Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-10-12 MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING OCTOBER 12, 1993 The Regular Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order Chairman Jim Johnson at 7:30 p.m.: Members Present: Moe Alidjani, James Shearer, Charlie Rountree: Members Absent: Tim Hepper Others Present: Wayne Crookston, Will Berg, Wayne Forrey, Jerrie Wolfe, Shannon and Darrell Spencer, Douglas Hoy, John Calhoun, Don Bryan, Raleigh Hawe, Dave Fuller, Vicki Welker, Don Stillwaugh, Matt Munger, Dave Roylance, Marty Goldsmith: MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 30, 1993: The motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Shearer to approve the minutes as written: MOTION CARRIED: All Yea: ITEM #1: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO R-40 BY JERRIE WOLFE AND ASSOC. Johnson: I'll now open the Public Hearing. Is there someone representing the applicant that would like to come forward and address the Commission, please do so at this time. Jerrie Wolfe, 410 S Orchard, was sworn by the Attorney. Wolfe: Jerrie Wolfe, architect, representing Gary Belew and Dallan Taylor. We're requesting an Annexation and Rezone to R-40 piece of property that due to the shape of the property is hard to work with for, with anything else but what we're proposing. And if I could display it, I can explain it a little better. The property is situated on, off of Meridian Road, here, through Heron Lane. What or proposal is, to satisfy fire protection what have you, having two accesses, one of them coming off the right lane here and off here by the circle drive here. This is ideal for a multi-family use, we can situate the units 8-plexes, 10-plexes etc. along here, create a landscaping area with various amenities(gazebos, barbecue areas etc..) garbage collection areas and we have an area here that is a ditch that we're hoping to create a greenbelt bike path situation that would continue on with other portions in the overall city plan. I think that can be better explained. That basically covers it, the units are a continuation there are some variations in height and materials, a continuation of what is, will blend in with the neighborhood as shown, these diagrams here. We've gone to the extent of showing proposed floor plans in exterior elevations that we hope will blend in with the neighborhood, accenting with Planning and Zoning October 12, 1993 Page 2 a lot of landscaping berms and variations of height. Are there any questions, I'll sure try to answer them. Johnson: Well, I'm sure we'll have a few. Commissioners, questions? Well I'll start, with respect to the comment by Gary Smith the City Engineer specifically item #3 are you familiar with these, have you had a chance to look at them, they're dated October 10? From Gary Smith there are just 3 comments. Wolfe: Yes I have reviewed that. Johnson: That last sentence there, a question there,"does the property have access rights to Blue Heron Lane, and if so should the lane become a public road?", did you have an opportunity to discuss that at all with Gary Smith? Wolfe: I haven't discussed it with Gary Smith, I've discussed it with owner of the property, and at this time I'm not tying to sidestep I don't know how to answer to tell you the truth. Johnson: Well you can just tell me the truth Wolfe: We're asking for an annexation and a rezone and what we would like to do is work these details out with the proper authorities ACHD and those people who are actually going to tell us what we have to do, but if we have to give that all off to Bell road, and who splits the cost, we like to work that about at that time, it's hard for me to make a commitment at this time. Our other accesses here and if we're required to as an alternate fire lane we've got access here that depending on what ACHD is going to tell us what we have to do, these maybe the only two that we have if we can use this one that would be ideal, so these are things we still need to work out. Johnson: So what do you see as the total number of units there? My copy is so small I can't read it. Wolfe: Sixty-six, 3.94 acres and that includes the center line of the right of way on the ditch, 3.19 acres to the easement portion. Number of units would be 66, which correlates to 20 units per acre. Johnson: And we're looking at 2 story units, is that what we were talking about, approximately 10 buildings, 8 buildings, so some of those are 10 and some are 8. Planning and Zoning October 12, 1993 Page 3 Wolfe: I've got one 10 and the rest are 8's. Johnson: Yeah, that would be 66, okay. Anybody have any questions of Jerrie Wolfe? Alidjani: Yes, out of the designated 66 units, how many are two bedroom, one bedroom, three bedroom, it's a combination? Wolfe: Twenty-six one bedroom units, which includes the handicapped units, 40 two bedroom units. The parking ratio we're proposing is 1.63 to 1 parking ratio which normally 1.5 is acceptable I like to bump that up a little bit, a little extra parking. And then a portion of those of course are going to be in covered parking. Alidjani: How many parking is designated all together? Wolfe: 108 parking, car parks Alidjani: Any other area designated area for extra parking or is that it? Wolfe: That's it, handicapped parking dispersed among them but that is included in the 1.63. The one thing that I would like to point out is we are proposing a lot of irregular and variation in the landscaping a lot of bermsand that type of thing. Plus the greenbelt access. Alidjani: On sketch that you have what is the dimension of the opening to Blue Heron and also Meridian road? Wolfe: Thirty feet Johnson: Any more questions? Anybody else have any questions, Charlie? Rountree: Do you have any proposals for any playgrounds or recreation on site type of facilities? Wolfe: Our central area would be landscaped and a play area and then we have various gazebos/barbecue areas we've got 3 of those, one here, one here, one here and then a picnic playground area right here, trying to get them centrally located as much as we can. Planning and Zoning October 12, 1993 Page 4 Johnson: Anything else Charlie? Rountree: No, I have nothing at this time Johnson: Jim Shearer? Shearer: No, looks like it's pretty well covered between the plans we have here and what Jerrie has put forth. Johnson: Wayne you had a couple of comments, did you respond to Mr. Montoya's letter? Forrey: Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning and Zoning Commission and Mr. Wolfe, I just got Mr. Montoya's letter about lunch time today. Mr. Montoya is a business manager at Meridian Meat Packers, raises some issues, one of which is the compatibility of land use. Certainly, the city would not approach any business like this and ask them to relocate,and that's one question he raised in his letter, what is the position of the city. Our approach here in Planning function is to make sure that these two uses are compatible, in the Comprehensive plan it addresses this area as the mixed planned use development area. With that comes a lot of responsibility to make sure that these two uses an industry, in this case a packing plant, and where people live, the project proposed by Mr. Wolfe, can be compatible, and the key thing here is we know about it in advance. You know there is meat packing plant, we know it, you know that you have a use that by some definitions may be compatible, but our challenge here is to make it work. Screening, buffering landscaping adequate setbacks, good site design, this request is annexation and zoning only so I really don't have anything to approve as far as site design, but as we work with Mr. Wolfe and with Meridian Meat Packers, we'll make sure that both uses can live together without driving one or the other out of business. I think they can coexist. Johnson: Does that basically address his concerns in here? Forrey: Secondly, it was Blue Heron, and Mr. Wolfe says he will continue to work with the Highway District, I don't know the status of who owns Blue Heron, or what the easement agreements are. And the item in my memo to you pertains to the pathway plan, which is this section of Jackson drain, which by the way the North side is the Ewing project, which this commission required half construction of a bike path pedestrian way so I would hope we would do the same Planning and Zoning October 12, 1993 Page 5 on the South side then we've got a really nice premier pathway along that section of Jackson drain, good development on both sides. Johnson: Have you talked to Mr. Wolfe about anything like that. Forrey: Yes, you might want to address that. Wolfe: I thought I did, the Ewing Company is building a bike path along this side and after talking with you and my client we don't have any problem continuing that on this side we've left plenty of room for doing that, it coincides with what you've already got, a continuation on both ends. Johnson: Thank you very much Wayne, Wayne Crookston do you have anything? Crookston: No Johnson: Jerrie thank you very much, we may call you back. This is a public hearing is there someone from the public who'd like to come forward. Raleigh, you need to be sworn please. Raleigh Hawe, 530 Blue Heron Lane, was sworn by the Attorney. Hawe: I have several questions on that project. Number 1 is the continuation of Blue Heron Lane in an east-west direction from Meridian road to, I don't recall the subdivision that is to the east of me, but does Blue Heron continue, a continuation to the east of my property on that, and the question I had with this, as this road is developed or is it is developed the bike path and the Blue Heron Lane will be intersecting each other and that's one of the questions, since that bike path will be continued through a piece of my property how that will be handled for that intersection, I get foot traffic and automobile or in the case of Meridian Meat Packers commercial semis etc. through that particular area. I suppose this would be addressed in part from the ACHD unit if they proceed with this thing. Now as this Blue Heron Lane is presently a private lane and the ownership of the road is the property owners. The location of the Blue Heron Lane is entirely owned by property south of the east-west property boundary off of Meridian road and to the north side of Blue Heron lane which I might show you at this time. And this brings up the question of setbacks who's going to contribute what to the road I noticed that Planning and Zoning October 12, 1993 Page 6 everything is based on the center line of the road, shows and automobile in left hand corner of the print that I'm looking at. Blue Heron Lane at this time can't be much over 20 feet wide, maybe a little bit more than that. At this time I'll show where the property points are, I don't know if this was a question with Mr. Wolfe or not, but I certainly know where they are. This is the center line of Meridian road right here and the end of the center line is located somewhat at the center. This is the north side of Meridian Road right, or excuse me Blue Heron Lane right here, this then goes on straight through to this point over here which is northwest corner which is on the north side of Blue Heron Lane. At this intersection right here, this Jackson drain goes not quite but almost perpendicular to the Blue Heron and then crosses here and comes back over, goes over this way a little ways and diagonals about 45 degrees lengthwise. At this juncture right here there is a road proposed to come through Ewings place somewhere I think in here, and there is another one over in here, I don't have that drawing of Ewings but there is another over here. Anyway this intersection right here poses the problem. One of the questions I have on this particular thing is the people to the north side and taking a look at some setbacks here, it appears to be a 20 foot six setback from their property on into the edge of the apartment complex, as Blue Heron Lane is widened and since it will affect a partial of the property that I have on the east side of this particular thing who's going to give up the property or who's going to dedicate the property to ACHD or to this particular project to widen that road? As an example, Mr. Wolfe has explained that will be a fire access going through this particular thing, now that's a fairly good access going into presently a gravel road and 20 foot, so something will have to take place in that particular are, but that's one of the major questions that I have, what will become of Blue Heron Lane? The other questions I have stated before is Blue Heron Lane going to be continued through as a through street on that? That's all I have at this time. Johnson: Okay Raleigh, thank you very much. Any questions of Mr. Hawe? Rountree: Do you have a particular presence on what happens to Blue Heron in terms of through access or being culdesaced? Hawe: Well there's a, excuse me Mr. Wolfe how many units are going to be in that particular area? Planning and Zoning October 12, 1993 Page 7 Wolfe: 66 Hawe: 66, Well you'll have one access off of that into Meridian road and the other will have to go onto Blue Heron Lane, and come down Blue Heron Lane and back onto Meridian road. The other thing is that they might come down Blue Heron Lane and pick up a lane that, I know Mr. Ewing has two roads coming into that particular Blue Heron Lane right now, that are proposed. So quite conceivably Blue Heron Lane would carry a considerable amount of traffic. So, as would I have a preference as to Blue Heron Lane continuing into existence you mean or as pertained as a private road, all of the above. Well, if it stays as a, I would want to see Blue Heron Lane because of it going into a through street type of thing, the reason is that there the property south of Blue Heron Lane, I'm will be developed at some time, most of those properties are in a five year state of being in change at some place in 5 years it will change from the existing use to some other, either multiple use or some other single family use. Therefore, I see the road getting a lot of use, a lot of traffic from that. There would be traffic coming up from that from, as an example conceivably, from my place as it develops and from Ewings properties to the north and to the east of this property as those streets are designed, and I have a, I believe I have the Ewings map right here. It's a culdesac that comes of the north part of that property, that street does not come through on that corner, but there is a street called North Eureka that comes off of Ewings place onto Blue Heron Lane, if you want to take a look at this, unless you have a copy yourself. If I may I'll just pass this down. Johnson: Wayne Forrey, did you specifically look at that or talk to anyone at ACHD? Anything to add Raleigh? Hawe: No I don't, except that that's a 30 foot street as I recall coming off of it in the Eureka area, total service area of that plus the commercial services going down Blue Heron Lane at this particular time, there's a fairly good amount for the size of the businesses a fair amount of semis traffic in that particular area a lot of 18 wheeler traffic that goes down in there, we have farm equipment and that sort of thing that goes through that thing frequently it isn't significant number of units as compared with the Meridian Meat Packing plant at this time. Also, at this time there are two either presently used or temporarily used or whatever, I don't know what they're called on the Meridian Meat Packing property at this time, and there is no fences or guards or Planning and Zoning October 12, 1993 Page 8 whatever for people falling into them or people getting into them or whatever. Some people just use them to shoot ducks or whatever. Well anyway that's basically the use of Blue Heron Lane I see is increasing traffic area and I hope that I've answered the questions on that particular thing. Crookston: Raleigh, Blue Heron is that on a quarter section line? Hawe: Yes, it's on a half, I don't know it's a quarter section but it's exactly a half a mile from Cherry Lane to that particular point and from that point I'm talking about the east-west point it's a half a mile to Ustick, so I don't if whether you'd call it the quarter section line or half section mile line, I'm not sure where that section falls in that particular thing, Wayne. Johnson: Any comments Wayne Forrey? Apparently we didn't get any response from ACHD on the application. Forrey: That's what I was going to say Mr. Chairman. That they were given an opportunity to comment, perhaps they need more time. I think it would be important to get their comments and then address specific items of Mr. Wolfe and Mr. Hawe brought up as well as the counselors comment about the location of that easement. And the long term with Ewing and the other developing properties there it would affect on Blue Heron. Johnson: What procedure can we use to get those comments, quickly? Forrey: Well tomorrow we can make a phone call and follow up with a written request of the Highway district to answer specific questions, also the City Council will not take action on any of these things on the agenda tonight unless the comprehensive plan is adopted in early November or mid-November, and so that again would give us time to get the bugs worked out with the Highway District. Johnson: Well, I think we ought to look into why we don't have any comments on any of these applications. I don't think we have anything from ACHD on any of these. That would certainly help us. Anybody else from the public want to address the commission at this time, yes sir. Dave Fuller, 890 Ten Mile Road, was sworn by the attorney. Fuller: Just a simple question, I drive trucks down that Blue Planning and Zoning October 12, 1993 Page 9 Heron Lane, and I didn't know it was going to be discussed tonight, but just input, is the city requiring the Highway departments to put in curb and gutter in all these types of situations, because from the semi standpoint that really is, if you're going to have people living there we got to have sidewalks for them to walk on. I just wondered if it was a standard policy or not. Johnson: Well that's not exactly the way we would phrase it, the city doesn't require those things, the Highway District does because they have jurisdiction over all streets and roads. And then the city would normally adopt the ACHD's requirements but not necessarily in each and every instance, is that basically our procedure? Fuller: And then the city takes jurisdiction over that? Johnson: No, the city has no jurisdiction. Shearer: ACHD won't have any jurisdiction either if it's a private road and stays a private road. Fuller: I see that's all I have. Johnson: Anyone else? Anyone else on this application on hearing none and seeing none I'll close the public hearing. What is your pleasure gentlemen? What would you like to do? Would you like to do anything? Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we have Findings of Fact and Conclusions prepared,and that we see the comments from the Ada County Highway District. Alidjani: I'll second Johnson: Moved and seconded that we have Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law prepared by the City Attorney, and input from ACHD, all in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #2: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO R-4 WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR VALERI HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION BY VICKI WELKER: Planning and Zoning October 12, 1993 Page 10 Johnson: I'll now open this Public Hearing, is there someone representing the applicant that would like to come forward and address the Commission, please do so at this time. Matt Munger, 6168 Viewpoint, was sworn by the Attorney. Munger: The first thing I'd like to point out to the members of the Commission is that a revised layout that we have mounted on the board there, I'm not sure as to the copy in front of you. We did revise that, and I believe you got the revised copy. The one that was sent out in the mailer was the original version and didn't show the park lot. The annexation proposed is for 8.57 acres of which we're preliminary platting 6.77 acres, the site is located on the east side of Ten Mile road approximately 1/4 mile south of Cherry lane and east-west boundary the east boundary is the Eight Mile lateral. We are proposing annexation and R-4 zoning for this project. The proposed subdivision contains 21 lots, 16 of which are building lots. The gross density for this project is approximately 2.36 lots per acre, which is in excess of the R-4 zoning. The lots we're proposing range in size from 10,000 square feet to approximately 21,000 square feet, and we're proposing homes in the range of 24,000 square feet and up, which is also well in excess, 2400 square feet I'm sorry,which is also well in excess of the requirements. Access to this subdivision will be off of Ten Mile Road, ACHD in their comments requested sub-streets to the north and to the south. We do not feel this appropriate and the parcel of ground to the north of us is rather small and a sub-street would be a hindrance there. The property to the south of us fronts on both Ten Mile road and Pine Street, so a sub-street there would also be a hindrance. We're proposing a 50 foot right of way inside of the subdivision with 36 foot back to back ad the standard 5 foot sidewalk from Meridian. One of Gary Smith's comments was we were not showing a sidewalk on the park, we don't feel that will be of any real benefit and we'd rather have that as greenspace in the park in which we propose to put a pond and a fountain and a small picnic area. Sewer and water for this project will be extended down Ten Mile road, there approximately 180 feet north of project now, the city has mains installed we will extend those across our frontage and internally to provide services to this side. Fire hydrants and street lights will be determined by the City Engineer, and we'll meet those requirements one we receive them. Irrigation is one of the big items that's come up with our clients dealings with the neighbors, there is an existing irrigation ditch on our south boundary, which our client met with the property owner to Planning and Zoning October 12, 1993 Page 11 the south, we have no problem at this time with tiling that ditch and we do not plan on using that ditch for irrigation on site. We're no proposing for any type of a pressurized irrigation system for this project. The Eight Mile Lateral being our east boundary there, raises some questions as to the size of the fencing or tiling requirements that are normally required for a lateral. We're going to work with the city and Nampa/Meridian Irrigation District on that to try to address any concerns that may arise regarding that lateral. Drainage, we're proposing to retain all the drainage on site from storm water run-off and we're looking at doing that through surface ponding or sub-surface trenches depending on the soil conditions when we go out and run our tests on site. Do you have any questions? I'll be happy to answer them. Johnson: Any questions of Mr. Munger? Rountree: What's the size of the park that you're proposing? Munger: I'm not sure of the square footage on the park, do you happen to know Vicki? Welker: It's at least 10,000 square feet Munger: I believe it's between 12 and 13,000 square feet. Rountree: Do you know the square footages on lots 7 and 10, I guess that includes the easement for the Eight Mile Lateral? Munger: I don't know those right off hand, lot 7 and 10. Rountree: You might want to check those because you can't include that easement area in your square footage. Munger: Even without the easement I'm sure we're well above that for R-4. Rountree: The parcel is listed at slightly bigger than what your preliminary plat shows that is being platted where are your other acreages to this parcel? Munger: The other acreage that we have listed in our annexation is to the north of us and the city boundary is there so we have to annex that. Planning and Zoning October 12, 1993 Page 12 Rountree: There is an irrigation ditch, Munger: On our north boundary? Rountree: Yes Munger: Okay, the dealings that we've had have been centered around the south and the Eight Mile Lateral, but we'll have no problem dealing with that one either. Johnson: With respect to Gary's comment #9 he hand wrote in here, "it may be necessary to provide sanitary sewer through this parcel", I believe it's Coe Parker property to the east can't read it very well, did you talk to Gary at all about this particular requirement? Munger: No I haven't. Johnson: Gary has been rather hard to get a hold of here lately, with the move and did you have time to think about it? Munger: The copy of comments that I have doesn't have a #6 or #9, sorry. I have 8 , it was faxed to me this morning. Johnson: Well, he specifically requested he be, Gary Smith, that comment with respect to that. Munger: Providing sewer to the east? Johnson: Yes Munger: I'm sure it's something we can work out. We have room for easements for sewer if that's the Comprehensive Plan to bring that main through our site, then we'd sure participate. Johnson: Anyone else have any questions of Mr. Munger? Our policy with respect to tiling verses fencing is basically that we require tiling and we have never deviated from that since we adopted that rule, you might want to be aware of that. The city hasn't deviated from that point in my knowledge since we adopted that ordinance, is that correct Wayne? (Wayne shook his head yes) Munger: Do you have a size limit on ditches for that requirement? Would that requirement also contain the Eight Mile Lateral, which Planning and Zoning October 12, 1993 Page 13 is substantially large? Johnson: I don't know of any size requirement, do you know of any size requirement? Forrey: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, and Matt, that's always an issue is how big, the New York Canal, the Riddenbaugh Canal, the Boise River where do you stop? The ordinance says laterals and in Meridian we have some large laterals, and this is certainly one of them, but a black and white reading of the ordinance indicates that this Eight Mile Lateral would have to be tiled. The ordinance is based on safety and does not have a size criteria. So, in the sense of safety it wouldn't, size wouldn't be an issue. Does that help? Johnson: Thank you Wayne. Anyone else have a question for Mr Munger before we go to the public? Okay, thank you, this is a public hearing, anyone else from the public that would like to address the Commission on this application, yes sir. Coe Parker, 2930 W Pine, was sworn by the Attorney. Parker: I'd like to move over to the drawing and show you where I am and show you my concern. I have a easement down this lane, Haven cove is here , my concern is that I don't get land locked here, because I don't have any frontage on any major streets, and I'm not opposed to this development,but I moved out to Meridian to live in the country but it doesn't look like I'm going to get to. I'd just like to address that I have access to city either through Haven cove or through this proposal. Johnson: Do you have anything else to add Mr. Parker? Parker: No Johnson: Any questions for Mr. Parker? Crookston: I just have one, on Gary Smith's comments it said your property is to the east of this development. Parker: I'm on the other side of the lateral. Johnson: Your property lies just to the west of the road proposed, is that right? Planning and Zoning October 12, 1993 Page 14 Parker: My property line goes right along here and about right through here. This is just an easement here, it's about 700 foot. Johnson: Thank you very much. Anyone else from the public like to address the Commission, yes sir. Dave Fuller, 890 Ten Mile, was sworn by the Attorney. Fuller: My concern I've gone over with Vicki quite a bit, on the water and the, excuse me I have a few notes here. First, we talked over how the irrigation was going to be set up and she maybe mentioned a well. Another thing I'd like to talk about here, this is farm ground and I have the property directly south of this proposed subdivision. I got some maps here if you guys want to pass them down. This is the whole corner and her development is just north. Johnson: This whole corner right here? Approximately how many acres are you talking about? Fuller: About 14 acres, and this ditch she's talking about tiling is right here. My question is that is fine to tile that, but for the other people once that's tiled what kind of right of way, is that just buried in someone's backyard or is that how that works? You still don't have a maintenance right of way of any kind there? Once it's covered up that's it? Johnson: There has to be an easement for maintenance, as I under it. We've had some problems in the past, trouble getting access to tiled ditches. And as I recall that has been corrected by the ordinance, Wayne would you like to comment on that? Forrey: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, the ordinance does require that there be access to the maintenance of, so if you're actively using the water you have to be able to continue to use that water, even though it's tiled ad covered up so we identify with the developer your access points and schedule that type of thing. It gets included in the design. Fuller: My question on this deal is with the, where she was going to put her chain link for the backyard was on this pin line, and as you can see on this right here it goes from ten to eighteen foot on this animal fence line right now which is on the proposed property she is going to develop. How does that, you know if you're going Planning and Zoning October 12, 1993 Page 15 to fence that into someone's backyard how are we going to maintain any kind of service area there? Go through each one of these peoples backyard when they divide fences off? Forrey: Probably relocate it and that's a detail to work with Hubble Engineers, you know through good engineering design I think get that point where you can get access and still service the ditch and respect all the new neighbors you've got along there. Johnson: This has to be worked out, in order to Fuller: I just didn't know whether you went with a 15 foot easement you move the fence back so it was uncovered in the backyard, if you get someone in there with a broke pipe, you got to dig it up they don't want you going through these fancy homes to the backyard to dig this up. Johnson: And that's what we're trying to avoid. Fuller: My next thing I'd like to address is right here, this comes in like this, this is going to be developed to, and I've already talked to maybe selling to some developers on this and connecting on to it. And I was concerned about the sewer, whether it was coming through the field or down Ten Mile and you know how it was going to connect, because this is going to develop fairly soon in the next few years, part of it or all of it. Johnson: I don't know if Gary has a comment here about where the sewer coming. Rountree: Coming down Ten Mile Johnson: Ten Mile, Fuller: And then the other thing I'd like to address is the proposed long term R-4 but there is a lot of light commercial coming down Pine Street, and I may talk to Vicki, and talk to her about it she wants real fancy homes which is good but I had thoughts of storage buildings, neighborhood storage, because this area is growing up so fast. And she said those two weren't compatible, so if they're not compatible we need to. I'm concerned about what kind of development we're going to go with. Johnson: Well it's a basic procedure we operate on, on the basis Planning and Zoning October 12, 1993 Page 16 of chronology, who gets the applications in, at this time we're talking about maybe heresay on storage buildings and yeah it might pose a problem, cause they're not always compatible with residential down the road, right now we're looking at an application for residential development and that's what we're addressing. Fuller: I'm just talking about Pine as a Future, there is a lot of small businesses. Johnson: There has been quite a few of different plans proposed on Pine Street, some of which most of which haven't gone through, you're right is this designated a mixed use area? So the chances of it being developed commercially there are pretty slim. In the Comprehensive plan that is not a mixed use area which means that area is theoretically being held for residential development. Fuller: I want to go back to my notes here, about, we also discussed with Vicki about the neighbors and them being notified that when they purchase this that there will be farming activities there, I run a small custom farming operation with equipment in and out. And we do still work jobs and we do do a lot of farming at night after hours, dark, you're familiar with the situation that happened in our neighboring counties. So these are some things that I'd like to see addressed in the proposal plans of whatever you're going to do with that ground adjoining to it. That's all I have. Johnson: Thank you, we appreciate it, your testimony is part of the record. Anyone else like to come forward and address the Commission? Seeing no one then I'll close the Public Hearing. Any discussion gentleman? What's your pleasure? Rountree: Mr. Chairman I make a motion that we have Findings of Fact and Conclusions prepared. Shearer: Second Johnson: I have a motion for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law prepared by the City Attorney, all in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #3: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HUNTS Planning and Zoning October 12, 1993 Page 17 BLUFF #2 SUBDIVISION BY MARTY GOLDSMITH: Johnson: I'll now open the Public Hearing, is there someone representing the applicant that would like to address the Commission at this time, please do so. Dave Roylance, 4619 Emerald, was sworn by the Attorney. Roylance: Mr. Chairman, Commission members, I'm Dave Roylance, a civil engineer representing the applicant. Hunts Bluff #2 is a 20 lot single family R-4 residential subdivision. We propose ACHD public streets, city water, sewer and other standard utilities. May I answer any other questions? Johnson: Questions for Mr. Roylance? Is this application still accurate with respect to your plans, minimum square footage? Roylance: What is your question please? Johnson: The application states your minimum square footage on the lots is 8,000 and that your minimum square footage of structures is 1,300 is that still accurate? Roylance: Yes it is. Johnson: Have you familiarized yourself with the comments of Gary Smith, I realize they're late. Roylance: Yes I have Johnson: Any questions concerning those? Roylance: No I do not, they are all standard, normal and we can comply. Johnson: Have you or your client had any discussion at all with the owners of the property adjacent to your, owned by Darrel and Shannon Spencer? Roylance: Yes sir, Johnson: Would you summarize those discussions. Roylance: Their concerns are that they do not want to be part of Planning and Zoning October 12, 1993 Page 18 our subdivision, in fact we initially submitted the project including the Spencer lot and apparently that is against their wishes, we either miscommunicated or whatever. As a result then we resubmitted and redesigned the project to exclude their existing home, they would like to keep their address and access point on Overland Road. And to do that we have to exclude that from the project and that was at their request. Further, they've requested at least 15 feet minimum from the rear of their house to our lot lines so they try with city setbacks, and we had provided 20 feet. We've also had discussions with ACHD regarding the street improvements on Overland, because typically ACHD does not want to see and out parcel like this, it looks like in their eyes an obvious attempt to avoid paying for curb/gutter/sidewalk improvements along Overland Road, which is the normal requirement. So we've met with them and also discussed the Spencer's concerns they also have a shed that is in the corner, would be the northeast corner of their property. If the street improvements went in it would be moving some trees and a shed which is a concern to them, so we don't know quite how to deal with the issues, we'll do whatever is reasonable, we certainly want to comply with requests we also know that ACHD wants the street improved so hopefully we, us and the Spencer's and ACHD can meet and find some middle ground. I believe that's the total of their concerns, but they're here to address this. Johnson: Moving on have you talked to anyone with respect to Meridian Greens about their desire to have certain sized homes back up to Meridian Greens, as other subdivisions have done? Roylance: No sir I haven't, in reading this information tonight, I assume it's the same information you have, I read the Letter from Norm Fuller and we can comply with his request, we did that in Hunts Bluff #1 we put 1500 square foot homes and shaped roofs and certain sized lots and we're prepared to do that. Johnson: As I recall, the adjacent subdivision also in Meridian Greens 1600 I believe is the number we arrived at their, your application I believe states 1300 square feet and I believe the minimum is 1400 in R-4 now, just so you're aware of that. Roylance: You can make that a condition, if 1400 is minimum. Johnson: Okay, do you have anything further? Roylance: Yes I do, in this memorandum from Wayne Forrey, there Planning and Zoning October 12, 1993 Page 19 was one thing there that caused me a little bit of concern and that I'd like to discuss with you. And that is, it is dated October 12, and the last paragraph from Wayne it says,"I would recommend that a pedestrian access/canal crossing be appropriated into the approved Hunts Bluff #2, conditioned upon securing necessary access to Meridian Greens to link both subdivisions together." Is that suggesting that we provide access to the Eight Mile Lateral, which if that's the case we can do that, but is it suggesting that we fund the bridge over the Eight Mile Lateral, and if that is, we feel that is a bit much of a burden for a 20 lot subdivision to endure. Johnson: Do you want to address that please Wayne? Forrey: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, in this particular section the School District is re-evaluating school sites and my latest conversation with Dan Mabe indicates he wants to get a school site closer to the interior of the subdivision, at one time it was a different area. His concern of the Hunts Bluff #1 and 2 link up somehow with Meridian Greens so children should be able to walk south over the canal and go farther south through Meridian Greens into a school site. Just to visualize that, what you're looking at here is the Eight Mile Lateral and this is the project that's up for approval right now, somewhere in here getting access as Dave said to the canal is probably not difficult but, we've got to get kids through another lot line somewhere in an existing subdivision, and I don't see that as the developer of this project, I don't see that as their responsibility, that's probably the city's responsibility now to go out and talk to property owners and see what arrangements to link the two subdivisions together, and that's on the premise that down here in the near future there is going to be a grade school, and Dan Mabe wants to be able to get children to walk through these streets or ride their bicycles to get to school rather that bussing them all the way out to Meridian Road or excuse me Overland and over to Meridian Road and back down and back in because it's costly to the school district. So even if it's some expense to the school district I think maybe they would rather pay and work with us to get access here than they would forever to be bussing. This is more cost effective, so if we can get Hunts Bluff to cooperate and we work with the developer, I think it's a solution we ought to proceed with. Johnson: At this point you don't have any discussion with the property owners or the developers? Planning and Zoning October 12,1993 Page 20 Forrey: No Mr. Chairman. Rountree: Isn't this developer going to have to tile the Eight Mile Lateral? Forrey: According to the city ordinance it would be required. Rountree: So the bridge is not the problem Forrey: If we can find a couple of property owners that would be sympathetic to that. Rountree: One possible solution would be to extend Gunsmith through to the 5th and provide pedestrian ways up 5th through lot 7 and block 2, because that's not subdivided. Roylance: I guess we should look at all those options. Johnson: I think we need to know if there is really going to be a school there. Forrey: Definitely, there will be Dan Mabe indicates that that section will have an elementary school and it's that section and noted in Comprehensive Plan Map for a future elementary school, and he has started some property negotiations south of those red arrows. Johnson: That looks like a challenge to me, but I don't know maybe it's easier than I think it is. Yes sir, you want to go on? Roylance: If I could please. Mr. Chairman, Commission members I'm not sure what the outcome of all of that was,our position would be we would certainly participate in any kind of a neighborhood adventure to get that canal crossed, we just don't want the whole cost and burden to be born by us when sportsmen should could help maybe Meridian Greens maybe somebody else but we will help in that in that venture. Johnson: Maybe the city Roylance: Maybe, on another issue regarding tiling, I heard the previous testimony regarding tiling the ditch if that's your ordinance than so be it we have to live with it. However one concern comes to mind, unless I have my ditches and I could, I Planning and Zoning October 12, 1993 Page 21 think in Central Valley Corporate Park we're dealing with two ditches, I think it's Eight Mile Lateral and Ten Mile Drain and in both of those we wanted to tile the ditch to benefit our own project in attempting to do that we found out from Greg Martinez that the Army Corps of Engineers and from Gene Gibson Idaho Department of Water Resources that those ditches are designated a Federal Water Way and have wetlands vegetation in them, are subject to wetlands issues which would mean if I understand the process correctly they would not allow us to tile the ditch that may affect Nine Mile lateral but I don't believe is affects any of the, or Nine Mile Drain, but not a Lateral, I see. Have you typically in the past required the Eight Mile Lateral tiled, or is this a new criteria? Johnson: I don't know of any places that have been tiled, have they been tiled? Crookston: If there has been an application, pertaining to Eight Mile since we've had the ordinance enacted, it has been required. Johnson: But I can't think of one, and that was kind of his question, wasn't it? Not if there had been but did we ever, isn't that your question? Roylance: The question apparently this is a new requirement and it's not. Johnson: That's a very sensitive issue right now for the city, I can tell you that, tiling ditches is we do have the ordinance and there are some teeth in the ordinance, the teeth are getting longer and sharper as I understand it, that's the best way I can phrase it right now, we're trying to anticipate here some of the questions the city will have, City Council Members will have when you go to that step, and so we want that part of the testimony to get your feelings on that, they can peruse that part. I can't speak for them, how they're going to react, we think at this point that they're going to be hard and fast on tiling ditches. And ditches, we know of no deviations they've made since we've had it, I can't say that we've had an application of Eight Mile Lateral because I don't recall one. Crookston: Kennedy Lateral, they asked for a variance and it was not approved. Planning and Zoning October 12, 1993 Page 22 Roylance: This new requirement then came to pass after the Moratorium during that time period, what I'm getting at we did it at Hunts Bluff #1 maybe we did wrong, and it was not a requirement then to tile the Eight Mile lateral, it just seems like an awful big ditch to be tiling. Johnson: It is a big ditch Roylance: You have your needs Johnson: It's longer than that, we're looking at the third year of it Roylance: We just got lucky on #1 then Johnson: Well or unlucky,I don't know how you look it it's a safety thing, and that's foremost in their minds at this point, as opposed to having a nice foot path along it, that's the safety factor has been an overriding factor to this. Roylance: I won't belabor the issue, I guess if we want to present an argument we do that at City Council. One last issue, Crookston: Let me interject, if you do want to have a variance do apply before the City Council you have to apply for the variance. Roylance: So a formal variance procedure application Johnson: Right, the variance is not handled at this level, its only handled at the City Council Level. Roylance: I see okay. We had a meeting with the Ada County Highway District on october 7th and we viewed the project with them. And one of the things they brought up is that they would not be opposed to they would encourage a culdesac in this location here, and not punch through the access onto Overland road. The idea being this is and ulterior and to allow to access points on the ulterior takes away the function of the street, given the fact that one lot would be here, the road turns and makes the connection onto Overland, and then the from the transportation standpoint they didn't see a need for this road to go through. Johnson: How long would that make your culdesac if it's not punched through? Planning and Zoning October 12, 1993 Page 23 Roylance: 450 feet Johnson: So your 450 feet over the ordinance which you'd have to get a variance for that. Crookston: The ordinance is 450 feet Johnson: See I'm wrong again, maybe it's 451 feet Crookston: That's only 449 feet Johnson: Well I'll take it into consideration, that's where we really need some ACHD input on that, we're not getting it. Roylance: I do have a letter here from them dated October 7th Johnson: Is there a copy to the City incidentally, or is it just to you? Roylance: No just us, that's all the comments that I have, unless you have questions? Johnson: Thank you, any questions of Mr. Roylance? This is a Public Hearing anyone else from the public like to come forward at this time? Marty Goldsmith, 4550 West State St, was sworn by the Attorney. Goldsmith: I've had recent conversation with Gary Smith concerning the Eight Mile Lateral on an upcoming project of Jerry McDermot's farm and it would be southeast of this area and it is defiantly been pointed out to me that we will not be required to tile the Eight Mile Lateral. And that I should address the concerns of Nampa/Meridian Irrigation District and I have done so and that the fence does do this, this is an exceptionally large ditch and possible might make development prohibited. It will be fenced, it has not been required by Sportsmen Point to fence the Eight Mile Lateral,Meridian Greens, Hunts Bluff #1 and he said that he is not going to start that on the Eight Mile Lateral, because it hasn't been followed through before. That's what I wanted to say. Johnson: That's his recommendation? Okay, well I appreciate that thank you. Anyone else from the public like to come forward now? Planning and Zoning October 12, 1993 Page 24 Doug Hoy, 1806 Southeast 5th Way, was sworn by the Attorney. Hoy: Good thing you don't miss one of these, lots of surprises when you get here. I'm lot #1 block #1 first lot going down Southeast 5th Way, coming in from Overland. Shearer: You're here to donate property for easement through. Hoy: I have a few things and I'm not against free enterprise, I believe in protectionism too. I would like to request that we stay within 1600 square feet of the square feet on some of these houses, even though that is somewhat A little small then what we have in Meridian Green, I still think that will flow ok across that, we do have a buffer zone. I would like to see some similar structure to what we have in Meridian Green and Hunts Bluff is doing quite well in #1, I'm not complaining about that. Keep it , with shaped roofs, I would like to a requirement that these house have shaped roofs so that they flow with Meridian Green, it seems like to me you're trying to flow that into Meridian Green. Those two parts of the building structure I'd also like to see a six foot high buffer fence between their lot in between the canal, I think you said something about doing that? Johnson: You have to talk to us that's the procedure. Hoy: Okay, a six foot high buffer fence between Meridian Green between the canal. Johnson: We wouldn't have a problem if Meridian Green put in the fence too. Hoy: I'll probably put one in, I don't like to look at my neighbors back yards or them into mine. I happen to be higher than they are by the way. I'd also like to have a little access to Meridian Green, we have one on 5th already all you want to do is float some more traffic in there, never heard about a school in there in the first place that's a big surprise. So, he just said how easy it was to get out of that subdivision by Overland Road, it's just as easy for a bus to get out there won't it. So why open that up into Meridian Greens, i suggest that you not allow that. Shearer: I think it's just pedestrian Hoy: No traffic just pedestrian? Planning and Zoning October 12, 1993 Page 25 Johnson: Depends on who you listen to. Hoy: Also, I think the question has been answered about Eight Mile Lateral, I bought a nice lot there that backs up to the Lateral, i never knew you had an Ordinance now that tiled and covered laterals that's news to me. I would like to resist that and ask that you do not force that issue because that is a very nice lateral it resembles a creek, and if you cover it and turn it into sewer instead of creek we would lose a lot, I've got it landscaped back there and I enjoy my evenings on the lateral, I've got a six foot waterfall which I bought that property because there was a waterfall on it. I request that you no do that, that's all I have. Johnson: Any questions, by the Commission? Thank you sir. Anyone else from the public that would like to come forward at this time? Don Stillwaugh, 1822 South East 5th Way, was sworn by the Attorney. Stillwaugh: I live at, see the green arrow going to my property there, circle #1 there and lot #3 is my property. My wife and I moved in there just about a year ago and we were one of the last homes to build in the older part. the reason we built in Meridian Greens we lived in Boise 20 years at another home and this is the first time we built a home, we moved there because of the quality of life and the homes. We also moved there because we looked for a long time for a house with a canal behind it or something that would have a nice view, I would second Mr. Hoy's opinion, the reason we bought that lot is because it had water behind it, and it adds to our property, we enjoy that also. We had the luxury of getting all of our landscaping not quite as much as mr. Hoy, but we plan to get that done next year in the back. So I also would say that if, as far as covering that canal we think it would be a very negative thing for our property, and I think if you walked down the rest of Meridian Greens the lots that back you'll see that a majority of them do have landscaping right up to the canal, and they do enjoy that canal. I also would this first time I saw the green arrow and it kind of startled me a little bit, I'm not sure how Mr. Bachman feels about that who owns the lot #4 I mean. My wife is a school teacher in Meridian School District for 20 years we do love children and enjoy them but I don't know if we'd want the whole School District going through our property. If that is necessary I would recommend there are some options and if they do have to go across the undeveloped part I'm not sure what the plans are for that, and also the other area where they show the green arrow, Planning and Zoning October 12, 1993 Page 26 those lots haven't been sold yet, and there are no houses I know in that 3 or 4 lots there, there is quite of bit of area up there. The other issue as far as construction I'd go along with Mr. Hoy in saying that I think that, I know that at some point when you build homes there has to a blending of property and all property can't be the same, I think Hunts Bluff is the area to do the blending and not Meridian Greens. Make those homes the same as Meridian Greens that back up we build our homes with certain value I don't want a 1300 square foot home behind my home its about half the size. If they want the blending they can do it in their own subdivisions not next to other subdivision. And shake roofs also, we bought our specifically because with the canal even if they built a home behind us we would still have somewhat of view and be able to see the snow on the mountains that may be in question if the build 2-story homes, I know I don't have a lot of control on that, but I would hope that it would be a red composition shake roof, I'd like to see a regular shake roof. I think that covers everything. Johnson: Any questions for Mr. Stillwaugh? Okay thank you very much, next who'd like to come forward and address the Commission? any rebuttal any comments regarding their comments you'd like to address clarify, you don't have to just if you do. Goldsmith: We would be happy to go up on the square footage of the homes, up to 1500 maybe 1600 square foot, 1500 square foot being the minimum and 1600 square foot on the back two lots where we adjoin Meridian Greens. Johnson: How large are those lots square footage wise, you may have already answered that but I forgot? Those lots that abut, 8,9,10,11,12? Goldsmith: Yeah, those are 11,000 plus Johnson: So pretty good sized lots? Goldsmith: Absolutely, the majority in there average 11,000. Johnson: What do you say about shake roofs for the record? Goldsmith: I do oppose shake roofs in there. Johnson: You don't like shake roofs. Planning and Zoning October 12, 1993 Page 27 Goldsmith: No Alidjani: Which one would you like, the tile or the asphalt. Goldsmith: I believe a 25 year dimensional shingle is going to outlast a shake roof and I speak from record of being in the roofing business for ten years. Johnson: Okay any questions for Mr. Goldsmith? Thank you, anything you'd like to add to that Wayne Forrey? Forrey: No Johnson: Keep my Wayne's straight here, how about Wayne Crookston? Crookston: Nothing Johnson: One last shot anybody from the public, you got to be quick because you already had on shot. Hoy: I didn't buy a shake roof for the length of stay I bought it for the aesthetics and that's what I respect in, also when you say 2 lots back up to Meridian Greens, I see five. Johnson: I didn't say 2 did I? Hoy: He said 2 Johnson: Oh, did he, I was talking about 8,9,10,11,12 Hoy: Okay, I just wanted it for the record, that's all. Johnson: Okay thank you, well if no one else would like to come forward, then I'll close the Public Hearing at this time. What would you like to do Mr. Shearer? Shearer: I thinking Johnson: Do you have a comment there Mr. Crookston or are you just resting your arm? Crookston: I'm just scratching my head, thank you. Shearer: I move we have the Attorney prepare Findings and Fact and Planning and Zoning October 12, 1993 Page 28 Conclusions of Law. Crookston: There's no findings on, this is a preliminary plat Johnson: So we don't have any Shearer: Oh, Rountree: Mr. Chairman I make a motion that we recommend to the City Council approval of the plat with the conditions the Engineer look at culdesacing Gunsmith Ave at Overland Road the the minimum square footage of housing be 1500 square feet with a 1600 square foot minimum on lots 8,9,10,11 and 12, and at minimum shake requirement on the same lots. Alidjani: Did you say for all of them Charlie, or those that just are on the back? Rountree: The same lots 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. Alidjani: I'll second Johnson: It's been moved and seconded to recommend approval of plat to the City Council with stipulations so stated regarding culdesacing and square footage of 1500 and 1600 square footage on lots 8,9,10,11 and 12 also shake roofs on the same lots 8,9,10,11 and 12. All in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #4: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR R-4 BY EDWARD A. JOHNSON: Johnson: Is Mr. Johnson, your representative here to address the Commission, please come forward at this time. Johnson: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, My name is Edward A. Johnson, or Ted Johnson, President of Land Developers Edward A. Johnson was sworn by the Attorney. Crookston: It gives me pleasure to swear in an ex-judge. E.A. Johnson: Thank you Mr. Crookston, the application we have tonight Planning and Zoning October 12, 1993 Page 29 gentlemen is an application for an annexation of 12.46 acres, I believe the number is I'm sorry I'm a little bit unprepared tonight, because this came up without much notice to me, and I'm very depending on your sketches tonight. But the annexation request is for a little larger parcel than what we're proposing as a subdivision for the reason that Mr. and Mrs. Calhoun, John and Colleen Calhoun, who are here tonight, would like to annexed on the remaining property that they're going to retain. Our proposal with them is to purchase a ten acre parcel from them that would be adjoined on the east by property we already have, we already own and have a preliminary plat approval on in the Landing project, this would be this particular proposal would be Landing #7. It would be consistent with or a little larger than what we already have in the existing first five or six spaces of the Landing subdivision. The lots are a little larger and they're footages are probably a little larger, the access on Linder Road it would be what I understand from long standing that there has been a desire to extend Waltman Lane to the west to commute to Linder Road, and this would accomplish that purpose. Our proposal here would amount to about 52 lots in the 14.45 acres that would be a composite of the ten acres we would be purchasing from the Calhoun's. At about 4.5 acres from existing ground that we've already had zoned from before. Johnson: What's that density work out to? E.A. Johnson: The density is just a little over 3.5 Johnson: That's excluding the ten acres of that property? E.A. Johnson: Yes, that does not include the development property. Johnson: Most of the R-4, is that what you're saying? Pretty close to R-4 itself? E.A. Johnson: That's correct, I had a chance to read Mr. Forrey's letter of comments this evening, and there are a couple of things there I think we need to talk about. As you know this land(end of tape) As you know the Landing project has been going on now for about 3.5 years, and in that effort over a period of time we have worked with all the agencies including the Highway District and the City to determine just how that interior project was to be serviced. And the attempt for a long time on our part was to use Waltman Lane and going east, but there was some resistance to that Planning and Zoning October 12, 1993 Page 30 so there was a discussion here in this room as a matter of fact, between the ACHD people, City Engineer, myself and other interested parties there was quite a large crowd talking about what could be done to service that, the idea was that we would try to provide another access off to Linder Road or in some other direction and it's been foretoitness that we've been able to work on that, where e could out to Linder Road through the Calhoun property. That however presents a problems, I see Mr. Forrey's comments having to do with the sewer I know the long range plan for the Calhoun property and any property on the west side of the kennedy Lateral, is to flow by gravity to the west, we would propose to put in attempt with a list station at Linder Road and come back into our system that would be a distance of about 600 feet into a facility we already have oversized to allow that to happen. And that would be crucial to our application and for annexation because without the sewer we wouldn't be able to go forward. Johnson: Excuse me where would the lift station be located? E.A. Johnson: It would be located on the eastern most portion in the intersection of the roads that come in from Landing #6, do you want me to point that on the map? Johnson: Yes if you would please. E.A. Johnson: Well this station would be down here and pump to an existing sewer now Johnson: So the station is right off Linder E.A. Johnson: Yes, it would pick up onto the sewer and be very handy when this sewer is removed it could flow on by gravity to the west when there is someplace for it to be handled. We do have a lift station in phase 1 of the Landing which handles phases 1, 2, nd 3 or a portion of it, actually the portion to the west to the eastern portions of those are gravity flow and the western portions had to be lifted back up to the manhole furtherest to the west. We see this to be a similar kind of an application it would make the need is to do that on a temporary basis. And we would furnish of course the pumping unit. The question Mr. Forrey raised is relative to schools and parks, is something we've already been concerned about, and interested in working with. About three years ago we had some conversation with the School District and again two years ago and we find when we finally platted the remainder we started with three Planning and Zoning October 12, 1993 Page 31 phases, and then we came back and did the remaining portion of that probably about 65 acres. And in that conversation, those conversations, we'll offer a school site in that area and we wanted to do so we could plan with it not have it interrupt it. Well two years ago or maybe a year and a half the School District indicated to us that they were no interested in a site in that location. Johnson: Yes I remember that conversation. E.A. Johnson: The reason was is the Highway I-84 cuts us off from the south, they'd like to have a place that's more central than this, and that's from the premise we're going to operate now for a couple years. We do have a park in the next phase, at the eastern most portion of this phase touches the edge of this park, it's about a 3 acre park that would be centrally located in the middle of the project we privately owned and maintained, we've done that in many of our projects and find them to be a good addition to the neighborhood. I need to raise the issue of the Kennedy Lateral again, I've heard a lot of conversation about it here tonight, we do intend to pipe the Kennedy Lateral through the lots that abut the, the lateral goes through the eastern tail of this project. We would like to tile that but we would prefer not to tile that which goes through on west for the reason that they, the Calhoun's own to the middle of it, somebody else owns the other half and it would be very handy as we've done in other jurisdictions, just to fence that out so that the last two feet of the property but is not part of the subdivision and would be protected from access to anyone who wanted to be in the part of the lots and the other part of it is the other side of it is the lateral is a nursery a greenhouse where commercial activity goes on and this is a residential kind of place along that section of the Kennedy that's where the maintenance road is maintained for the maintenance of the whole lateral it's on the north, and on the east where it makes a curve. So our application would be to the Council that we would be allowed a variance on that portion which we only own half the right of way, I can't control the other half. I believe those are the major points that I have gentleman, it's one of those things that we think is a positive thing for the community in that it provides better access and opens up ground that's already zoned in close proximity to the city with a great deal of effort having been put in to this project the last couple two to three years, well a lot of input all we're trying to do is satisfy all those agencies that we've dealt with that you've suggested. Planning and Zoning October 12, 1993 Page 32 Johnson: That's a lot of fun trying to do that isn't it? Have you had any recent discussion with the school? I know this was a couple of years ago regarding the site, have you talked to them say within the last couple of months? E.A. Johnson: Mr. Chairman I could be fececious and say yes because I talked to them late this afternoon, but I didn't know this was an issue anymore because we've been working on our other site in a different part of the county, but I have not raised the issue nor has he. Johnson: Could you comment for me on surface water and drainage I understand there has been some problems out in the adjacent areas with the high water table. E.A. Johnson: There is a high water table Mr. Chairman, our approach to that has been to lay an additional line along side of the sewer a perforated line that carries off and drops the water table quite a little bit, and drops it to the point where the crawl spaces are not directly affected if they're anywhere close to the sewer line. Johnson: Have you actually done that in part of your other development or do you have any success with that. E.A. Johnson: Yes Mr. Chairman that's what we've done in every part of the development because of the very issued you raised. It's more costly but we feel that handles, it drops that water table down to where we prefer to have it. Johnson: Okay, any questions for Mr. Johnson? Charlie? Rountree: How close are you to the Interstate? E.A. Johnson: We about border the Interstate on the south. Rountree: You have individual lots bordering the Interstate with home sites within 50 or 60 feet? E.A. Johnson: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Rountree we have them backing up against the Interstate in one of the later phases but we know that FHA requires a 50 berm and we're going to have to fudge it a little bit, move the streets to the north we just learned that recently but their will be a buffering along the Interstate for the noise and traffic control, or at least just the noise of it. Rountree: You indicated that you're going to improve access it seems to me like its going to aggravate the problem on Linder on the corner of Linder and Franklin with traffic congestion. Planning and Zoning October 12, 1993 Page 33 E.A. Johnson: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Rountree that is the very question we're addressing here in this room about a year ago. The question was how do we handle that and there were people who were concerned about the access onto Linder at Franklin then. And ACHD said all that up to this point we'll handle it but by putting in a four way stop. When it goes beyond that another hundred homes or something like that, we'll put in a centi-four, and they said that will handle it easily. Johnson: I believe it was another 100 or 200 homes I don't remember, any other questions? Crookston: I just have one question on your drawing here Mr. Johnson, on I guess it's block 7. I don't know if there's blocks on there or not. Lot 2 it's a double frontage lot. E.A. Johnson: Mr. Chairman may I step over there and see that map? Crookston: This lot right here. That's a real hard thing to deal with because the individual owner doesn't know which is going to be his backyard and which is his frontyard and which he can fence and he's going to want to fence to the street, which our ordinances do not allow, I just reference that is very difficult to deal with. E.A. Johnson: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Crookston, I understand what you are saying exactly we don't like double frontage lots any better not as well as you do I'm sure that's the case and we've developed something like 3,000 lots in the last 25 years. We try to avoid them but in this situation I think the better approach is to deal with people who can handle that in the covenant so that they still meet the criteria of the city, not having fences clear out into the street which we don't like either but it's a matter of question if we have to cut our price on that one and let somebody come in there and have a nice backyard and it isn't fenced then that's what we're going to have to do. Because I don't see how to use that strip otherwise. Crookston: Thank you. Johnson: Any other questions of Mr. Johnson? Rountree: Is this graphic out here your proposed subdivision plat it seems rather confusing to me, you've got some lines cutting through the middle of lots and you've got some lots renumbered, Planning and Zoning October 12, 1993 Page 34 you've got some lots that obviously don't make the minimum square footage you have the lot that Wayne just pointed out is a problem lot, you don't show curb/gutter and soil block on Linder. E.A. Johnson: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Rountree, I recognize what you're saying is true and we'd had a whole dog and pony show here tonight if I had known just a little bit ahead of time but I know until this morning, I'm sorry. Crookston: Well it is only and annexation and zoning, we were just interested in that. E.A. Johnson: And let me assure you Mr. Rountree that we've made every effort to meet that requirement in fact the engineering sketch that he has drawn for this subdivision shows 8,000 or more feet on every lot. Rountree: Well lot #35 doesn't meet the requirement if you take away the square footage for the lateral easement it's right at 8,000 now and and there is certainly more than 9 square feet at the lateral easement. E.A. Johnson: Mr. Rountree we can adjust that, there are some over there that are about 9.000 that lot can move when we get ready to . Rountree: I just wanted to point out that whatever we do this evening really this is not a factor because of what you have is strictly conceptual. I think there are going to be significant adjustments. Johnson: Good point, thank you Charlie. Anyone else? Thanks Ted, anyone from the public that would like to address the Commission on this issue, anyone else? Any comments from you Mr. Forrey? Forrey: Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission and Ted, I can clarify one point, in the last two months Dan Mabe and the School Board have been re-evaluating the school siting needs so I don't know two three years ago that might have been the case where they didn't anticipate a school site in this section but now they do. And so somewhere in this area in the future they'd like to have a school site. Now they didn't specifically ask that it be in this project but just so you know that's why the comment is there. Planning and Zoning October 12, 1993 Page 35 Johnson: I understand that conversation is still valid because there is a need in that area but they were focusing a little further south north on Linder and across the street. Forrey: Correct, and that's still the site in that area. As far as the sewage issue and the drainage, I wish Gary was here i think that is something Gary has to work out with that lift station and the capacity. And he eludes to that in his comments. That piece of property is in two different drainage areas so it will require a pump station and then as an interim solution and as a long term in the Black Cat trumping, okay that's it. Johnson: Thank you very much. Apparently no one else from the public wants to come forward so we'll close the public hearing. We'd need Findings of Fact on this if you're through with your questions? Shearer: I move we have the Attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for this project. Rountree: I'll second Johnson: Okay a motion for the City Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on the application for annexation and zoning all in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: I have one thing just a reminder I mentioned this to Wayne I just want it on the record when we get it's difficult to deal with stuff when you get is this late you know that. Tonight would have been a perfect example of why we need some of the agency comments if we can do anything to get those on time from ACHD etc. we need to do that. If Gary can't make the meetings and I understand that on occasion where we've got sewer problems like that can his stand in his fellow work with him, can he attend some of these meetings, or is that out of the question. That would help particularly when we get tiling the requirements, Gary said I don't have to tile, and Gary doesn't make that decision the City Council does. The other thing is I can't play Carmac as I've said and we get a list that just gives us answers and no questions I don't know what the questions are, I'm not real good at that, so I would like a list of the application questions and if the answers are on a separate page I can probably match them up, but in this case sir Planning and Zoning October 12, 1993 Page 36 things like square footage size of houses things that aren't answered because the questions are the answers aren't all there.do you follow me what I'm saying? There was only one application in 1 out of 4 tonight. It just makes it easier for us, it's a good check and balance because there might be some questions that are important there to add, other than that those are my bitches for the evening. Forrey: Will has hired a new secretary, Anna Doty, Will has been busy, so this was a bad packet no question about that, we'll get up to speed. I'm glad we have a chance to chat there is one thing the last couple of meetings you talked about follow up, and even of the of the Comprehensive Plan hearings we talked about making sure that the conditions that the Commission puts on a project that it gets to the Council and if it gets approved a year or two later or about a week later we make sure those conditions are met, well the rubber hit the road today a lady came in and asked a pretty simple question, and Will had talked to her and we just invited her to go through the file it's a matter of public information so satisfy yourself she was delighted to do that. As she was digging through the file to check on the status on why a fence was put on a certain boundary and not on another boundary she discovered that there was supposed to be a homeowners association and her being an owner was not aware that she was a member of homeowners association it also indicated that there was supposed to be landscaping on two sides of the subdivision and lot backed up to one of the sides and she came to me and said where is the, is this just mythical. And of course it was right in the Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law it's exactly what the Commission had talked about where you had approved and the Council had approved here is subdivision right here here is where the landscaping and a fence here and none of it was done and there is supposed to be a Homeowners association and all the . Johnson: I remember our comments not so long ago regarding design review and that was one of my concerns is this whatever you want to call it, is there any follow up? I think Jim Shearer thought I was way off base because he said that is not part of design review , so I don't know how you want to call it, there should be some kind of staff follow up Forrey: Design compliance review whatever, but here is a better. Johnson: Yes, it just makes you wonder how many times we assist on the conditions that aren't met you know. Planning and Zoning October 12, 1993 Page 37 Forrey: So I called the developer in fact I wanted to hear his side of it. He was unaware, he said he didn't know that was a condition. Alidjani: That was the problem for the last mont on North Ten Mile before Ustick we had a beautiful subdivision Candlelight and right before that the two sidewalks are not within harmony, have you noticed that? In fact they are both beautiful but if you put them side by side there so ugly. One has those in and out snake kind of curves but then the grass comes out to the blacktop. I don't know how they got away with one one way and one the other way. Forrey: I would have thought the Highway District would have caught that. Alidjani: They're both beautiful in their own merits on their own sides but when they get together they're ugly. Johnson: Kind of like a mixed marriage right? Crookston: One comment on the applications, I think it's really a joint problem of the City and the applicant, the city I believe accepts application that just go down the application and they type their own and they just put in answers. Johnson: It does not happen in Boise city, you know what happens over there you're lucky to get your application through on the first two or three times. Crookston: We should buck them back and say that is not complete. Johnson: It happens down there, they review them when they come in before they even accept the application. You know if it's not if everything isn't answered in accordance with them they just kick it back to you and say you can't apply for this its against the ordinance or whatever, or you didn't answer this question. Forrey: I think Will did one today, didn't you? Johnson: It's a time saver, we don't want to run into that at this level. Forrey: I am developing new application forms that I think will be better. Planning and Zoning October 12, 1993 Page 38 Johnson: That's why I want the questions and not just the answers because I can't tell if they are following the form. I know on the application it asks for number of lots, density, the size of homes and the price range, some of these answers none of those answers And that is a clever way of doing it. Rountree: I'd like to see when we get something like this last one is how it ties into the section, because the whole section is maybe. Johnson: We needed that for Blue Heron. Rountree: That one was so fresh in mind about two months age that, but if we've got on file a plat of the adjacent property if would be nice to see how they tie in together. I know it's more work on the staffs part. Forrey: I'll do it even for an overhead. Rountree: Like this gut out in the middle of Pine and Ten Mile, I know exactly where he is I didn't realize he didn't own his lane. He probably should already be hooked to the city sewer/water since he abuts the city limits. Shearer: We should have when we put that subdivision to the north of him. Rountree: It should have been extended to him it would have saved us. Crookston: I believe that our ordinance requires a ,I can't think of the exact terminology, but basically a 300 foot radius around the outside. Johnson: It's called a vicinity map Crookston: A vicinity map, here is the vicinity map and here is the lot that doesn't show me what is over here. Rountree: The applicant should be pulling that together from the city's information. Shearer: For example Hunts Bluff you couldn't tell nothing from that map. I had to go out there to make sure which entrance it was. What we need is for the city to get the entire city on Planning and Zoning October 12, 1993 Page 39 computer. On a computer disk and then whenever we got the applicant approved make the engineers furnish it. Forrey: We have and it's what we've done is join the Ada County digital base map it's about a $90,000 expense we just received a contract once we get that negotiated and on line every week they update the base map and we can get copies and have them and I'll make sure everyone get one, an accurate zoning a good planning area. Shearer: That would sure help. Rountree: That could be a requirement of the submittal instead of these full planning sheet plans is to have them provide a data file of the subdivision as how it fits into that mapping. You could pull out a 300 of a 1/4 mile section and use that as the illustration. Forrey: Two requests then, one I think tonight it would help Will if you could set a deadline for him how to process this information. We've been going on the assumption we get stuff by everybody Thursday and then by Friday noon before your meeting we have it out and Will gets busy things happen and it just didn't happen this time, but that is one thing, maybe you want it a week before the meeting instead of the night before or the day of. Shearer: I think that is an internal process Johnson: Not only applicant but to internal processing Forrey: We would back it up to tell the developers and everyone else when we need information to get enough time to get a packet together etc. Shearer: You ought to make that part of the letter to send out to the individuals for me I would rather have it the weekend before. I can do it the night before the meeting if I can get it you feel like you've done that and you come in tonight and you find letters that have come in after 4:45. Friday before the meeting or mid-afternoon before the meeting. I think you guys as city employees need to set that time, and if you don't have it I thinks it's legitimate even if it's advertised a hearing say sufficient information was not obtained by the due date this item is tabled until next meeting. You do that a couple time and you're going to get information. In Boise city I think that's about a two week period of time, it has to be in two weeks before hand. Planning and Zoning October 12, 1993 Page 40 Johnson: It has to be to the staff so they have a full week to study it. If we could have the stuff for the weekend, I'd like to take this stuff home. I don't have any free time during the day. Alidjani: Then you could take a trip to the property and take a look at it Shearer: If you had your own map you could take it back to your office or home Alidjani: I'd like to make a motion to adjourn so I can go home and eat. Forrey: I think we should schedule a work session so we can accomplish a couple things, I'd like you all to look at this application packet all of them from the variance to the day care to the annexation and get all of your comments. Well they are about ready to have a work session now, I can put them all in your boxes and do it collectively and then secondly I'd like to get started on updating the zoning ordinance and any kinks that we all know of through this hearing process on the Comprehensive Plan and anything that's thorny. Johnson: There just is no reprieve is that what your talking about? Forrey: That's right. WE have to start thinking about that and move to a work session. Johnson: Well if you're going to do the packet give us a week to ten days, so we're not all fumbling going into the workshop. Forrey: Should we anticipate some time at the end of the next agenda? Johnson: Is there a motion we adjourn? Rountree: I so move Shearer: Second Johnson: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea MEETING ADJORNED AT 9:20 P.M. Planning and Zoning October 12, 1993 Page 41 (TAPE OF FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) JIM JOHNSON, CHAIRMAN WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK