Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 7, 2002 Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7, 2002 Page 5 of 84 Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? It may make sense to amend it, nonetheless, because, as stated, it says for one to two additional children, which would make it up to like seven. would just approve it for six to 12, like a standard day-care. Mathes: Oh. Okay. That's as you said. Centers: I would second that. Borup: Okay. Any questions from counsel on that motion? Wollen: No. Borup: Okay. It would be -. the motion was as the staff report. Mathes: Do you want me to restate it? Borup: No. I think we are okay. Did we vote on that? Okay. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 5. Public Hearing: PP 02-020 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 19 building lots and 2 other lots on 6.503 acres in an R-4 zone for Salmon Rapids No.5 by Farwest, LLC - north of East Victory Road and west of South Locust Grove Road: Borup: Thank you. Item Number 5 is a Public Hearing, PP 02-020, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 19 building lots and 2 other lots on 6.5 acres in an R-4 zone for Salmon Rapids No.5 by Farwest, LLC. I'd like to open this Public Hearing and start with the staff report at this time. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is the final phase of Salmon Rapids. It's outlined on the screen. It does consist of just over six and a half acres. They are proposing 19 building lots, 2 other lots. This is a revised subdivision design. There was one previously approved in 1998. The revisions shown on this plat include a new open space drainage lot, a new stub street to the south, and some reorientation of the public streets that were necessary to accommodate the sewer. Referencing the staff report dated October 21st, there are some additional considerations for the Commission on this one on the second page. The first one being a stub street -- before I get into that, let me walk through the screen a little bit. You can see here the aerial photo with the existing Salmon Rapids Subdivision around it to the north and east. There is the existing -- is it Kachina Subdivision to the west and it is a large lot, County Subdivision. This is the revised plat. You can see the additional stub street going to the south in this location here. Staff supports the inclusion of the stub street where it's shown between Lot 10, Block 9, and Lot 64 -- Lot 64, Block 2. The second issue is the sanitary sewer and Bruce may be better able to speak to this, but I Meridian Planning and Zoning Novembsr 7, 2002 Page 6 of 84 will give you what I know. The existing topography -. you can see the contour lines on here, but it falls off fairly dramatically downhill as you go towards the southem part of the property. The current proposal is to raise that southern portion to achieve the minimum cover that they need over the top of the sewer system. It's got a fairly shallow sewer depth there. Because of that shallow sewer depth, staff did direct the applicant to talk to the adjacent neighbors in the Kachina Subdivision and see if they could get an easement between Mesa Way and the subdivision in this area here to get the sewer trunk extension that's going down Victory Road to Locust Grove to service this property, as it would gravity flow much easier. Apparently, they were unsuccessful in their attempts to get such an easement, so their only option is to fill the property. You know, I think I will leave it at that and I don't know if Bruce has any other comments right now - - no. Okay. Other than that, you should have a memo dated today from Dave McKinnon with a correction. It states that we need to strike general comment Number 11 on Page 5. If you go to Page 5. It's the last one. It talks about five foot sidewalks in accordance with City Ordinance. They are proposing to do detached four-foot sidewalks, which the Landscape Ordinance does allow for. Therefore, there is in his memo a re -- some new wording that should be inserted, stating that the applicant shall be required to 0 btain a License Agreement from ACHD to p lace part of t he required sidewalk outside of the proposed right of way. The setbacks within the proposed subdivision shall be measured from the back of the sidewalk and not from the actual property line. Then Dave asked me to add tonight verbally the fact that that requirement to -- that the front setbacks will be measured from the back of sidewalk, to add that note on the face of the plat. With that, I'll stand for any questions. Centers: Would you repeat that, Steve? Siddoway: To add a note to the face of the plat that states that all front setbacks will be measured from the back of sidewalk, because the sidewalk extends beyond the right of way. Borup: The wording is on the memo there also. Centers: Oh, it is? Siddoway: Yes. It just is lacking the fact that it needs to be added as a note to the plat so just add that. With that, I'll stand for any questions. Borup: Any questions from the Commission to staff? Centers: Well, I guess I would - Mr. Chairman, I would have a question for Mr. Freckleton on the elevation of the sewer and the fill dirt. Is this done often and how do you feel about it? Freckleton: Mr. Centers, it is done quite a bit where they have to fill in order to get minimum cover over sewer. Usually, we try to follow the topography of the land with the sewer and that's why I pushed to try and get it to go south and west to the new line at Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7. 2002 Page 7 of 84 Victory Road. In our facility plan that was prepared by JUB Engineers a couple years ago for our sewer, that area is projected to go north. Back in '98 when this project came forward the first time, we had big concerns about capacity of the receiving sewers not being there. We have done a lot of study over the last few years and we do have plenty of capacity to accept the sewer north. It is physically possible to do it with fill. It's not my first choice, but it will work. Centers: Thank you. Borup: Anyone else? I didn't see anything in there that talked about how much fill. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, the applicant has handed out a response to our comments. I don't know if you got a copy of that. It talks in there -- it says the proposed plan has two and a half -- two to two and a half feet of fill. The original plan had about six feet of fill so they have significantly reduced it by realigning the roads to follow the contours of the land. Centers: Over how many lots, Bruce? Borup: I'm assuming about what the contours show there. Freckleton: Yes. I would imagine the most significant amount of fill is in the extreme southwest corner and it gets -- you know, the further you go northwest -- or northeast, the amount of fill drops off. The applicant has indicated that 10 lots would be filled and nine lots would be cut. Borup: Well, that's who we are ready to hear from next. If the applicant would like to come forward. Bowcutt: Becky Bowcutt, 1100 East Valli Hi, Eagle. I'm representing the applicant in this matter. As staff indicated, this southwest corner is a portion of the Salmon Rapids project that has been in limbo for many years. I did not design this project originally. When Farwest brought it to us, they brought it to us with phase three and four. Originally, the Nine Mile Canal -- or the Eight Mile Canal that was north of this was the boundary for the sewer 0 ut in this particular a rea. M r. Smith, Gary Smith, was very generous at the time and allowed a portion of this southern -- southwestern portion sewer into that Nine Mile Creek Trunk. Since then, as Bruce indicated, the sewer facilities map has been modified, therefore, showing this going to the north. We submitted this application once before and then we withdrew it. That application showed that it would take six feet of fill, approximately, in order to sewer this into the existing sewer mains within the interior of the subdivision. Gary Smith at the time indicated he could not support that type of application and we withdrew it. Since then many of the developments out in this Victory Road, Locust Grove area has been built out. At that time, Mr. Smith's concern was there is capacity that we reserve for these particular service areas and to give that capacity to an area that's not within that sewer service area concerns me, because we may be taking away from properties that are Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7. 2002 Page 8 of 84 entitled to that capacity. But since then, those properties have developed and capacity does exist to service this property into the existing mains within the interior of Salmon Rapids. As Bruce indicated, the facilities plan has been modified. Originally, we had about 23 lots. The street came straight west and then straight north. It did not run with the contours and that was one on that original design that -- one problem that we had that required so much fill. We went in and took a look at the project and determined that, as with like hillside projects that I have done in the City of Boise, it was best if we run with the contours, therefore, minimizing the amount of fill that would be required. We also reduced the number of lots from I believe approximately 23 to 19 so we took this street, instead running it straight west. We took it and ran it with the contours here and then intercepted at this point. Lot 56 is a drainage lot where existing storm drainage from the existing right of ways, in addition to what was planned with this, will go down h ere with an 0 verflow 0 ut toT en Mile Creek. This particular drawing here shows the existing contours in the lighter text and then the darker text shows where the grading would take place. A II through here, we have cuts a nd those cuts are -- the maximum cut is 5.5 feet and that is t here at t he pad and t hen we would, 0 bviously, contour. These lots here that are existing homes are higher and would, therefore, slope this way. We have to, obviously, create some type of a grading and drainage plan. I would recommend that t hat be added as a condition, so that it's part of the Building Department's file and then each builder would have to basically match that grading and drainage plan, so that we make sure that the slopes are in -- consistent with what the civil engineers are designing. On this side, we also have cuts for these three lots and, as Bruce indicated, approximately nine lots would be cut, 10 lots would require fill. The fill here is one foot six inches 1.3 and then over here we have got 1.6 and 1.7. These were about two and a half, but I see the technician has shown these as approximately three. My letter should be corrected to say two to three fill -- three feet of fill. We have one property owner here, Lot 50. I believe she's here this evening. One of the concems that she had -. we did just, for the record, have a neighbor meeting, because we do have existing residents that will be impacted by this development. We got input from them and one of the concerns was, obviously, the grading and the sloping of these lots adjacent to the existing homes, so that it doesn't, one, impact their fence or the drainage upon their lots so that's very important. Here we have approximately six inches of fill. Everything would sewer back here into this Pine Bar Way. W hen we designed this phase of Salmon Rapids, we stopped the sewer at this point and then a service line comes down to Lot 50. We will have to come in and cut this street to get back to the manhole and extend a service line -- or a main line down into this section. The water line is extended here to the perimeter of the pavement. We will have to coordinate with that property owner to make sure that we do it quickly. I believe the conversations we had with the applicant and that property owner is that we would get that done in a day. We probably couldn't get it paved, but we could get that work done in a day and then get that trench refilled as soon as possible, so we do not disrupt their lifestyle or minimize the disruption of their lifestyle, at least a day's worth. This area has just been kind of a problem area for the neighborhood. We heard from a lot of neighbors that, you know, they complained about weeds and dust and kids riding motorcycles and it's kind of been a draw for, you know, activity, because it's just a vacant piece of property. A lot of people at the meeting were pleased that we were taking action to do something with Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7, 2002 Page 9 of 84 this corner. We feel that we have got a good plan now. Our meetings with Brad Watson have been very positive. We are in agreement with most of staff's conditions. We will be doing detached sidewalks, five-foot landscaping, and four-foot sidewalks. The setbacks are acceptable as far as from back of sidewalk and I think everything else seems to be in order. If you have any questions, I would be glad to answer your questions. Borup: Questions from any Commissioners? Centers: No. Very good. Rohm: I have a question. You say you have some drainage specifications that are available for those new lots? Bowcutt: Yes, sir. Yes, we have a grading plan. Rohm: And is that available to this Commission? Bowcutt: Yes, sir. I submitted some to the staff, I can submit some to the Commission, and I gave a copy to the neighbors. Yes, sir, I would be glad to hand those out. Rohm: Okay. Borup: So, Becky, you said your recommendation was to add -- your recommendation was add that in the note in the plat to -- or -- Bowcutt: I would say add that as a condition. You could add it as a note to the plat. Borup: Condition for whom? Bowcutt: It would be a condition when they come in for a Building Permit. I think Bruce would probably agree, the builders -- you know, at sometimes don't necessarily -- you know, they are not -- they are not necessarily concemed with the overall drainage and grading. They are more concemed with that particular lot and we do have deviations that cause problems. Since we do have slopes and we are up against existing homes, I would recommend that we have an official grading and drainage plan on file at the Building Department and Public Works, that they could compare as those building permits come in. Bruce, do you agree? Freckleton: Absolutely. Borup: How is the logistics of that handled, then? Freckleton: Chairman Borup, similar to the old days. They used to have to prepare FHA Master Grading Drainage Plans in subdivisions. The finish floor elevation would be set on each lot. The grading and drainage patterns would be established, elevations Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7. 2002 Page 10 of 84 would be set in each corner, the building official would have the duty to make sure that the elevations were complied with. Borup: So it would just be handled at the plan check. Freckleton: Correct. Borup: To make sure that -- Freckleton: Correct so I would strongly recommend that you add that as a condition. That's a great idea. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Bowcutt: Thank you. Centers: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: I guess I would have a question for the applicant, if you want to -- it was something I had highlighted, Mrs. Bowcutt. The Preliminary Plat doesn't indicate the source of the pressurized irrigation system. Has that been resolved? Please revise the plat to show how the system is going to be served. Bowcutt: Okay. There is an existing pump station that services Raven Hills, Los Alamitos, and Salmon Rapids, that our intentions originally were to connect to that main line that's existing, because that system was originally designed to handle, obviously, 23 additional lots here. After our neighborhood meeting and conversations with Nampa- Meridian, it is our understanding that they have taken off line a supplemental well that was part of that system, due to the fact that it started to cave in. Some concern was that the pressure -- the existing pressure out there, they have had problems with. They do not rotate, so they are irrigating at will. Nampa-Meridian is typically reluctant to put people on schedules, which, when you have subdivisions that reach build out, normally they have to go on a schedule just due to the amount of water rights that are available to the parcel and the capacity of the pumps. We have kicked around different ideas and one would be to hook to -- work with Public Works and pay the necessary fees to hook to domestic water for pressurized irrigation. Two would be to explore redoing the well that has caved in and Nampa-Meridian pulled the pumps, coordinating with them, and, obviously, water resources to put down another well, a substitute well. The third option we kicked around would be to go to the main pump station at Raven Hills and try to upgrade the pump and it's our understanding, based on a memo we got from Nampa- Meridian, that some of the electrical panels would have to be modified. We have three options. We definitely, you know, do not want to adversely impact the existing pressurized irrigation, even though we are, obviously, a small number of lots compared Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7, 2002 Page 11 of84 to the vast number it's serving, we are willing to explore all options and work with public works to find a solution to this. Centers: That was on a letter we received. Maybe you have seen a copy of the letter from the homeowners association. Bowcutt: Yes, sir. Centers: Actually, that was the Number 1 item on their letter. Bowcutt: Yes, sir. They brought it up. Centers: When are you going to have that resolved? Prior to City Council or-- Bowcutt: That is our intent that we work with Nampa-Meridian and your Public Works Department to figure 0 ut a solution. Obviously, when we go to City Council we are going to have to have a definite answer. It was our understanding that, you know, capacity existed with Nampa-Meridian. It was news to us when we had our neighborhood meeting, that the neighborhoods were saying, hey, we have some pressure problems, so we've got to solve that problem. Centers: Just out of curiosity, what will the minimum square footage be for the homes? Bowcutt: I think 1,500 are what we have requested. Centers: Do you know what it is in the adjoining phases? Bowcutt: My understanding was -- we had -- it varied from 1,400 and then to 1,500 along Meridian Greens. Yes. Yes. The original condition, Meridian Greens requested that the homes be larger adjoining them for about 300 feet. Centers: So this one is going to be a minimum of 1,500? Bowcutt: 1,500 square feet. Yes, sir. We'd like that to go onto the record. Borup: So the homes that this is adjoining have a present requirement of 1,400 the lots that these would be adjacent to? Okay question, Becky. Are you going to be doing additional drainage -- preparing a drainage plan? Is that what you said? Bowcutt: You mean a drainage yes. What you're looking at there is -- Borup: Just fill. Right. Bowcutt: That's just a grading plan. Yes, we will need to do a Grading and Drainage Plan. As you can see that, property slopes to the south. Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7, 2002 Page 12 of 84 Borup: Right. Bowcutt: So we -- Borup: It does not show any drainage for a builder to prepare a drainage -- Bowcutt: That's just are Preliminary Plan. Borup: Okay. Centers: So it would be safe to say that the developer will provide a drainage plan to each builder adjacent to Phase 4? Bowcutt: Yes, sir. We will provide a Master Drainage and Grading Plan for each lot. Centers: They know how to comply with the city requirements if we make it a requirement. Bowcutt: Yes, sir. Centers: Very good. Bowcutt: Yes. It would have to be given to each builder, so when they do their site design incorporate that. Centers: That's it for now. Bowcutt: Thank you. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Mr. Freckleton. Freckleton: While it's fresh in everybody's mind, I'd like to maybe add a little bit to the irrigation issue. Excuse me. Yesterday aftemoon I contacted Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District just to try and get more information on the well situation out there. I received today a letter from the Assistant Superintendent Bill Henson, which I will give to Sharon, so she can get you guys each a copy. He does reiterate that the existing well was pulling a lot of sand and they tried to go in and rehab the well and it collapsed. His letter says that at this time they have no plans to drill another well. At that point in time -- this happened sometime this summer, I believe -- they basically started using more city water for their backup water. The irrigation system that currently is out there serves Raven Hill, Salmon Rapids, and Los Alamitos Subdivisions. At the time this was all planned and built, they had this well as a supplement source and so when we came up with the assessments that we charge for city water connection, we basically discounted our assessments by the capacity of the well. Now that that well is out of Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7, 2002 Page 13 of 84 service, we need to be looking at this again, because J think some additional assessments are going to be due if they don't replace this well. If you'd just keep that in the back of your minds and maybe -- Borup: So the connection is not metered? Freckleton: Oh, it's definitely metered. The assessments are a one-time fee that's paid for the connection and, like I say, they were discounted because of the capacity of the well. Borup: The one time connection was discounted? Freckleton: Correct. Correct. Borup: Okay. I'm just-- Freckleton: Got a little gray? Borup: No. I understand what you're saying. I'm not sure why -- how that's a factor if it's metered and paid for anyway. Freckleton: Because additional assessments will need to be paid if that well is not replaced, because additional a rea is being watered with city water that was watered with a well previously. Borup: But they are charged for every gallon they use anyway. Freckleton: That's correct but the assessment is -- it's like buying stock in the company. You're paying for facility when you pay for an assessment. It's like when you build a house you're paying for a sewer and water assessment. That's a one-time fee that you pay with the Building Permit. The homeowner is still going to -- the homeowner is still going to pay a monthly sewer and water charge based on their metered use. So -- and it's the same type of deal when a subdivision is hooked up to a single point connection to the city water for irrigation. We charge assessments for the common area open space. Borup: Because the existing well was essentially less than it would have been. Freckleton: Right. Right. Borup: I'm finally understanding. Do we have anyone else that would like to come forward and testify? Centers: Real quick, Bruce. Is this the same developer as the other phases that own this land? Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7, 2002 Page 14 of 84 Freckleton: Yes. Centers: Okay. Thank you. Excuse me. Pope: My name is Debbie Pope. I live at 2705 South Pine Bar Way. I am the Lot 50 that Becky is talking about that will be adversely affected by fill and by sewer. Also, there are two other lots, Lots 1 and 9, along the southwest corner of the stump road, East Lake Creek, will also be affected by sewer and by fill. Centers: Could you mark them on this little plat, Mrs. Pope? Thank you. Pope: We have -- we would like to see the area subdivided, those of us that live adjacent to Phase 5. Like Becky says, it's become -- it's quite an eye sore with dumping, A TVs, all of that. We do have concerns that if any fill is proposed to bring in -- especially those of us who followed the contour of the land when we built, as the developer would not bring in additional fill dirt to bring our -- my lot slopes significantly. I'm lot 50. My front yard is at road level and my backyard is at the lowest point. I have a walkout basement. I also have a lift station in my basement to get my basement sewage to -- up to the road. There are some homes along East Lake Creek that also have lift stations, because they, too, also have -- they are lower than sewer grade. My concern is that if any fill is allowed to come up adjacent to my fence and the existing homes that are along Phase 5, we will, one, lose our privacy, because -- and it will be up against our fence. My fence follows the contour of the land, so that once the land is graded off, it will still stay along my fence, but if any fill is brought up, it will become up against my fence. We are asking -- the house pads are quite high and if fill -- if any fill is allowed to bring the backyards up to the height of the house pads that are existing on this -- I think on the little maps that Becky brought you -- Borup: Did you have a chance to look at that? Pope: Yes, I did. Borup: The fill plan? Pope: I did. My concern is that if any of the developers, the home builders, are allowed to bring any fill in, other than what is there, they will adversely affect me and not only me, but other homes right there with sewage -- I mean with drainage off of those lots. Our concern is that the builders stick with the existing slopes and are not allowed to backfill. Also we have questions concerning that the homeowners, once the house is in, a year down the line, you know, sometimes they don't get the yards in right away, if they are allowed to backfill. I know some of the homes that are adjacent to mine did back fill quite significantly and brought a significant amount of dirt in to bring their backyards up closer to the lift -- to the level of their pads. If that does occur to any of those homes that are adjacent to some of us that follow the slope of the land, we have significant sewer -- or drainage issues. Also, the sewer line, will be dug up at the stump roads of East Lake Creek and South Pine Bar Way, which will affect, like I told Mr. Centers, Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7, 2002 Page 15 of 84 those three homes significantly, because we are past the sewer drain, so our roads will be dug up, we will be without sewer. We are requesting that the sewer -- we be without sewer no more than four hours while work -- if that's at all feasible, because it affects our way of life, all of us that have kids that are home. We don't have -- we don't have sewer, we can't even be in our homes while this is occurring. Also we have questions as to -- we want to make sure it can't -- once they hit those four inch service lines that come to our home, we want to make sure that they can't back up into the homes. Also we'd like that the pits that they dig to get to their -- like Becky says, will be backfilled each day. We'd like that - whoever it is that does it, we would like that they take into consideration to backfill each day, because our driveways will be totally inaccessible, our homes will be inaccessible, we will have to park down the street. Also, the other thing that we were requesting, those of us that are affected by the sewer hook up, will lose our mail service, because the mailboxes are all passed the point where the road will be dug up. We would like to take -- it be considered that we also -- that the developer makes a plan that we will have no disruption of service, whether that be he puts in - need to put in temporaries, so that we -- we would request not to be the ones to foot the bill for the temporaries, that it follows what the U.S. Postal Service will allow for us. We will be -- until the road is a permanent pavement, the Postal Service will not come back down, -- if there is any type of construction, they will not deliver mail. That's pretty much it. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Any questions. Anyone else want to come forward? Becky, do you have any final comments? Bowcutt: Mrs. Pope's brought up some good issues and I think, one, the Master Grading and Drainage Plan that would be required to be on file at the Building Department and Public Works and all Building Permits issued would have to be in compliance with -- I think would cover that. We could also put a note on the plat for the benefit of the property owner who buys a home, that an overall grading and drainage, you know, plan is on file. We only have a couple lots that, obviously, could adversely affect, you know, some of these existing homes, because most of those lots along that northern boundary are all draining towards us. Lot 50 and then down here at Lot 1, we would have new dwellings that would be adjoining them. Conceming the issue of sewer, we have been - the applicant has explored that and they have been told that they would need a day to do that. Obviously, we need to put some -- we could put a temporary mailbox in like one of those buckets out there, so they could receive mail service. We'd have to coordinate with Public Works Inspectors, as far as, you know, what -- how they handle the existing service line, I guess to make sure that it doesn't back up into the existing homes. I don't know if Bruce has any suggestions on that or not. I don't know. This is kind of an unusual situation where that service line is running right in alignment with where the main line needs to go. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I spoke with Mrs. Pope yesterday -- day before yesterday and got kind of a unique situation out there. Her service line comes straight out of the manhole in the alignment of the stub street going south. Typically, service lines will come out more perpendicular to the main. This one -- her service line comes out in the Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7, 2002 Page 16 of 84 alignment of where the new main is going to go, so in order to put that new main in, her service is going to get tore up. It's going to take some coordination. I don't know a real easy way around it, other than -- you know, I agree with Becky, I think that's probably a day's job to get that much main line in and get her service line tied back into it. It is our policy and in our specifications that at the end of the day they do backfill the trenches and make sure that all the affected homeowners have access to their homes. We are still kicking around some ideas. I don't know of an easy way to take care of this service, other than put the main in and get her in service as soon as -- as soon as they can that same day. As far as sewage backing up, I can't think of any reason why it would, where she -- the Pope's property is the only service that would be tied into that stretch sewer. They are going to have to get into the existing manhole in the intersection of Spring Bar Drive. It is possible when they get into that manhole that they -- I mean if they plugged it up somehow, that it could back up, but, again, the Pope's property is the only one that discharges to that manhole at this point in time. You know, we are just going to have to work closely with the contractor that's doing the job to make sure that he does it cleanly and quickly, very quickly. Centers: Well -- and I would think that, you know, a week or a two week notice could be given to that homeowner, so that they could plan accordingly. Bowcutt: Oh, yes, sir. Definitely. Centers: And that could be met and if they happen to be, wanting to take a trip out of town, that would work, or something like that but you know, I guess-- Freckleton: The only other thing is if the applicant would be willing to bring in portable facilities for a day for that length of time. Borup: Lot 50, the four-inch service line, goes clear to the manhole? Freckleton: Yes. It comes straight out from the house into the street, out into South Pine Bar, takes a 90-degree turn, and goes north to the manhole. Borup: That's just the four-inch -- just the service line? Freckleton: In the alignment of the main, so - Borup: Okay a little different. Becky, do you know -- was the intention for that main line to go clear down to the cul-d-sac at the end of the street? Bowcutt: When it was originally designed? Borup: Well, no. Now. I mean the installation, was that intended to -- the one day, was th at -- Bowcutt: No, sir. I believe the one day would we get us passed her home -- Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7, 2002 Page 17 of 84 Borup: To the next manhole. Bowcutt: To the next manhole yes, sir. Borup: That's what I was wondering, because I thought that would take less time just to go to the manhole. Bowcutt: Yes, sir. Borup: See, yes, that's a fairly short distance to the manhole. Rohm: I'm curious about the backfill on these lots right here. How were you going to address that? As in if they have got their lot sloping away and the adjacent lot wanted to backfill, how are you going to propose that transition? Borup: Well, the building plat shows six inches. It doesn't say if that's six inches maximum at the back of the lot or-- Bowcutt: That would be the pad. That would be at the pad to get that house to sewer. Borup: Okay. Six inches from existing -- Bowcutt: The existing grade and that would be the pad, not the whole lot. Borup: Right. Bowcutt: Most of those homes that they have built on the perimeter that have the excessive slopes, like to the west or to the south, have walk-out basements. Most of the people have taken advantage of that slope in, obviously, in the design of their home. It would be Cost prohibitive, obviously, to try to go in there and fill it all the way up, you know, to match the elevation of the street. What we are looking at is the elevation of where the home sits at. The only way to restrict the property owner would be by covenants, by a note on the plat, as far as to keep -- if say you were to buy the home, to keep you from bringing a truck in and adding five feet of fill in the back of your new home. CC&Rs and a note on the plat is the only -- the only mechanism which we have. Rohm: And that's not currently part of the CC&Rs? Bowcutt: The exiting CC&Rs, no. You would have to have an addendum to -- for this Phase 5 not that I'm aware of. No. Centers: If we noted on the plat, which lots we are talking about -- because I think that's more effective than the CC&Rs 51. Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7, 2002 Page 18 of 84 Bowcutt: Fifty-one and, then, obviously, this one that adjoins -- what would it be? Lot- Lot 10, Block 9 and, then, probably you would want Lot 10, Block 8. Then as we start going northwest, those are all sloping away towards us, so -- Borup: Ten and eight is a cut, not a fill. Bowcutt: Well, let me see. You have got all my -- Borup: Yes. I have got -- 10 and eight is a cut. Bowcutt: Is it a cut? Okay so then we would be all right. Centers: Ten and eight. Okay and then -- help me, then, Becky. What would be a good notation on the plat? Bowcutt: Probably a good note on the plat would be the finish grades of all building lots should comply with the Grading and Drainage Plan of record at the Public Works Department. No property owner shall deviate or fill lots adjoining to existing homes -- and you could go into detail something along that line. We typically -- we do the same type of thing when we do hillside lots. Centers: Maybe matching - Bowcutt: Matching grades. That would be another thing. That might have some better language. Centers: I was looking to see if some of us were making notes when you -- Bowcutt: Don't ask me to repeat it. Centers: We will run it back in a minute. Okay. We can handle it. Bowcutt: Bruce will come up with some beautiful language, I'm sure. Centers: Because I think the note on the plat really is effective. Bowcutt: Yes, sir. Centers: A lot of homeowners don't read the CC&Rs ahead of time, they read them at closing, and if it's there and then the adjoining property owner of Lot 50 wants to point that out, I think -- I think they would have a lot more leverage, personally. Very good. Bowcutt: Yes, sir. I agree. Thank you. Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7, 2002 Page 19 of 94 Borup: And I would suggest, since it's only pertaining to two lots, that the notes would be located at the lot with an arrow pointing to them, rather than a note that's hidden in a long list of notes. Bowcutt: Yes, sir. Borup: Any other questions from any of the Commissioners? Centers: We didn't have anyone else, did we? Borup: Not unless someone has changed their mind. Centers: Well, I think it's -- Mr. Chairman, I think it's obvious that this little piece of land needs to be developed for the benefit of the Salmon Rapids Subdivision, to get some houses on it. Probably would make it a lot safer area. I think if we do it right, that Mrs. Pope should be protected. She might have a little inconvenience in the future, but that's -- I think is going to be unavoidable and I think with proper notice as when they are going to do the sewer hook up and the backfill, that's the best they can do. I move we close the Public Hearing. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Okay. Any discussion on some of the items that we want to add to the motion that -- we have talked about a couple of things that were not in the staff comments. Rohm: I have made some notes here, Chairman Borup, and the notes that I have here are -- we would delete Item 11 on Pa~e 5 and we would add Dave's letter -- Dave McKinnon's letter, dated November 7. Additionally, lots within this addition shall conform to a drainage specified by the developer and on file with the City Planning Department and the second note would be a note on the plat specifying the backfill of Lot 10, Block 9, and Lot 51, Block 2. That seems to cover the issues that had been brought up in discussions here. Borup: That would be adding a note to the plat concerning the setback calculation. Rohm: Yes. Borup: That was the verbal comments that-- Centers: Front setbacks measured from the back of the sidewalk. The applicant had a disagreement on the term License Agreement in Dave's -- do we have a problem with that? I don't think we do, Steve. In the applicant's note, she had mentioned that I am in Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7, 2002 Page 20 of 84 agreement with the staff change, with the exception of the License Agreement. ACHD requires a sidewalk easement be granted if the walk deviates from the right of way. I guess I would tend to agree that we don't need that License Agreement. Siddoway: I would just say that -- go with the third sentence in there, to say that they have to comply with the ACHD requirements for sidewalks located outside the right of way. Centers: Right. Siddoway: If you just state that, will take care of it. Centers: Just strike the licensing. I think we need to address the irrigation -- pressurized irrigation and the fact that the -- Borup: The assessment? Centers: Yes. This developer, if he hasn't installed a new well, they would be hit the full assessments, but I think we also need to -- you know, there should a well. I mean we are requiring pressurized irrigation or whether it's a well or the applicant provides proof prior to the City Council that they have the pressurized irrigation. Borup: Well, the well was just when the irrigation water is shut off during the transition period is that correct? This well you're talking about is being used year around? This is a year around well? Freckleton: The well ran full season. It was a supplement to the irrigation system. Borup: So it -- no, I understood that, but I thought it was supplemental well. They are not getting the water out of the irrigation canals? Freckleton: They are. This well supplements that. It wasn't used exclusively as shoulder season it was used throughout the irrigation season. Borup: I misunderstood. Freckleton: Yes. Mathes: Is there a way to get them on their own system, not with the other two subdivisions? Freckleton: Well, it's a regional system that Nampa-Meridian owns and it's definitely more economical to operate a central system that serves a greater area than it is to have independent systems. That's Nampa-Meridian's deal. I would like to kind of go on the record, though. Becky has raised several options for the irrigation system and I'd just like to point out that I want city water to be on the very bottom of their list. I want Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7, 2002 Page 21 of B4 them to explore every other option that's out there before looking at city water for irrigation. Centers: We require that every subdivision have pressurized irrigation, Bruce. Why would the city water be on the bottom? It shouldn't even be an option. Freckleton: We do require city water as a backup source if an alternate source is not available, so -- Borup: There is not enough irrigation water available for this area to provide for all the homes? Freckleton: That's something that the applicant is going to have to prove out. Borup: Well, the canal is running right through the middle of the subdivision. Centers: Yes that's-- Rohm: Well, if there was a well placed in the subdivision at one time, why could it not be replaced? Freckleton: Well, I think it could be. Centers: It was pumping sand the last -- Borup: Well, the problem at this point is the system has been turned over Nampa- Meridian. Freckleton: You know, I don't know what the construction of the well was, whether it was an uncased well or what it was, but it did collapse on them when they tried to rehab it. They were blowing the well and it collapsed, so -- it is - atthe time, it was under the ownership of Nampa-Meridian. It was not -- it was not under the ownership of the developer, so -- Centers: But it is now? Freckleton: The well is still under the ownership of Nampa-Meridian. Centers: Oh, it is? Freckleton: Yes, but once the subdivision is built, the system gets turned over, lock, stock, and barrel, to the Irrigation District distribution system and pumping facilities. You know, that system operated for -- how many years? Five years without a problem and then, you know, started pumping sand and the well went down. You know, normal - - if this development was totally built out and Nampa-Meridian wanted to go in there and put a new well in, they put a new well in, but then every single resident in the Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7. 2002 Page 22 of 84 subdivision would get paid for a piece of that well in their annual assessment from the irrigation district. Rohm: As it is, if they build a new -- or drill a new well, wouldn't the purchasers of the new lots, then, be the ones that would be paying for this new well, in effect? Freckleton: I guess in a long about way, maybe. The developer, if -- if a new well is deemed the best way to go to get irrigation water to the system, this developer would be putting that well in at his expense and then, of course, he would recover his cost through lot sales. Rohm: And wouldn't that be the preferred method to go, as opposed to using city water? Freckleton: Definitely. Definitely. There are other options. The pump station could be upgraded. It's going to take some fairly major -- major work. The assistant superintendent of Nampa-Meridian told me that -- and Becky touched on this, too -- that the electrical service into that pump station is maxed out at this point in time. Some additional electrical service would have to be brought in, panels might have to be replaced, additional pumps might need to be added, but there a re some 0 ptions 0 ut there. Borup: So it sounds like the problem is not the water availability, it's the capacity of the pump station is that correct? Freckleton: Their pumping capacity. That's correct. Centers: It's delivery. Borup: So the water is available to the normal irrigation delivery. To me that's the best method to go is increase the capacity of the pumping station, if the water is there. Freckleton: Yes and if they do anything but replace the well, those assessments are going to be coming into play. Borup: I don't know why they didn't do that to start with. Why don't they drill a well -- unless it was an existing well? Freckleton: It was existing on the property. Borup: Okay. That explains it. Centers: Would that be appropriate to require something like that prior to the Final Plat? Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7. 2002 Page 24 of 84 specifying the backfill of Lot 10, Block 9, and Lot 51, Block 2, and the developer shall increase capacity of the existing irrigation system to match the new load. Center: Well, what are we going to note on the plat on those two lots? Rohm: That the grade shall match existing adjacent lots and -- Centers: And no -- no backfill allowed or something to that effect? Rohm: Or the backfill shall match existing developed lots -- help me out here. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, if I might. I hate to muddy up a plat with a bunch of notes. It's not really the document to be doing that with. I think the thing we need to make sure of is that this Master Grading and Drainage Plan catches at the points of the existing lots. In other words, there is not a bunch of fill against those adjacent lots. That would show up on that master grading and drainage plan. I think by making that note on the face of the plat, that all lots shall comply with the approved master grading and drainage plan that's on file, I think we are covered. Rohm: It makes it redundant, then? Freckleton: I think with the additional verbiage, I think it's very redundant and unnecessary. Borup: But I think, then, your comments would apply to the drainage -- to the drainage map, not to the -- not to the plat. Rohm: Exactly. Centers: Well, I think the -- you know, the owner of Lot 50 was concerned about backfill coming in. Borup: That's what I say, that comment that would apply to the drainage map would need to show that and then the note on the plat would refer to the Drainage Plan. Centers: Okay. Rohm: Okay. Borup: Which would do the same thing without having a II t hose notes cluttering the plat? Then did you have a comment on that sidewalk -- I mean on the setback at the back of the sidewalk? Centers: On Dave's addendum. Front setbacks measured from back of the sidewalk. Borup: There is a note to add that note on the plat. Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7. 2002 Page 25 of 84 Rohm: Yes. Add the note on the setback associated with the sidewalk. All right. 1-- Borup: Okay. Did we get everything -- did you get everything on the irrigation? Rohm: Yes. Centers: Well, you didn't include anything on the irrigation. We'd like the developer to supply evidence of pressurized irrigation from whatever source, of course, prior to the Final Plat. I think that would be sufficient from whatever source, other than city water. Additionally, I would like to require that the developer give the owner of Lot 50 at least a two week notice of when the sewer would be dug up and that they would be required to do it in one daylight hour's day. Not 24 hours, but I guess I'm talking 12 hours. Borup: Or eight. Centers: And the developer also provide temporary mailboxes for affected -- affected adjacent lot owners in Phase 4. I don't think Phase 3 would be affected. Borup: Just say affected lot owners. Centers: Yes. Right. Question, Nick? Wollen: Commissioner Rohm, do you adopt Commissioner Centers' wordings on that in your motion? Rohm: Yes, I do. Wollen: Okay. I think I got everything, except the very last part. Rohm: On the sidewalk or the irrigation? Wollen: On the irrigation. Centers: Yes developer to supply evidence prior to the Preliminary Plat that they have sufficient pressurized irrigation. Wollen: Other than from municipal water. Centers: Correct. Wollen: Okay. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I got a little lost on the motion. Borup: Which part? Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7, 2002 Page 26 of 84 Freckleton: I want to make sure that Nick has it down the way that you guys -- because the portion about the setback from back of sidewalk, I didn't catch that part. Borup: Oh, that it be measured from the back of the sidewalk. Wollen: And it was my understanding that's in Mr. McKinnon's note that's -- it's not on there? Borup: The motion was to add that in the note to the plat. Wollen: Correct. It's also going to be added as a specific note to the plat. Borup: Okay. Freckleton: I was just wondering if you thought it might be appropriate to have Nick read back to you what -- if he's got it. Wollen: Well, on the specific -- what is going to be added to the face of the plat? It's my understanding -- and correct me if I'm wrong on the language here that you had in your motion -- all buildings and improvements upon all lots in the subdivision shall comply with the Master Grading and Drainage Plan on file with the Meridian Public Works and Building Department. That is going to be the only thing regarding grading on the plat itself. Then we are going to exclude Item 11 on Page 5, include the letter -- November 6th letter by Dave McKinnon specifically out of that letter, put the setbacks portion on the plat itself -- let's see developer to supply evidence of water source, specifically excluding Meridian city water from that source list. That was what I had so far. Centers: Mailboxes? Two week notice prior to -- Wollen: Oh. Two week -- I'm sorry. I had the two-week notice -- Centers: And backfill. Wollen: Yes the two-week notice was only to be given to the Popes correct? Centers: Appropriate -- appropriate adjoining lot owners would be better and then we had something on the backfill, especially related to Lot 51. Wollen: Okay. Perfect. Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7, 2002 Page 27 of 84 Centers: Thank you, Bruce. Rohm: Thanks for the help. Borup: There was some discussion on the Sidewalk Agreement with ACHD, rather than a License Agreement, that it would comply with ACHD requirements. That was the recommended wording by the applicant and Steve said that was satisfactory, I believe. Centers: Where was that? Borup: Well, that was mentioned in Dave McKinnon's memo. Centers: Yes. We adopted -- Borup: He said a License Agreement and then the applicant's response -- Centers: Well, we are adopting Dave McKinnon's memo. Borup: Yes. His memo said license -- Centers: Strike the words - then strike the words License Agreement, is my notes, on Dave McKinnon's memo. Wollen: Striking out Licensing Agreement? Okay. Centers: In Dave McKinnon's memo. All the remainder would be applicable. Borup: Well, essentially. If you strike out those two words, then the sentence doesn't make any sense, but -- Centers: Yes. Borup: But it's saying that -- and then reword the sentence to state to comply -- I mean that it would need to comply with ACHD requirements. Centers: Right. Borup: Okay I think we have -- do we have a motion? Centers: I think we do. Rohm: I wouldn't want to restate it. Borup: Nick has it all down. I think he got everything after we had gone through -- so we have a motion, we have a second. All in favor? No. We have a motion on the floor. Mathes: Second. Meridian Planning and Zoning November 7, 2002 Page 28 of 84 Borup: And a second. Any discussion? Alii n favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 6. Public Hearing: RZ 02-004 Request for a Rezone of 8.2 acres from R-8 to CoG zones for Murdoch Subdivision No. 2 by HOwell Murdoch Development Corporation - west of South Locust Grove Road on East Watertower Street: Borup: Thank you. Okay. Item Number 6 is Public Hearing RZ 02-004, request for rezone of 8.2 acres from R-B to CoG zones for Murdoch Subdivision No. 2 by Howell Murdoch Development Corporation. Open this Public Hearing and start with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Murdoch Subdivision is located at the intersection of East Watertower and Locust Grove. It is across from the Woodbridge Subdivision in this area. Murdoch Subdivision No.2 was originally annexed to the City of Meridian and zoned R-8 in May of 2000 under the name of Stratford Business Park. The next year, in May 2001, the Council approved a plat for this property with the lot configuration that's shown under the name of Murdoch Subdivision NO.2. The new Meridian Police Station sits on the large lot, right here, which is Lot 8 of Block 2 of the subdivision. The current zoning of R-8 was granted at that time, because it was in compliance with the 1993 Comprehensive Plan, which designated that area as single-family residential. The recently adopted Comprehensive Plan designates this same area commercial. The proposed rezone from R-8 to CoG in compliance with the new Comprehensive plan, would allow for commercial development of this property. The rezone is proposed on all lots of Murdoch Sub No.2, except for the police station lot so that one is not being rezoned. You should have a staff report, dated August 28th, from Bruce, Dave, and myself. We believe that findings are made that shows that this rezone is in compliance with the current Comprehensive Plan for the city. We note the standard conditions on Page 4 oft hat report a nd recommend approval of this rezone with those conditions and I'll stand for any questions. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Centers: Any motion, Steve, should it state excepting the police station lot or identify it? Siddoway: I don't know that it's necessary. The rezone application that was submitted specifies the boundaries. Centers: Okay. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Does the applicant have anything to add to staff's comments? Okay. That makes it easy. Is there anyone else here to testify on this application? Seeing none.