr. Chairman, one final -- Mr. Zaremba, we will also -- and I'll put this on record. We will also -- we will try to coordinate with Spurwing as it is right now to see if we can just accomplish it like staff was recommending, but just when we word that condition if we could have some filexibility. Zaremba: Okay. Rohm: Thank you. Nickel: One last thing, Mr. Chairman. Josh, could you put up those pictures that I have and I just want to show you some the concepts real fast and so we can get those on the record as well. These are examples of -- and you can just go through them pretty quick. These are just examples of architectural style for the offices and the TNC. Again, understand, they are to be two story. I think the intent of that two story concept is to allow the possibility of commercial downstairs, with residential upstairs. And so that's something that we could come back at a future time and develop. Zaremba: I would comment that it doesn't require that, but it does enable it. Nickel: It enables it. Yeah. Exactly. Mr. Chairman, I put these up. These are examples of the mews and so if you could imagine our townhouses facing out onto that grassed area or that grassed area with the ponds, it would be facing this way and, then, that way with parking in the back through the alleyways. That's why I put this picture up. These are, actually, taken in Eagle. So, that's the mew with the units facing into that area. Thank yau very much. Rohm: Okay. Thanks, Shawn. Okay. At this time I would like to take public testimony, but before we have anyone come up, is there a spokesperson for the subdivision or are Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 27 of 136 you the spokesperson? What is your name, sir? Allen Ward. And could I have a show of hands for those that he is going to be speaking for tonight? And have any of you folks signed up on this ledger as well? The point is -- the intent is that you're to relinquish your time to him, so he will have adequate time to make his presentation. So, I would appreciate it, unless he does not bring up the points that are of significant concern to you, that you have, in fact, relinquished your opportunity to speak from the standpoint that we are giving him extra time. So, with that being said -- and, Mr. Ward, would you like to come forward, please. Ward: Thank you, Commissioner. My name is Allen Ward. I live a 6598 North Barney Lane in Brandt Subdivision. Rohm: I think you will need to speak up just a little bit, sir. Ward: Allan Ward. I live at 6598 North Barney Lane, Brandt Subdivision. Borup: Thank you. Ward: And I do have a few more names to add. You have the letter, I presume, that we sent? Is that -- did you all get that? I won't read it, but I will refer to it and just kind of highlight it, if that would be all right. But I would like to start out by -- the first paragraph there, about halfway down, it's where it says we do not -- it says we do not ask that you prevent construction. We do not ask that you keep landowners from developing their property. We do ask that you, please, work in concert with the current residents to help us maintain the quality of life. So, that's kind of where we are coming from here. The first item we have is traffic. I guess it doesn't work. Our biggest concern is the amount of traffic that's going to come through this. The ACRD said that there will be approximately 3,800 cars a day through this project and our concern for that is because the proposed access to Linder is very close to our subdivision and we also -- we already -- okay. This access here is already very close to here, which we are within about 500 feet, (believe -- I'm not far sure on that -- from the intersection already. Traffic is already backed up past our subdivision, almost down to the bottom of the hill in the night and in the mornings already, so it's already hard for us to get in and out. And, then, our understanding is that there is a project going here that has been -- a Wal-Mart is proposed there. Now, I understand that that's not a done deal, but a big box store is proposed here, and ACRD says there is going to be a minimum of 10,000 cars there on this corner, which would be the south -- sorry, southeast corner. Another box store is maybe going to go there. Another 10,000 cars. This corner here they propose 7,500 cars a day through there. So, that's over 30,000 more cars that will go through that intersection without improvement. Now, ACHD is going to have a meeting with those developers to work on a solution with that. But we still have the concern that even they make this five lanes, that the cars are going to be backed up and so this intersection they are proposing right here is very close to that it's going to be hard to get in and out. We already have cars that come down here, turn around here to get back to the light in our subdivision, which is, basically, a dead end private street. We would also like to propose maybe that this road here, if it needs to stay there, to stay with this access, that Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 28 of 136 it be moved up here and go along here this way with Chinden, landscape buffer, the road, then, the project that it would back up to the properties here. We are concerned about safety again for our kids at this busy intersection here. It's already there. The bus does stop there. They do have to cross one lane of road to get on the bus in the morning and we are also concerned about if the traffic's backed up, for emergency response to our subdivision. The next item we have is density. Again, we are concerned about the density. We would like to propose that the whole project be in one acre lot developments, with a minimum sized lot of 43,560 square feet, which is a true acre lot. No commercial. No high density. The reason being for that, because if you did that you would take approximately 4,OOp cars a day through this project down to less than a thousand cars through that project. So, that would -- I think they could have a very nice subdivision here that would that match one acre subdivision here, five acres here, one and a half to two acre lots here. It matches well. They can put some very nice homes in there. Again, we are not opposed to them developing, just to kind of match with their -- and, again, also that would eliminate some of the traffic that will be going through this little street here that's going to be hard to access if they put that in right there. Let's see here. Again, as the City of Meridian moves west there is a lot of subdivisions like ours that are free standing, one acre to one acre and a half, two acre lot subdivisions and I guess we are just saying that this concern will come up mare and more as you move west when you try to put this high density around existing subdivisions that are like this, it will come up again. We would also like to see that -- maybe that they put a six foot vinyl fence along the subdivisions that are there, six foot solid. Excuse me. What else do I have here? The concern we have is -- which has been addressed is these drainage ponds here. We are concerned -- especially this one, this well to this house is about -- sorry, I can't stop shaking. It's about right there. About 15 feet off the property line right there. It's concerned that that -- I understand that they will design those, but it's still very close and if that does happen to fail some day, then, the drinking well to this property here, plus the others, plus they put them -- these drainage ponds up against existing subdivisions, which are -- I guess we are proposing that they move those -- these trees and put them either within the subdivision itself or maybe make one over here against the driving range where there is no houses here and it would be against the houses if they are building, not against houses that are already existing. Let's see here. They did -- they did talk to us a little bit and we have mentioned from day one that this is too high a density for us. They did take these lot lines out. They said at the first meeting -- my understanding was -- I hope I remember this right -- they might correct me, but my understanding was that these lots were going to be half acres here at least and go down there. But the plat that I saw was these are - - these four or five -- I think there is five ar six here now, they will be in the 20,000 range. The rest of these are in the eight to nine thousand square foot range far a lot, getting a little bit smaller as you go in. I think these are only 9,000 feet. In here they are in the 8,000 feet. It is my understanding, if I read that right, they might trick me on that, but that's the way I understand it. And so -- let's see here. We are also concerned about -- the last item is the irrigation water that we supposedly have for our subdivision is not there anymore. The landowner that awned this before these developers moved it to here, saying that he would make it -- it used to come in right here and he moved it down here last year and, then, these people bought it and he -- when he moved it he Meridian Planning S Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 29 of 136 told us he would make it right for us and he has not done that yet, the original landowner. So, we are concerned about getting our irrigation water back to our subdivision that has been taken away from us. I think that's all I have. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of the individual? Borup: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Your last statement on the irrigation water, so that was just -- the ditch was relocated last year after the irrigation season ended? Ward: No. Actually, a whole year ago -- all last summer we did not have that. In truth, we have never had aworking -- we have never had a working irrigation system to our subdivision. We have trying to -- for almost 15 years to get the original landowner to make that so it works right. It's never worked right. If you ga to this corner right here, there is a telephone pale right on the corner that gets run over all the time and there is a power meter that he never hooked up, that he always said that he would make it right and he never has. Then, when Lochsa came in, he owned all this property over here. When he -- Lochsa sold, they moved -- they took our water from here. So, he redirected us over here somehow and gat it to here and last year he ran a gated pipe that went down there and said if we want water, we just hook into the gated pipe. Well, okay, that doesn't work too well, so -- Borup: So, why did it not work? Do you have a pipe to your property? Ward: Well, he was using the gated pipe to irrigate the farm also and, then, he never hooked it up to our property, though. But it wouldn't have worked anyway. Like we said, from day one it has never actually worked. He never made it right for us. And so we are trying -- Borup: So, since -- I mean I'm concerned about why you didn't have water and -- what has the irrigation company said? Ward: Settlers says that that has to be fixed before this can be developed is my understanding also. Now, I don't know -- Borup: But why wasn't that fixed 15 years ago? Ward: Pardon me? Borup: Why wasn't it working 15 years ago? Ward: We couldn't get him to do it. He would never do it. Borup: So, this property didn't have water before the subdivision was developed? Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 30 of 136 Ward: We had water to here, to a well -- to a hole in the ground that never worked. That's always -- it was right in the right of way here and they couldn't swing the power pale over, because it didn't -- to pressurize it. Borup: So you've never had water you're saying? Ward: We've never had water. But if they put this -- Borup: Well, why weren't you concerned about that 15 years ago? Ward: We are and we have been. That's my point is we have been trying far 15 years now and Settlers tells us that before this development goes in that that has to be made right is my understanding. Borup: Okay. Ward: That's my understanding. Borup: Okay. Ward: Again, I might be wrong, but that is my understanding, the way I understand it. Borup: Thank you. Ward: Anything else? Rohm: Thank you. Larry Woodard. Woodard: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, my name is Larry Woodard. I live on 1701 Almaden, one of the five acre lots just north of this subdivision. And I guess my single point would be that this entire bench is going to be a fought aver area between three cities and much of it, I think, ought to end up in Meridian. But how you treat this density will determine whether the rest of it goes, because you are now moving into a rural subdivision area with large lots and to plunk something like this down with this high intensity I think is just a bit too much. I would suggest a minimum of half acre lots, quite honestly. You have got an R-2 zoning that you can have and I would suggest that. And that's my sole point. And as they have mentioned now, we have meetings next week across the street on Linder. If this Wal-Mart store is true, you know, Linder is going to be a major problem. So, that's all I have to add -- offer. Rohm: Thank you, sir. Any questions of this individual? Thank you. How about Foad Rothani? Probably butchered that, but you can correct me. Rothani: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if it makes it easier you can call Jack Smith. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 31 of 136 Rohm: It would have been easier. Thank you. Rothani: Foad Rothani, 2273 Rivera Drive, which is also five acres to the north of this development. And I also speak on behalf of my father-in-law which lives right across the street from me on another five acre lot. We just got a notice this evening that this meeting is taking place tonight and he is heading out of town 5:00 o'clock tomorrow morning, so he couldn't attend the meeting. We are not against the development, but we are against the density and how the development is proposed to come in this area. We always knew that it was going come, but we never expected it would be such a high density. And we have a number of problem -- personally I have a number of problem with it. One of them is access to the Linder Road. As the previous speakers mentioned, the access to the Linder Road is too close to the traffic light, too close to the Brandt Subdivision, and if you compare this one with some of the development along Eagle Road and also Eagle and Chinden, which would be a lot similar to this, whereas they have that shopping mall at the city town or something like that, shopping on the northeast corner, they got the accident in that area just about everyday. I personally been a witness to a car ending up in the teller's window of the Key Bank. And this is going to be very similar to that. As the previous speakers mentioned, we have to fight traffic morning and evening -- many time in the evening, 3:00, 4:00, 5:00, 6:00 o'clock in the evening traffic is backed up from Chinden all the way to the river. And that's going to just get worse. I really don't know why we need the access here. Probably even right-in, right-out, would not solve the problem. Probably a better solution would be to have aright-in from Chinden and you already have a traffic light on the southwest corner of this property, which can access to Chinden and that should solve a lot of problem. The other one thing that were mentioned, density is too high and we truly expect that a transition zone in that area that is an R-4 density. Transition to me means we are five acres on the north side and one acre on the east side and the west side, probably is more appropriate if all the lots on the north side of this property with two acre lots, but definitely not less than one acre. Same thing on the east and west. And, then, gradually goes to the higher density as you go south. And, basically, all I am saying is probably an R-2 zoning is a lot more appropriate, as Larry suggested awhile ago. And the other concern that I have was the runoff towards the north and the lots are basically fertilizer washed through this area. On the north side we are on a well and we have a shallow aquifer. Lots of wells are about 90, 100 feet depth, with additional wash up from this area if you underground water flow is to our north northwest. So, with these it is just going to bring additional -- basically nitrate and other ingredients, which reduces the quality of the ground water in this area. The stub to the north is not going to work out as the -- I guess the staff recommended. It sounded like they wanted to do us a favor that in future if we want to develop our property or have an access to Chinden, that's nice of them, but I don't think anybody in our subdivision really needs or wants an access to the Chinden. Putting a stub there is going to be an additional place for partying and drinking and lots of similar things against our property. Plus the CC&R of our subdivision forbids having -- that subdividing their land in the five acre area. I also suggest probably for -- should some barriers, maybe a higher actual barriers on the north side of this property to separate that and maybe even north and east, to separate this property from our property. And, you know, I'm going to --Igo to lots of meetings Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 32 of 136 and with all the offer zoning automatically almost approved in Meridian, you go to the Kuna, onto the Canyon county meetings, and more and more you hear we don't want to look like Meridian. And I guess that's not the image that we want to build for Meridian. Sa, please, take all of that into consideration and I guess if you want to follow somebody on the example -- I'm not saying you need to -- please follow Eagle and do to a better zoning and the smaller density and especially in this area. With everything said, that definitely warrants smaller density. Rohm: Thank you, sir. Rothani: Thank you very much. Rohm: At this time Fred Beckman. Borup: Mr. Chairman, can I just maybe interject while he's coming up. I know that there is a lot of concern on the density here. That seems to be a common theme. One of the things that we as Commissioners need to be -- are obligated to look at and to make our decisions on is the Comprehensive Plan. The land use designation for this area on the Comprehensive Plan is medium density residential, which means three to eight units per acre. This project doesn't even meet the minimum. In past years the city has even turned down projects because they weren't dense enough. I don't think that's the direction that this city is looking at going now, but the gross density on this is 2.26, which, as I mentioned, does not even meet the low end of the Comprehensive Plan designation for this area. I'm not sure if that was painted out earlier and I thought it may be pertinent just to bring that out. Rohm: Thank you, Chairman -- Commissioner Borup. Fred Beckman is not to speak, then. Thank you. The next person signed up is Brad Larsen. Larsen: Brad Larsen. My address is 2305 Rivera Drive. Also in the five acre lots north. I initially wasn't going to say anything, because my points have been addressed fairly well by the speakers before me, but I do want to mention with the comment made about the Comprehensive Plan, since this is the edge of the area that you're interested in, I guess it's interesting me that we had no input on that Comprehensive Plan, as far as I know, because that density rating that you're talking about is -- is nothing like anything north of Chinden. There is nothing existing north of Chinden for three or four miles either way that's anything remotely like this. So, I guess maybe I would just point out in response that if that's our plan, it doesn't fit with the environment that it's going into, in my opinion. Borup: I know there were several public hearings to determine what that should be. Open public hearings and that were advertised and -- Larsen And that's probably true. My point is the -- this is the first that I realized this was Meridian's area of impact coming right up against our property. So, I'll just add that. That's all I have. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 20p6 Page 33 of 136 Rohm: And thank you for your comments. I appreciate that. Greg Barney. He's gone. Okay. Ken Mallea. Mallea: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Ken Mallea. I live an Almaden just to the north of the proposed project. I know our time is short. You have heard a ton of stuff tonight. Two points I would like to make -- and one the density, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Barup, you did talk about the Comprehensive Plan. I point out to the Commission, as your staff did, the first point that was made is this property is not in the Meridian area of impact. To me it is ground that has kind of been out in no man's land, could have been in the City of Eagle. The developer for access to services is seeking annexation into Meridian. But it is still very much transition ground. What you approved to the south of Chinden is not controlling for this property. The density that's being sought is too high, we believe. It abuts five acres on the north, one acre on the west, and one acre on the east. And just to shoe horn this dense of a project in between the surrounding larger lots we think is bad planning. That is our position number one. Number two has been articulated already on the stub out. No one in the Almaden project to the north is interested in that stub out. This was testified to at the ACRD meeting. One of the commissioners in particular was interested in that and was rejected by the ACRD commission. So, again, we think too dense, too many homes. we do certainly favor residential in that area, but it is a new issue, I believe, for this Commission and for this city and if you look to the east, every project to the east on Chinden is one acre minimum. It is perhaps fortuitous that this project can be annexed into Meridian for access to services, but that should not control all other land use decisions for this property. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Rohm: Thank you. Questions? Borup: Yeah, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mallea -- and this is more of an informational question for me, because this comes up a lot and I'm not sure which of the two subdivisions went in first, but we have got a five acre subdivision and I'm not sure if there was an objection to a one acre subdivision going in next to it, which was a fifth the size. Was there concern at that time with the one acre lots going in surrounding a five acre subdivision? Mallea: Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Barup, the Almaden Subdivision was first, I think it came in in 1970. Barup: That's what I was wondering. Mallea: The Brandt Subdivision was approved by Ada County in 1991 and it had a 15 year set side for the majority of the property. No development at all, save and except for those few lots that you can see on your map. So, the bulk of the property was in 15 year set aside, which from history and from talking to the neighbors who predated me, they believe that was an acceptable compromise and a goad decision by Ada County at that time. Meridian Planning 8 Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 34 of 136 Borup: So, that's been a common thing for -- yeah, back to that period. Mallea: Yes, sir. Borup: And I think part of that, from my understanding, the county's reasoning for that is they felt that something mare dense was warranted and that's why they would allow that and -- but did require a set aside. Otherwise, they would have been larger lots at the time, but -- and, again, I ask this kind of far my own information for now and future, not necessarily putting you on the spot on this, but -- Mallea: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, I'm happy to be put on the spat. And I think you're on the spot, really. This is certainly unique ground. I think in my experience -- I also have an office in Meridian and da follow the decisions that come before you. I know it's wild, I know this whole development process exceeds anybody's expectations. Certainly the Ada County Commission in 1991 did not expect that there would be sewer service to Chinden through the City of Meridian. I don't think sa. I don't think it was conceived in 1991 that the bulk of this property would be seeking annexation into Meridian. There was a 15 year development agreement prohibiting any development, all on the assumption that it would be coming through Ada County, Mr. Commissioner. So, I think this explosive growth exceeds certainly what I would have expected and I grew up here. Borup: I agree with that fully and Ithink -- I think I share a lot of concerns you have. I mean if this project come in with eight units per acre, I would have a whole different -- I would not be open to the development at all in this location. And I think that's maybe where they have tried to try -- Mallea: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, we are hoping to be open to a one acre density, at least in the transition zones on the west, north, and east. But I realize this is a tough decision -- or at least I hope it is. I hope you don't feel obligated to simply approve a project with a density similar to similar projects you have approved to the south. Borup: Thank you. Mallea: Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Rohm: Thank you. I would like to also speak to this Comprehensive Plan just for a moment before we take the next testimony. And I'm not speaking from carnal knowledge, but typically the transition from commercial, which everybody wants to see some commercial development along that Chinden corridor, and as you transition from commercial, it is desirous to have a little bit more dense right adjacent to the commercial development than it is as you work your way out to the edges of a subdivision. So, I just throw that out just so that you can kind of see, as these developments do occur, there is a transition within the development and maybe the Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 35 of 136 transition in this particular development doesn't match the balance of the develapment in the area. But, in any case, that's kind of the logic trail as you go through a project like this. So, with that being said, the next person that is signed up here is Tom Holloway. Holloway: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Tom Holloway. 6735 North Barney Lane. Also in that Brandt Subdivision there. Major concerns have been addressed already. the density, of course, is one of the bigger ones. One thought that I had, as we were going through this -- I wanted to bring up -- get this thing to work here. Okay. We are talking about the ponds, I believe, which are kind of in this area here. They are very very close to some of these folks' wells. I mean we are talking -- I think it's -- pretty sure it's less than the 50 feet that we were talking about earlier at the very beginning of this session. That's definitely worth taking another look at. And just another concern is just the -- you know, just the whole density of the project, it just doesn't make sense with the one acres here, five acres here, and, then, Spurwing over here with the two -- you know, one and a half up to three acre lots, to have this kind of density in here. I just -- it just makes no sense to me and I just really want to reiterate that. So, thank you very much. Rohm: Thank you for testifying. Jim Lee. From the floor he says Mr. Malley has already spoken for him. Lindy -- boy, I don't have the last name. Agare: My name is Lydia Agare and I live on the northeast corner of this proposed plat and I just wanted to reiterate -- I am not going to repeat the density issue, because I have an issue with that, but I did want to repeat that the storm drains -- I think that was a question mark in somebody's mind. We are fine with the storm drains where they are on the north -- northern part, but I did want to talk a little bit about the three parcels that are on the north side of this plat. And I think there was discussion about possibly a stub street and I just wanted to reiterated that all three of these plats, the three people -- the three acres an the north side, we have no interest in subdividing, so we would rather not see that happen. And, once again, the density issue, which I'm not going to repeat, but that is an issue with us. We all have livestock. We all have horses. We enjoy a rural lifestyle and we would like to keep it that way. And we know that north of Chinden nothing is less than one acre. So, we would like to keep that the same density. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you very much. Evelynn Petty. Okay. Thank you. And, again, from the floor she indicates that she has been spoken for. That concludes the list of people that have signed up to speak. But at this time anybody else that would like to speak to this application you're more than welcome to come forward. Seeing none. Mr. Nickel. Nickel: Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. Again, for the record, Shawn Nickel. I do appreciate the neighbors' concerns. We have met with them and talked to them about those from the very beginning. I think Commissioner Borup spoke -- basically said what I was going to state about the density. At 2.2G we are not even at the minimum of the medium density of the three units per acre from that range of three Meridian Planning & Zpning April 6, 2006 Page 36 of 136 to eight. I do also agree with you and there is no way I would bring a -- probably even a five unit to the acre development -- Barup: Goad. Nickel: -- to this area. One of the first things I told my clients in developing this is we do have to look at the transition and I think we have done an excellent job at that. We are not going -- we are going to meet the intent of what other people think transition is and they have been out there and they have had their large acre lots and this going to be a change far them, do I agree with that. I also think that we have been responsible in providing them with the large lots up here. We have also agreed in the past to provide additional buffering in the way of berms, in fencing a long there. If they so desired -- it didn't sound like they really wanted that. We did take out that common area along there at their request. As far as the access an Linder, my clients bought this additional piece of property here specifically so we could move that entrance up as far to the north -- to the north as possible. Five hundred and fifty feet is our current separation from our entrance to the intersection. ACHD's requirement is, I believe, 320 -- 340. So, we exceed that. There is additional to 250 feet from our entrance to the entrance into Brandt Subdivision. We -- at our ACRD meeting we met with the neighbors outside afterwards and we did agree that we will work with them on buffering this area right here and I, actually, will agree to a six foot solid fence along the whole boundary. We will also work with the neighbors to the north as to what type of fencing they would want along there. But I believe the neighbors on east and along this area da want a solid six foot high fence. We will also work with them the landscaping and everything like that. We do want to provide a buffer. We do understand that that is a major collector -- commercial and residential collector coming into our subdivision. Unfortunately, this is the only place we can have it to meet the offset. We da have the light. We believe that this light is going to take the majority of the traffic, especially from the residential that you can see, the entrance is here, that's a full light, as opposed to coming out and trying to fight that Linder traffic, which everybody in this room has been in that situation before. And it, eventually, will get better as the development's occurring. Right now you have all four of these corners are in some process of development. The area to the west -- to the east that was spoke of is very early on in the stages of going through a Comprehensive Plan amendment with the City of Eagle. Sa, that one is out a little ways. But I know there is some -- there is same movement on the southeast earner and you have already heard testimony on the southwest corner from myself and you will hear it again in a little while about what's developing right here. The reason I'm bringing this up is we have a unique opportunity to see this intersection build out in a reasonably short period of time with turn lanes, with proper signalizatian. I think that's going to be a plus for everybody out here when we do get a better intersection there and we are going to see it -- we are going to see the ability for ACRD to get an additional right of way with the development of this intersection. Now, the lots on the east are a minimum of 10,000 square feet. And, again, the lots north are a minimum of 15,000 square feet and, actually, some of these are 19 and 20 thousand square feet. Sa, approximately, a half acre an these larger ones. Regarding the original development of -- I guess Brandt -- Brandt was one of those nonfarm developments that was developed back in the early Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 37 of 136 '90s by the county. The concept of that was to cluster 25 percent of a property into one acre lots and leave the remainder open for -- at that time it was a 15 year deed restriction to wait for city services and annexation to come forward and, then, to develop at urban density. So, that's exactly what you're seeing 15 years after the fact. You're actually seeing the properties develop. You're seeing it other areas south -- in south Meridian, as you're aware af, of these nonfarms coming in for redevelopment. This one was done right, because it was done -- the larger lots were done up against the major roads, so they don't have the conflict of the stub street in and out that you sometimes see with a redevelopment of these -- of these subdivisions. Spurwing was another nonfarm development that was -- that was approved by the county and you're seeing -- I don't know if you have see the application yet, but there is townhouse developments on their southwest that are starting to come in on portions of their open space that are starting to redevelop as well and I believe there is request or there is talk of request for annexation of a portion of Spurwing into the city. So, you're starting to see these areas redevelop. It's a change. We understand that. Our job is to make sure we do it responsibly. I think we have done that with this project. I'm proud to bring it in front of you and I hope you like it and can support approval of it. Thank you. Borup: I don't think anybody anticipated that it would be 15 years to the day that those would be -- or to the year at least. Nickel: If I can address that, I think that's mare of a coincidence, because I think you're actually seeing some that are coming up sooner than 15 years, because they can be annexed into the city. But, yeah, this is 15 years. Rohm: Thank you, Shawn. Go ahead Moe: Mr. Nickel, your engineer is here. I guess I would like to have someone speak to the point of the ponds over on the northeast section, if would you, please. Nickel: Brain would be happy to do that. Borup: And then -- is that the only question you had? Moe: Yeah. Borup: I'm not sure if the others would -- would he also address irrigation water and -- Nickel: Yes, he will. Borup: Okay. And, then, you just -- I just want to reiterate on the fence. I think there was one or -- at least one of the neighbors that talked about a fence against Brandt. Your landscape plan does show a fence there. I couldn't see where it specified what type, but you're fine on a solid fence, which is what the neighbors requested? Nickel: Absolutely. Meridian Planning 8 Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 38 of 136 Borup: And I just want to point out the landscape plan already did show a fence at -- along that property line anyway. Nickel: Yes, sir. Borup: That's all I have. Nickel: Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Martin: Commissioners, my name is Brian Martin. I am with Toothman Orton Engineering. 9777 Chinden Boulevard in Boise, Idaho. I think the first thing to address is that these drainage areas up here have been incorrectly described as ponds. These are just simply depressions or infiltration swells, like we have -- they are typical infiltration swells like we have anywhere else in the valley. And in this case we had actually located these up in the corners that, you know, particularly to help provide, actually, some buffering to those larger lots to the north and to the east as well. So, these -- these swells will probably be on the order of somewhere between three to five feet deep. They will be grassy swales. They will be landscaped around them. And they will most likely be dry 95 percent of the time. The -- we did locate -- again, we located another swale down in this corner. We had another one down in this corner. One of the property owners had mentioned that he has an existing domestic well, individual well, located somewhere in this area, I believe. Those infiltration swales -- yeah, they are going to be designed to DEQ standards for horizontal separation from any domestic wells and also from any vertical separation from ground water. And in this case ground water is relatively deep, somewhere between 15 to 20 feet deep, and we are also going to provide a foot of filter sand as well. So, DEQ standards is three foot separation. And we are going to have more than that, along with sand filtration. So, in theory, after it goes through the sand filtration and has three feet of separation from ground water, it meets those DEQ standards. Concerning the sewer or future sewer easement, we have preliminarily shown a sewer lift station up in this area, up within this common lot, and we met with Public Works prior to laying this out and we wanted to comply with the sewer master plan that generally shows sewer services going from east to west and, then, ultimately, continuing further west to the future Black Cat sewer lift station. Sa, what we did was we designed this in general conformance with the sewer master plan that shows sewer services going from Linder Road up towards a common low point up here. And so certainly -- we certainly could relocate this if we needed to to another location, with ACHD's recommendation to provide an access road or a stub road to this three acre parcel. By all means, if we wanted to, we could easily relocate this to some other area aver in this area to provide a future right of way access to the north to that parcel. It would be na problem. The irrigation pump, we met with Settler's Irrigation District and water currently comes across Chinden Boulevard right here in a pipe and, then, it's an open ditch to this point and it's an open ditch all the way dawn the west property line. So, there is an existing pump station dawn in here and we had Meridian Planning 8 Zoning April 6, 20Q6 Page 39 of 136 anticipated and planned to provide a pressurized irrigation system for this entire subdivision and we also anticipated providing a couple of pressurized irrigation stubs most likely somewhere this in location or somewhere up in this location to provide pressurized irrigation for those guys. So, we have provided pressurized irrigation stubs. We would size the irrigation pump that we are showing preliminarily up in this area, we would just size the pumps to handle that. And the last point, as far as the traffic, I also completely understand that the traffic slang Linder Road is very difficult. We had a traffic impact study done and the location of the road was approved by ACRD. We also, as a recommendation and as part of the traffic impact study recommendation, they are recommending a dedicated left turn lane to provide access at least into the subdivision. Linder Raad also is an ACHD -- on ACHD's five year plan and so the design is not done, but the anticipation is that this entire intersection will be redone, but, then also Linder Raad will be converted into a five lane road in the future. And so five years out at the 2011 build out, their recommendation is that Linder Road would operate at a level of C. So, it certainly can handle it. I think with that I will take any other questions you guys might have. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of the applicant? Moe: Mr. Chairman, I'm just going back to the pond over there on the northeast area. Is there any possibility of relocation of that, possibly even just to the west in the narrow area on the north and just to send a little more lineal to the west and get it away from that area? Martin: Away from that corner? Moe: That is correct. Martin: You know, certainly by all means we have -- we certainly do have some freedom to relocate those. Mae: That's a landscape area; is that not correct? Martin: That's correct. Yeah. We left that aS an open area. Moe: And you're anticipating what depth of that retention area? Martin: Again, I think probably three to five feet. Samething like that. Moe: Three to five feet? Martin: Yeah. And I think that the side slopes on these will not be particularly steep. I am anticipating somewhere around a four-to-one slope, Samething like that. Something that would easily be able to be mowed or be able to be walked on and we are anticipating having grass in that, as well as any landscape bushes or trees around the perimeter. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 40 of 136 Mae: Okay. Thank you. Martin: And, again, those -- you know, those drainage swales, they really are not ponds, they are just depression or just -- you know, they will hold water temporarily during a design storm, but beyond that they will be dry most of the time. Moe: I understand that. But I do also have the same concern -- you're doing runoff off that street into that retention pond and if I was in that neighborhood I would probably have the same concern as they do. Borup: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Martin, acouple -- I would like for you to maybe expound a little bit mare on the irrigation. You talked about pressurized irrigation to Brandt, but was that ever brought up in a neighborhood meeting or were the neighbors aware of that option? Martin: You know, I'm not -- I'm not exactly sure, but I believe that as part of the purchase agreement that was one of the conditions of their purchase agreement when the clients -- Borup: To provide pressurized irrigation? Martin: That's correct. Borup: Okay. I didn't gather that from Mr. Ward's comments. It sounded like he had talked about historically -- or supposedly the water should have been delivered somewhere along Linder Road. And I had understood maybe that was his concern to get at that point. But I would also think if they have an opportunity to have pressurized irrigation, that's a much better option than gravity fed, so that's why I was wondering if they were aware of that. Martin: Yeah. Apparently, the clients have indicated that the purchase agreement was actually just to provide irrigation water, but not necessarily pressurized irrigation. In this case we are already planning to construct a pressure irrigation pump station all the way around the perimeter of the property, so it would be very easy to provide just a stub and, then, they could, then, take it if they chose to and provide their own internal pressurized irrigation main lines if they chose to. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you, sir. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I'm still a little concerned on irrigation. I mean when you have this type of acreage, I think that is an important thing, and I realize the applicant has done their final, but I would be interested in maybe comments just from Mr. Ward. He's Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 41 of 136 the one that brought up that question on the irrigation. If he might like to comment on the pressurized aspect. Rohm: Mr. Ward, would you like to come back up, please? Ward: Okay. You want me comment on the pressurized being put to here to here? Borup: Well, were you even aware of the discussion of have -- of providing pressurized? Is that what -- Ward: I wasn't, no. Borup: Okay. Is that more appealing to you than just an open ditch along Linder? Ward: My concern with that is is that if they provide pressurized irrigation to us, then, we will become part of their homeowners. They will require us to pay a fee and we don't want to get involved in. their homeowners. I know of another development they did that to the guy and homeowner -- on a freebie basis, that was the understanding, and the development came and cut him off, said you're not paying, we are not going to give it to you anymore. But that was the agreement of the development. So, we don't want to be involved in their homeowners by paying fees to have that pressurized irrigation. Borup: So what is your preference? Ward: Well, we just want our water back to the point of connection that it was supposed to be at the first, basically, what we want. And make it work, I guess. Borup: Well, to make it work, you mean just have it at that location? Ward: Yeah. We would like to have a discussion on how that will accomplish, what they will provide us and what will be there and all of that, not just put a pipe with a cap on the end of it, okay, what are we getting and what -- Borup: Well, what would you expect besides that? Ward: Well, how it will -- I think we expect it to be delivered in a way that we can use it. It has never been there before. Borup: Okay. Ward: And Brandt was supposed to do that and we just want to know when -- where it's coming to, where it's going, and how it's going to be -- you know, how it's designed and all of that. Borup: One other thing I guess I'm a little troubled with is when a development comes in they are expected to not interfere with the historic delivery of water to adjoining Meridian Planning & Zoning April fi, 2006 Page 42 of 136 properties. But it sounds like there hasn't been any historic delivery of water. So, I'm not sure how that -- Ward: We -- like I said, we have -- it was to here and -- Borup: So, how have you been watering your properties all of this time? On the well? Off the well? Ward: Yeah. We have pipe in the ground and we have a pipe that runs from here, here, and it connects to all the lots, but this was never powered up to see, for a short way to put. It was never powered up. Borup: Sa, you have pipes through your subdivision? Ward: Yes. Borup: Okay. Ward: Yes. We have high volume, low pressure, is what our system was designed, which would never work anyway. I mean he designed it, but we just want it back, because we are paying the water fees -- actually, we paid the water fees on this property last year as a homeowner association here, because it wasn't paid and they required us to pay it. Borup: Really? Ward: Yeah. Borup: Thank you. Rohm: Shawn. Nickel: Mr. Chairman. Commissioners. I'm going to try to make this real simple. We are kind of questioning whether they even have water rights. They haven't had access water it sounds like for maybe 15 years. We are willing to provide them with water, either through a pipe or pressurized, and we will work with them to make sure -- Borup: Okay. It sounds like their preference is they have already got pipes through their subdivision, apparently up on Linder, and they would just like water delivered to that location. Nickel: Unfortunately, we didn't really get into that discussion after the neighborhood meeting, but, again, we are willing to work them and provide that water. Borup: Provide the water at that location -- Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 43 of 136 Nickel: Absolutely. Borup: -- if that's their preference, rather than pressurized? And what's your comment on -- if they did opt for pressurized -- and I assume they would be part of the homeowners association at least -- or what -- what would that be? Nickel: I would imagine if they have an assessment -- Borup: Isn't that -- but the pressurized irrigation would be under -- I assume that would be turned over to the irrigation district? That's normally what's been happening, so it's not been a part of the homeowners association. Nickel: I think in this area it would be in the homeowners association. Borup: Okay. The irrigation district wouldn't assume ownership? Nickel: Not on this. Borup: What irrigation district is it? Nickel: It's Nampa-Meridian. Borup: Nampa-Meridian has been doing it. Nickel: No. This is Settler's. Borup: Settler's. Okay. Nickel: Meridian is the ones that usually takes over those. Borup: Yes. So, Settler's does not. Nickel: Huh-uh. Borup: So, if they did have it provided, you would assume that there would be a fee? Nickel: Well, I think if they're assessed now in any way, that would probably continue. Borup: Right. Nickel: As far any other homeowner association fees or acceptance in their homeowner's association, they would not be part of that. They would just be assessed whatever water they -- Borup: Just their normal water assessment. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 44 of 136 Nickel: Right. And we can make that part of the CC&Rs. Borup: So, then, the rest of the residents of this subdivision would be taking care of the maintenance of the pump system and everything at no cost to those -- Nickel: Uh-huh. Borup: Okay. Rohm: Thank you. This is has been very enlightening, to say the least. I think at this point in time it would probably be best to close the Public Hearing and I'd like to get some final thoughts from each of the Commissioners before we move forward. If someone would like to make a motion to close the Public Hearing. Borup: Mr. Chairman, move we close Public Hearing AZ 06-005 and PP 06-004. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-005 and PP 06-004. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: Let's just go down the row here and get some final thoughts and we will start on the far end. Commissioner Zaremba, would you like to share some final thoughts? Zaremba: Yes. I am sensitive to the concerns of the people around that have a lower density than this project proposes. I think part of the reason that the Comprehensive Plan ended up indicating the density desirable on this corner is that along the major corridors -- and Chinden will certainly be more major than it is now, as will Linder. Linder is one of the only river crossings for a great deal of distance. And mast of the traffic on it is not Meridian to begin with, sa we don't have too much control over that. But in providing a mix of housing in various areas, so people have access to the TNC area and the C-C area, I believe it is reasonable to have a mix of densities. I agree with the applicant that they have made an effort to have the larger properties that they are proposing around their perimeter. And I think that helps with the transition. But I don't think it would be appropriate to have one acre properties fronting Chinden. That's such a major corridor that I think the higher density is appropriate. But along with the staff comments, I, again, think this is one that complies with the Comprehensive Plan and the ordinances. A couple of details here and there. Rohm: Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Zaremba. Commissioner Borup. Borup: I just probably say I agree with Commissioner Zaremba. And (realize -- I mean the development in the past of Chinden has been in large lot residential, but -- and that's -- that's an its way to becoming a major thoroughfare linking the counties and, normally, Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 45 of 136 that's not the -- not the location for people that want a rural lifestyle is an a -- on something that's going to be close to a freeway style traffic, but -- and it does seem appropriate. Of course, we are obligated --and that's one of our things we are expected to do is follow the Comprehensive Plan. I might mention the City Council does have some -- some leeway in that area. They are not -- maybe necessarily feel restricted to follow the ordinances to the extent this Commission is, but I think that is an obligation that we should be looking at. Rohm: Thank you. Borup: I might mention -- and even though this is not -- this is not someone mentioned an area of impact. This is not an area of impact, it's referred to as a referral area. It is an area referral for the city, which is, I believe, probably the first step to becoming part of the area of impact. Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Moe. Moe: One of these times I want you to start with me first, if you would, so all the thunder is not taken care af, But, basically, I'm in agreement with both Commissioner Borup and Zaremba. A couple things that through the testimony and whatnot, as far as what the zoning is of this property right now, lot size, basically, you're either anywhere from double to triple the size of the lots that could have been put in this facility, slang with the amount of housing as well. So, as far as the density question and whatnot, I realize that the neighbors out there would like to see larger lots and whatnot, but based upon the Comprehensive Plan, this development is complying mare so than mast that we do see. I guess the only thing I would question, I da have a concern an that one pond over an the northeast corner there and I think that I would like to possibly see that changed. I made comment that I would like to see it possibly moved to the west and whatnot. I don't know what the location of the wells are at those two properties there and those two lots there on the north, I don't know whether or not that's really an option either, but I don't know what -- whether the engineer can reevaluate where that drainage is in that location and possibly do something different. Other than that, I think they have done a good job reviewing the mixed use of this property and I like the project. Rohm: I have wanted to see the City of Meridian expand on same of their horizons to match some of our neighboring developments to the north, as in the Eagle area. I think, typically, when you think of Eagle, you think of estate-type development and there is less of that thought process within the City of Meridian. We are kind of in a different spot than Eagle is, inasmuch as we are closer tied to Boise and we are closer to the freeway and there is a lot of things about the City of Meridian that don't necessarily match up with what's going on in Eagle. But this area right here that we are taking about tonight is probably in that transition between the City of Meridian and the city of Eagle and I respect each and every one of you that testified here tonight and I think that the developers have done a very good jab of transitioning, but there are issues still out there in terms of the lots around the perimeters and I like the fact that they at least have addressed that, but from my perspective I think that the perimeter lots could possibly be Meridian Planning 8 Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 46 of 136 a little bit larger and the balance of the subdivision appears to be of -- have some pretty goad thought processes, but I would like to have seen, possibly, a few less lots around the north and the east side of this subdivision and the balance of it remain as proposed. But that's my thoughts on it. So, that's my concluding thoughts. Borup: Can I just make one comment of somebody going through the same thing personally. I'm in an acre subdivision. A year or two ago an adjoining subdivision was coming in. I know -- and there was a lot of neighbors in our subdivision that were concerned about that. One end of this having townhouse lots and, you know, eight, eight and half thousand foot lots abutting our acre lots, and they -- the talk at that time was affecting our property values, you know, bringing down the neighborhood type of thing. A year later when the houses went in, the complaints from the people in my neighborhood was, well, these are four and five hundred thousand dollar homes, they are going to raise our tax valuation and, you know, it was just the opposite of the concern previously. And I'm not saying that's what's going to happen here, but, you know, I'm saying this was in a neighborhood subdivision that had eight to maybe nine thousand foot lots and that was the result in that situation. Rohm: Thank you, Commissioner Borup. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I want to point one more thing out on -- this is the revised drawing. It's not the one that the applicant submitted. This was one that their engineer got over to me today. I pointed out most of the changes. I did also want to just note, there are -- they did add three additional lots here in the overall makeup. Sa, this -- it cannot be approved as shown here. What staff would recommend is if they just plat one lot where those four townhouse lots that they have added right here are and, then, they can come back in and do a preliminary/final plat in the future, but just -- ante you notice a project for a certain number of lots, you can reduce lots and that's fine, you just can't add lots. So, I would just ask that you -- depending on the motion, that you not approve anymore lots than the 126 -- whatever that is that was originally noticed for, just to call that out. It was based an stafFs comments and I appreciate them making those changes, but we just can't press it on with more lots than what they originally showed, so -- Rohm: Thank you, Caleb. Borup: I just double-checked. They eliminated one on the north and added three along Chinden -- or added four along Chinden, sa a net gain of three. So, Mr. Hood, you're saying, then, a motion would have to just state the number of lots as in the application and leave it at that? Hood: Yeah. If you reference the original, Mr. Chair and Commissioner Borup, if you just -- if you reference the original preliminary plat submittal and all the conditions -- the applicant's already met two-thirds of the conditions in the staff report and they just -- we usually don't see that, you know, before the hearing, so it really reflects a lot of the changes that staff already required. I wasn't expecting to see that one so soon and I Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 47 of 136 wasn't sure if maybe a couple of lots would maybe get taken here and there and you still end up with that same net density anyways. It's not a problem at this point. I will have to reiterate this again to the Council, but those four lots need to be just one for now and, then, they can come back in and re-subdivide that into the four townhouse lots, with a preliminary/final plat, but -- Borup: But I assume we would want to make reference still that one lot was being eliminated on the north? Hood: And that's a condition of approval right now in the staff report. Borup: Okay. That's right. Rohm: Would somebody care to make a motion? Zaremba: I, actually, would ask one more question first of staff. To add language about working with Public Works to provide a way to take the lift station off line eventually, is that something we would add to paragraph 2.1 under the Public Works Department or should that be a separate -- Cole: It would be page 11 in the -- it would be changeable at number 11 of the DA. Zaremba: The DA. Cole: I rewrote that, if you would like my wording, or are you comfortable? Borup: Did you say page 11? Cole: Page 11. Borup: And which page 11, the first 11? Cole: Yes. The first page 11. I don't see any bullet points on the first page 11. Cole: Up at the top third. Rohm: That's bullet item 11 on page 11. Zaremba: Oh, yes. Okay. I got it. Borup: Okay. They were numbered. Not a bullet point. Zaremba: It's requiring them to get an easement across the -- Borup: So, we could leave it like that and, then, add: Or other arrangements as -- Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 48 of 136 Zaremba: As approved by Public Works. Borup: Did you say you already had something worked out? Cole: I think that would -- Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Borup, I think that what you just mentioned is, essentially, what I had. Get the easement through the parcel or coordinate an acceptable alternative to decommission the lift station. Rohm: Works for me. Cole: I thought while I had the microphone to speak to Commissioner Moe's -- maybe a condition that the applicant comply with all DEQ separation requirements and best management practice policies, so that they would have to have that separation of that southeasterly detention pond that you seemed to worry about. Moe: I guess one other issue I would like to speak to and get comment on and that would be the stub street to the north. After listening to testimony tonight, it seems to me that the property owners to the north have no interest in having that there and I guess it would be my opinion that we go ahead and delete that out of the motion to put that in, that, basically, think at least two of the owners made the statement they didn't want it and if, in fact, it wasn't there, it would have been their decision not have it if they so desired to sell off property or do something down the road. So, that's in Exhibit B, page two, 1.1.8. See that one? Borup: Yeah. I already -- where was your -- the drainage area? Moe: That's a good point. Borup: And, then, Commissioner, was that -- it sounded to me like you wanted to go beyond the DEQ requirements? Is that what you're thinking or -- Mae: I think if we just make sure that we have the warding in regard to the DEQ we are okay. Borup: I'm not sure if it is referenced anyway. Well, here we go. Rohm: I think we can stipulate that they have to -- Borup: Yeah. Page five, 2.11, is that -- Rohm: -- comply with DEQ. Moe: Is that 2.11? Borup: Yeah. Would that be the proper place? Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 49 of 136 Moe: Well, it's actually -- Borup: It already says that. Moe: Yeah, it does. Borup: It already says that. Moe: I'm fine with that. Borup: Okay. I will give it a try, then. Moe: We need to close the Public Hearing. Borup: Didn't we do that? Rohm: Yes. The Public Hearing has been closed. Borup: Okay. Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Borup Borup: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-005 and PP 06-004, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March -- of April 6, 2006, and the preliminary plat dated January 3rd revised -- what's the revised plat date? Did we want to include that? Leave the original. Okay. Revised January 27th, with the following modifications to conditions of approval: Add to -- under the development agreement, page 11, item -- under the development agreement, item number 11, add at the end: Or coordinate acceptable alternative with the Public Works Department. Zaremba: For the purpose of decommissioning the -- Borup: Right. And that's what -- that -- well, that's fine. We will add that. For taking the temporary lift station off line as gravity sewer is available. Then, your -- the DEQ question got answered and there wasn't anything else, was there? Moe: Yes. The stub street. Borup: Oh, yes. Then, also, on Exhibit B, page nine, 7.7, eliminate that whole paragraph, which makes reference to a stub street to the north. Hood: Mr. Chairman? Sorry. Mr. Borup, the condition's actually 1.1.8 in Exhibit D. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 50 of 136 Borup: I'm sorry. I did the one under ACHD's -- I marked them both. Eliminate on page two, paragraph 1.1.8 -- the one I referenced earlier was the reference in the ACRD report. So, eliminate that entire paragraph. End of motion. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-005 and PP 06-004 to include all staff comments with amended as stated. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? So, there is three, four, and one opposed. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: Typically we are take a break at 9:00 o'clock and we are way beyond that. So, we are going to take a 15 minute break. Thank you. (Recess.) Rohm: At this time we'd like to reconvene the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. And before we open up the next one, I'd like to restate that Items 18 and 19, referring to Tanana Valley Subdivision, have both been continued to the June 1st hearing, so they will not be heard tonight. So, anyone that might be here to listen to that will have to come back on the 1st of June. Item 9: Continued Public Hearing from March 2, 2006: AZ 06-006 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 10.01 acres from RUT to C-G zone for Knighthill Center Subdivision by Sea 2 Sea, LLC -southwest corner of Linder Road and Chinden Boulevard: Item 10: Continued Public Hearing from March 2, 2006: PP 06-005 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 4 commercial lots and 1 common lot on 10.01 acres in a proposed C-G zone for Knighthill Center Subdivision by Sea 2 Sea, LLC -southwest corner of Linder Road and Chinden Boulevard: Rohm: That being said, at this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on Knighthill Center Subdivision, AZ 06-006 and PP 06-005, and begin with the staff report. Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This item was continued from March 2nd due to the fact that ACRD had not given their approval yet. It did go to the ACRD commission. Just a quick summary. They did request annexation and zoning of 10.01 acres from RUT to the C-G, General Retail and Service Commercial, and preliminary plat approval of four commercial building lots at the southwest carver of Chinden and Linder. ACRD did approve the application with na changes. Staff doesn't really have any further comments. We did have a full discussion on this item last time. I don't have anything in my notes as far as changes that the Commission wished to see. I think with that I will take any questions.