Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-09-13 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13, 1994 The regular meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Jim Johnson at 7:30 P.M.: MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Hepper, Charlie Rountree, Jim Shearer, Moe Alidjani: OTHERS PRESENT: Wayne Crookston, Gary Smith, Shari Stiles, Anna Doty, Larry Sale, Helen Sharp, Dale Sharp, Floyd and Kathy Reichert, Ted Hepper, Shirley Schy, Tyler Rountree, Billie Jo Premoe, Vern Alleman, Bob Howe, Scott Wendell, Fred Steinbroner and Son, Dennis Brandshaw, Marc and Cathy Peterson, Butch Suor, Susan Smith, Gordon Slyter, Val Elg, Judith Schance, Richard Brown, Doug Moss, Ted Hutchinson, Albert Dauven, Dennis Reichert, Mick Davuen, Don Bryan, Rick Schultzmier, Burt Borup, Sheryl Howe, Mike Wardle, Jim Merkle, Allan Chandler: MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD AUGUST 9, 1994: Johnson: You have read the minutes are there any corrections, deletions or additions to these minutes? I entertain a motion for approval. Alidjani: I make a motion we approve the minutes. Rountree: Second Johnson: It has been moved and seconded that we approve the minutes as prepared, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #1: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A REZONE REQUEST BY MARTELL PROPERTIES: Johnson: Any discussion regarding the findings of fact that you have before you as prepared by the City Attorney? Rountree: Mr. Chairman I have 2 suggested changes in the findings of fact and conditions as written. On page 5, item #8, the last part of that sentence, I suggest that it be re-worded that since the use of the properties are not specifically known any uses and (inaudible) for the property shall be submitted for review by the City Staff for code requirements and delete the reference to design review. And on page 6, the last sentence of the recommendation and shall be subject to review by City Staff and delete the reference to design review. Johnson: Very good, are there any other changes or discussion regarding the findings of fact? If there are none I will entertain a motion. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 13, 1994 Page 2 Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these findings of fact and conclusions of law. Alidjani: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law as prepared with the 2 changes suggested by Commissioner Rountree, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper - Yea, Rountree - Yea, Shearer - Yea, Alidjani - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Any decision or recommendation you which to pass onto the City? Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the rezoning requested by the Applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law. And that the property be required to meet the comments of the Meridian departments and other governmental agencies and shall be subject to review by City staff. Alidjani: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded to pass the decision and recommendation as read onto the City with the one change, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #2: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A REZONE BY TREASURE VALLEY WORSHIP CENTER: Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I request to step down for a potential conflict of interest. Johnson: That would be for item 3 as well? Rountree: Yes (Chairman Rountree steps down) Johnson: I will now open the public hearing, is there a representative from the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 13, 1994 Page 3 applicant or the applicant that would like to address the Commission at this time please come forward. Gordon Slyter, 2162 East Katelyn Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney. Slyter: You have before you our request for both a rezone and a conditional use permit in regard to 2 parcels of ground at the intersection of Meridian Road and Spicewood Drive. Our hope is to build a church building on the northern most of those 2 pieces of property. And to do this its currently zoned residential R-4 in the City of Meridian and we are requesting a rezone to L-O Limited Office which does allow church facilities. In conjunction with that we are also requesting a conditional use permit with the intentions that we would hope to open a day care pre-school to be operated in the church facilities. Not using additional buildings but in the church facilities. And that is the summary of our request the only other things I would like to say is we hope to be a positive beneficial addition to the community of Meridian and we see ourselves as team players with the City and its growth and development. We certainly want to comply with the master plan that was revised in the last 3 months. And comply with all of those guidelines. Johnson: Thank you, there may be some questions of the Commission? Any questions for the applicant's representative? Alidjani: Any other use for this Limited Office that you are asking for beside the church use? Slyter: No, just for the church and parking. Johnson: Any other questions? Crookston: How many children would you anticipate in your day care? Slyter: We anticipate licensing for 48, but our business plan shows operation with 36 children. But the maximum would be 48. Johnson: Anyone else? Thank you, this is a public hearing, anyone else like to address the Commission on this application? Tyler Rountree, 99 West Christfield Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney. Rountree: We live just to the north of the property that they are proposing to build a church on. The property right now is zoned R-4, exactly like what we are living on. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 13, 1994 Page 4 We purchased the property knowing that is what the property was designated to be and would like it to be left that way. To go ahead and continue to be houses. The developer on the phase that we live in subdivided the property so that it could be used really well as far as running the street all the way to Meridian Road. And the way that he subdivided that property I could see where there could be a conflict as far as putting houses on it. But he was the one who was the developer he got to call the shot in the beginning and he called it R-4. I think it should be left that way. Alidjani: I've got a question, any specific reason why are you opposing this project? Rountree: Well, basically when we bought the lot we bought it on the pretense that it would never be commercial property, it would always be residential. That is basically why I am opposed to it. Johnson: Any other questions of Mr. Rountree? Anyone else from the public that would like to come forward? Shearer: Jim do you remember why did they make those lots so big in that, do you recall? Johnson: I don't Shearer: It seemed to me that there was talk of putting town houses in there. Alidjani: (Inaudible) Shearer: But when they first did the subdivision (inaudible) Johnson: Do you recall anything Wayne? Crookston: I don't Johnson: Anyone else from the public before I close the public hearing on this? Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing. Discussion, what is your pleasure? Alidjani: Mr. Chairman, I make the motion that we have the City Attorney to draw findings of fact and conclusions of law. Hepper: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to have the City Attorney prepare findings Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 13, 1994 Page 5 of fact and conclusions of law for this rezone request, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #3: PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TREASURE VALLEY WORSHIP CENTER: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing. Is there any additional testimony that the applicant would like to make with respect to the Conditional use permit? Is there anyone from the public that would like to address the Commission on the conditional use permit? I will close the public hearing. What would you like to do? Alidjani: I would make a motion that we have the City Attorney draw findings of fact and conclusions of law. Hepper: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded that we have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law on the conditional use permit for Treasure Valley Worship Center, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #4: PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE HOLLOWS BY BOND CAMPBELL: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing. Hepper: Mr. Chairman I need to step down. (Commissioner Hepper steps down, Commissioner Rountree returns) Van Elg, 1111 South Orchard, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Elg: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission I am here representing Bond Campbell for the subdivision known as The Hollows. It is located on Ustick just to the west of Locust Grove near Summerfield Subdivision as it is called. I've got a little sketched out drawing here for you to take a peek at. We are in the process of rezoning and developing this property. The zone that we are requesting is for R-4 zoning. However we are developing the entire project with R-3 standards. The minimum lot size here, I don't believe any lot is less than 12,500 square feet. There are 13 lots, we have reviewed the subdivision with Shari Stiles and we have received Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 13, 1994 Page 6 the comments from Gary Smith and discussed those with him. We do not have any particular concerns with any of those comments as Gary and I have discussed them. We reviewed the application with ACHD to discuss the culdesac and the stub street location here. It has come to our attention this evening that Mr. Hepper apparently, Tim Hepper's father has property immediately to the east of this site. And his property line apparently comes down here within 10 feet of the edge of our proposed stub street. Which leaves him in a little bit of a quandary as to how he will proceed with development of his property. We have looked at and discussed with him out in the foyer the potential of moving this stub street down leaving the culdesac where it is but moving the stub street down here. It doesn't appear that we will lose any lots in the trade, it will help Mr. Hepper out and I don't see any real particular problem with that. We would be glad to look into that issue and present that change to the City Council if you folks make that recommendation. Johnson: How big of a move would you be talking about in terms of feet? Elg: It looks like we are going to be shifting this down about 123, 112 feet. Shearer: Basically just moving that one lot over. Elg: Yes, we would just flip-flop the lot basically. We will still meet the frontage requirements for that. We will review this with Gary and Shari to make sure we can comply with that and make sure we are not in violation of anything. I don't believe that we are as I reviewed the ordinance very quickly over that. As I stated though each of these lots would be designed to a higher standard than the zone allows. We are also providing landscape lots along the front as requested by Shari, there is a slight meander to this. We are looking at the potential of bringing sewer in from the Ustick/Locust Grove intersection, it will be on city sewer and water. Johnson: Okay, any questions of the engineer? Rountree: On the drawing it looks like you have distinguished between the lots and the structures on that first lot on Ustick will the rest of the structure on that lot be removed? Elg: Eventually they will be I suppose, Mr. Campbell uses those right now and when he gets to the point where he wants to sell those lots off they will have to be removed or they will remain unbuildable. We have tried to situate these lot lines such that they won't be in violation in ant setbacks also. Alidjani: The other stub street would be between which lot and which lot after you Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 13, 1994 Page 7 relocate them? Elg: Actually what we will end up with is Lot 9 and 10 on this side. Alidjani: So the stub street would be between 10 and 11? Elg: It would be right here? This lot will shift over and we will have the stub street right here if that works out. Alidjani: Then the stub street would be between Lot 10 and 11. Elg: This is Lot 1 so this would be 10 and 1. Alidjani: Thank you Elg: We will have to re-number these lots here. Alidjani: But after you get done it would be between 10 and 1? Elg: Yes, that is what it looks like. Johnson: Any other questions? Okay, thank you very much, we will give you an opportunity for rebuttal if you need it. Anyone else from the public that would like to address the commission on this application? Ted Hepper, 1440 East Ustick, was sworn by the City Attorney. Hepper: I am here on Mr. Campbell's subdivision. I don't have any problem with it I think it will be a real nice subdivision. The only thing I have a problem with is what he stated on that street. I have no objection if he will change that street. The way it is set up now I am going to end up with a 12 foot deep lot and it is a little hard to build on. So if he agrees to move that street, he won't lose any land by that and it would make it a lot easier for me to some day subdivide my place. Johnson: Thank you, any questions for Mr. Hepper? Alidjani: As you said it is about 112 feet from one end to another. Hepper: Yes Johnson: Any other people, anybody else who would like to address the commission on this application? Staff are there any ramifications with moving this street that we Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 13, 1994 Page 8 should be aware of at this time? Let the record show no. I will now close the public hearing then. What would you like to do? Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I would make a motion that we pass a favorable recommendation onto the City Council on the proposed preliminary plat with the changes that were identified by the developer this evening. Shearer: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded that we pass a favorable recommendation onto the city Council on this preliminary plat for the hollows, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #5: PUBLIC HEARING: ACCESSORY USE PERMIT FOR A FAMILY DAY CARE BY JUDITH SCHANCE: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing, is either Judith or a representative here to address the Commission. Judith Schance, 1050 W. Kingswood Court, was sworn by the City Attorney. Schance: What I want to do is open a family day care at this address. What I planned on doing was having up to, I wouldn't think about 3 or 4 children to take care of. The family day care allows 5 children or less. This is what I was planning on doing. I also said that if I was allowed to do this I would put a fence in between the 2 properties just so it would contain the children in the back yard. Johnson: Is there anything else? Schance: Not that I know of. Johnson: Any questions of the applicant? Rountree: What age group are you looking at? Schance: Up to 4 years. Rountree: Infant to 4 years? Schance: Yes Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 13, 1994 Page 9 Alidjani: What hours? Schance: Probably during the day time, it would probably be from say 6 to approximately 5 or 6. It would depend on the hours the parents had to work. Rountree: Weekends as well? Schance: No Rountree: Monday through Friday then? Schance: Just Monday through Friday. Johnson: Anyone else have any questions? Rountree: Are you currently sitting children there? Schance: I have one, he is my grand son. Crookston: Are you licensed by Health and Welfare at this time? Schance: Not yet, I thought I would progress you know, and get a license. Crookston: But you will? Schance: I will yes. Hepper: Would you have any problem being restricted to week days not on weekends? Schance: No I wouldn't have any problem. Hepper: Any hours so that you are not baby sitting in the evening or did you intend on baby sitting in the evening? Schance: I didn't plan on it, unless it is my grand son but that is probably, they are a little unpredictable sometimes. Johnson: Anyone else? Thank you, this is a public hearing is there someone from the public that would like to come forward and address the Commission? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 13, 1994 Page 10 Richard Brown, 1035 W. Kingswood Court, was sworn by the City Attorney. Brown: My wife and I discussed it after reading the first letter. I have a question we had originally, I don't have the original letter, originally I thought that it was a number something like 12, does the Council have an original letter with the number of children that it was originally thought to be? I could be wrong I am just asking. I guess what I wanted to say is just that my wife and I moved to Meridian and we moved here for a couple of reasons, one we like the area. And in picking the area that we did in the Misty Meadows subdivision more specifically the culdesac we moved into, we moved in there to kind of avoid the mainstream. We wanted to get away from the corner lots, get in a little bit so there is less traffic. And so my idea is that I am kind of against it because it may increase our traffic level and at the same time if my wife and I ever decide to sell our home in the future real estate wise I don't know how large an effect or small an effect that may have on it. And that is the 2 reasons that my wife and I are opposed to it. Johnson: Did you submit a letter to the City? Brown: Yes sir. Johnson: This is your letter before us. Brown: I sent a letter to Shari Stiles. Johnson: Yes we have that in our packets. Now this, correct me if I am wrong Wayne, but this particular application Accessory is only applicable to 5 or less, is that not true. Crookston: That is correct. Johnson: So it couldn't be any more than 5. Thank you very much Mr. Brown. Anyone else? Doug Moss, 1055 West Kingswood Court, was sworn by the City Attorney. Moss: Well, right in our Misty Meadows covenants it says that there will be no business in the subdivision. I didn't buy my house to have a business run across the street. And I don't want it across the street. I don't want a bunch of kids in my neighborhood, because I don't like them. Thank you. Johnson: Anyone else? Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing at this Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 13, 1994 Page 11 time. What would you like to do. Shearer: I move we have the Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law on this project. Rountree: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #6: PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR WEST ONE BANK: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing. Is there a representative of West One that would like to address the Commission on this application? Scott Wendell, 1221 Shoreline Drive, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Wendell: We are asking the Board for an approval on a conditional use permit on a drive through for the West One bank on Cherry Lane. We have already submitted for the Planning and Zoning rezone R-8 to an L-O zone. That was approved earlier on in the year. So this conditional use is for the drive through only. And we have no problems with the comments that were listed and sent to us from the Planning & Zoning Commission. Although we have no comments from the City Engineer or the City Planning Director. We might ask are those ready. Johnson: Well, they are on record I believe as saying they have no comments. Gary Smith has a letter, we have in our packet no comment from City Engineer so apparently they have no problem with it. Wendell: Well, then we will just ask for approval based upon the comments that we have. Johnson: Any questions of the applicant? Rountree: Do you have a layout of the drive through window? Wendell: We have submitted something and I believe they have it. There is actually no drive through window per say, it is a (inaudible) delivery system. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 13, 1994 Page 12 Rountree: Would you stick some arrows on this for me please. Shearer: Which way do they go? (Discussion Inaudible) Rountree: They will be travelling it appears through the windows or through the pneumatic system from West to East no from East to West. Johnson: Any other questions? Thank you, this is a public hearing anyone else like to comment on this application? Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing. We need findings of fact and conclusions. Alidjani: Mr. Chairman I make a motion we have the City Attorney draw findings of fact and conclusions of law. Hepper: Second Johnson: It has been moved and seconded we have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law for the conditional use permit for West One Bank all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #7: PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing, if the representative for the applicant would like to address the Commission please do so. Ted Hutchinson, 109 South Fort Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Hutchinson: We are representing the applicant in this case which is Pacific Northwest Electric and Edmonds Construction. We are seeking annexation of about 22 acres of land which lies northeast of Chateau Meadows #8 and to the east of Chamberlain Estates. Presently we don't have a development plan we are working out some logistics concerning access. Provision of sewer and water for this particular site and as soon as we get those things covered we will be bringing forth the development proposal for this site. We are asking that you rezone this R-4 which is compatible with the existing and proposed development that is occurring in the area. For instance Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 13, 1994 Page 13 Chateau Meadows is zoned R-8, there is another development application southwest of this that is about an 1/8 of a mile southeast which is also going to be coming shortly before this commission. Also for R-4 so the zoning will be appropriate for the area. As I stated we are trying to work out some logistics concerning access. Part of it with Chamberlain Estates in extension of the streets. We are also working on an internal street system which would provide access to Ustick Road and to other accesses while recognizing that Wingate Lane has its own set of problems and we are trying to avoid exacerbating the problems existing at that site. We are going to be contacting those people just to get their general feel about the development in that area. If there are any questions from the Commission I would like to answer them at this time. Johnson: Any questions? Hepper: Have you seen the comments from the City staff? Hutchinson: Yes, I have and I have no problem with the comments that we have seen. Hepper: You have also seen the ones from Ada County Highway District? Hutchinson: Yes, we have had a meeting with the Ada County Highway District and when the development plan comes in it will be in compliance with their goals as well. Hepper: What is the density, it is R-4 that you are asking for, what is the actual density, do you have any idea? Hutchinson: We don't have the actual density figured out yet. Part of the plan is to accommodate the existing house on at least an acre so we are trying to mix some of the lot sizes in there. We will have some larger estate sized lots. But with the smallest being the minimum of 8,000 square feet. But we are trying to at least mix it in there so we can at least provide a nice development in that area. Shearer: You said you didn't have any problem with providing a bike path and pathway through that area as part of your subdivision? Hutchinson: We recognize that the Comprehensive Plan has indicated that the pathways are interconnected and we are, the preliminary plans that we have seen so far are going to provide for some park space and some interconnections for bicycle pathways through the development. Rountree: Define an estate sized lot. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 13, 1994 Page 14 Hutchinson: Well, we are proposing that the existing house will be on at least an acre so we will try to keep them in that neighborhood. A few of the lots that will be right around the house, the existing house and to the north of that. So we are talking anywhere from half to a full acre. Johnson: Any other questions? Thank you very much, we will give you an opportunity to come back. Anyone else from the public like to address the Commission? Butch Suor, 2550 North Meadow Glenn, was sworn by the City Attorney. Suor: I am presently residing in Chateau Meadows and right now we are on the back line, we have a nice view of Bogus Basin and what have you and we realize that development will go on, but one concern of mine. I would like to see, if it is going to be approved as R-4 I would like to see it limited to single level housing. In other words I don't want second story houses going up and blocking most of my view that I bought the house originally for. Another concern when the engineering does go in there is a waste water problem in that area as far as irrigation. And on the northeast corner of Chateau Meadows they are effectively using the Ada County Highway Departments pipe to waste water for irrigation. It is back feeding the street dry wells in between the houses including my own. Which is raising the water table during irrigation system season. And we do have water problems from time to time. I see this as an opportunity of bringing all those ditches together because when Chateau Meadows was developed it was on one side of the fence and this property is on the other side of the fence so they had double waste ditches and so they tiled one. But environmentally I don't particularly care for street drainage being tied directly to irrigation water. I think this is a direct no no. But it is a situation that I would like to go on record now to be addressed at the time the engineering goes in. I think it is an opportunity that whole south line is a waste ditch and it is an opportunity to bring all of that together and actually put it underground and we can be done with it. But that is the only 2 concerns that I had. Like I say it is R-4 but I would like to see single level housing in there only. Johnson: Thank you, anyone else? Bob Howe, 2194 East Lochmeadow Court, was sworn by the City Attorney. Howe: I am with Mr. Suor, I am in the same area, same line. The situation with the waste water is very important as you well know. Most of you, Wayne knows, in the past we had a problem with the waste water situation. The irrigation backed up underneath our houses and we had to put french drains in and those kind of things. So that is very important to us as well. I do agree 100%, the only reason I bought that Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 13, 1994 Page 15 lot was my understanding from the owner of the land behind us that he didn't plan on selling. Of course life goes on and people make decisions. I would like to see single level houses at least in the end where our houses are so we can have the view that we have now. Those are the main reasons that we bought that land. I don't want anybody living behind me, if it does come in and things happen who knows I might sell. Another thing too is I am a hunter, I enjoy hunting, and I watch the foxes run in the back fields there and hunt. I think there is a house or a home or burrow or whatever you call it in that area some place along that waste ditch. I think those foxes need to be caught and moved before the division starts into the place. Exactly where they are I don't know but I do know that they run west and east through that field. I think we should look into that before we move on. That is all I have. Vern Alleman, 2101 East Ustick, was sworn by the City Attorney. Alleman: I guess I am here just mainly to gain information. I understand that this is for annexation and zoning. My concern is when the plat is made and all of that. Will there be another hearing and will I be notified of that? So I can make comments at that time. Johnson: When we get a specific plat of the lot sizes and design and configuration then you will get noticed again, is that correct? Crookston: Yes Alleman: Well that is my concern. And then that will also include where streets and sewer and all of those things are. Those things affect me and that is why I am concerned about it. Albert Dauven, 2820 Wingate Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney. Dauven: Well, I live right I guess basically across from the access road that the house that they were talking about that they are going to leave there on 1 acre. And when they built that house we were not notified through County zoning or anything. Off Wingate Lane the County Zoning agreed that there would be no more access off it. I guess what I am here for is just to make sure that this is recognized by all parties and everyone. I think you will hear from a lot more people down the lane that we want a berm hill and a fence and we want it maintained. Because you put a bunch of houses backed up to Wingate Lane and they have automatically got an alley. So we have to stop it because the kids, where the ditch line goes through the half mile section between Eagle Road and Wingate Lane all the kids use that as a motorcycle trail and bicycles and what have you. We have livestock, horses and stuff like that and you bring a bunch of city kids out there and you are just asking for a bunch of trouble. So I Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 13, 1994 Page 16 think that, I am not against the subdivision all I am saying is that lane has to be protected. There is not a real good way of protecting it other than making it so they cannot make a driveway into their backyard through it. Because once they do it its too late. And that is about all I have to say. Johnson: Anyone else? Billy Jo Premoe, 3045 Wingate Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney. Premoe: I wanted to follow up on what Al said. We all who belong to the road association on Wingate Lane would like to state very clearly that we would like to maintain the private lane status that we have at this time. (End of Tape) We would like to preserve the privacy status of our road. We have a road association and provide the funds to maintain that road. And we do that even though we don't like to do because we like the benefits that come with having a private road. We do like the type of life we have their. We like the rural situation, the quietness. We would really like to preserve that. When we see subdivisions backing up against it we really want to make it clear that we want some safeguards for our privacy. The things that we bought our land for and their are about 10 families that all feel I believe the same way on this issue. Johnson: Anyone else? Dale Sharp, 2445 Wingate Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney. Sharp: I am somewhat opposed to this subdivision because we do have a situation developing in Ada County in its self with the growth going on or traffic of schools, our water situation. And so I think we need to take a look, I don't think we need to have to do a lot of studying (inaudible) because there are a lot of material out there to know that we have problems. But on top of that I have to agree with these people on Wingate Lane that Ada County we went before them and they said that there would be no more access to that lane. So if you put a subdivision in there we want that bermed off with a fence clear across and around that subdivision so we don't have a problem. I have a stub coming into my property along the south side and I do have motorcycles, 4 wheel drives and they go down there and they hit my fence and they have told me and they throw trash out. And so I say if you do rezone this for a subdivision that a fence goes clear across so they can't go into Wingate Lane. And so we don't have this problem. We have a lot of people on there now to help maintain the lane and we can't have any more traffic on it. So that is about all I have to say. Johnson: Mr. Sharp, is your property the most southerly on Wingate? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 13, 1994 Page 17 Sharp: Yes Johnson: Are you on the east or west side of Wingate? Sharp: I am on the west side. Johnson: Anyone else? Floyd Reichert, 2575 Wingate Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney. Reichert: I rise in favor of the annexation. I have some things to say that the negativity out there on that lane is tremendous. And I do not want to see the impact come onto what this Wingate Road Association in my opinion which is illegal. If you go down to the courthouse in Ada County, I believe the year is 1913 the land owners on the northwest corner dedicated 15 feet on the east side of that subdivision and all of those successors would be bound to that easement. I would like to see that easement kept open and any landowners that success that property have full access to that property and do not impact me on that by closing that off in a restriction. Legally I think they have that right. There are people that live on the east side of that land that have never dedicated a foot that have impacted that lane tremendously on what is set out there. They won't widen it and so the more growth you get out there we get into a real chaos. I would like to see 2 story houses because I have a 2 story house and I don't want to have the only 2 story house out there. I don't think there should be any restrictions put on the homeowners that buy in that area that they need a one story or 2 story. I rise again in favor of the annexation with no restriction to Wingate Lane of those successors because they own part of that lane or bought into it. That is recorded at the Courthouse and I can get that road agreement if you would like. Helen Sharp, 2445 Wingate Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney. Sharp: I find this all very interesting. I find it very hard to believe that even Meridian Planning and Zoning would grant any kind of a zoning change with the generalities that we are offered tonight by the person that wanted this. There was nothing concrete, nothing definite. It was we plan, we plan and we plan. I think something definite should be in the making before any of us agree to anything. I would like to have that considered very strongly. Another thing today, I took upon myself to call 3 local realtors because I didn't' think that we needed to by yes and by golly what was happening. Those of us that live in the immediate area know what the building has done, we know what it has done to the traffic, the schools and everything else. But nobody cares and nobody listens. They say they are listening but they don't' hear. (Inaudible) there are Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 13, 1994 Page 18 going to be studies on Locust Grove, we have yet to hear the results of any of those studies other than the fact that we have right and a partial 3 lane road from the subdivisions to Fariview Avenue. It has done nothing to cut traffic it has done everything to increase traffic. We have not heard how many houses this (inaudible) ad we do know because of what was told that there is going to be additional requests for subdivisions in that same area. I am saying what about the definite for a park, the green belt. As far as Wingate Lane and the easement and the accessibility it is a private lane and those on the lane mostly have taken care of it. As far as not being legal I am sure we can have an association if we want to take care and maintain that lane. Not just for the dust but if you have gone up and down a private you know what it can do to a vehicle and the alignment. Everything else, I just cannot believe that you would expect you to (inaudible) or annexation with the generalities he has given you. Anybody can give you that little bit of information. Another thing is so many of the requests that have been denied, I (inaudible) what the Comprehensive Plan is, I have never heard other than the fact that there is one. Does this or do these particular zone changes comply with the Comprehensive Plan? (Inaudible) We do know the kids cannot go into the (inaudible) Chief Joseph School (Inaudible) because it is overcrowded already and they are bussing them. Here again (inaudible) take the responsibility of what is happening. They say okay you can go to the school, as a builder as a developer as a realtor, these are the joys you get for building and living here and that is not true. (Inaudible) who has to take responsibility for granting these things that are not in fact truths. The children cannot go to that school, they have to be bussed, there is a sign on the door, no more students for Grade 4. (Inaudible)And we are talking about the sewer, we are talking about the (inaudible) lawsuits because of the drain off. The developer, the builders, the realtors they knew this, but who cares. I live on Wingate Lane and I have lived there for practically 30 years and I for one am opposed to this wild growth (inaudible). Thank you. Johnson: Anyone else? Susan Smith, 3020 Wingate Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney. Smith: I too would like to maintain the private lane quality that we have enjoyed since we have lived there the last almost 10 - 11 years. I guess for me personally I do not oppose the proposed subdivision. I do have some natural feelings about what is going on around us but I don't' have any, I would have any grounds for that. I would prefer that there not be any usage of Wingate Lane to either facilitate the building of that subdivision nor usage after the subdivision is in. We are a narrow, dirt road. Massive bumps, there come times it becomes difficult to drive up and down that lane. There is some equipment going up and down that lane for usage now and it makes a big difference in the quality of the road. It is a very informal road association that we Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 13, 1994 Page 19 have. We try to operate as inexpensively as we can. It seems to be the need of everybody on that lane and yet we have to do something to maintain some kind of road quality. We are fortunate enough to have some people that live on that lane that do the work free of charge. So my purpose I guess is just to see that the road not have any additional usage to facilitate this subdivision in any way. Johnson: Anyone else? Mick Dauven, 2820 Wingate Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney. Dauven: Mine is going to be real short too. I just would like to comment on the growth in the area and make sure that somebody has a plan. You have this subdivision, you have another one tonight. There are 2 or 3 that are in the development stage. It is getting pretty big out there, the infrastructure is getting real crowded. Hopefully there is a master plan out there that is going to take some of this into account. That is all the comments that I've got. Johnson: Thank you Shirley Shy, 2425 East Ustick, was sworn by the City Attorney. Shy: I opposed the subdivision because there is enough traffic on that lane. I have lived on that road for 27 years and we have plenty of traffic on that road. I think there should be more consideration of the lane. Thank you. Johnson: Thank you Mark Peterson, 2700 Wingate Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney. Peterson: We live on the property directly across the street from where the majority of the subdivision is going to be located. When we got the building permit granted we were pretty well assured that we were the last ones on the lane that had a buildable lot and that the lot sizes for anyone on the lane had to be at least 5 acres. So, my concern is that I think we need to maintain the berm like they said or limit access to the lane. And possibly consideration if they are going to go through with the subdivision to limit the lot size on what is adjacent to Wingate to possibly 5 acres. I realize the development is going to have to go on, I am in the construction industry myself. We were under the impression when we moved out there that we were going to have a country setting and that the lot sizes were going to be fairly big for the houses. The impact of high density housing in that area, you have already heard about. You need to take that into consideration. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 13, 1994 Page 20 Johnson: Anyone else? Don Bryan, 2070 N. Locust Grove Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Bryan: I wasn't planning on talking again tonight, but I have to. These people used to be my neighbors before we got the 1500 houses built up between. Two of which were Butch and his neighbor which are blocking my view of my neighbors. No development is going to have them but what we have going here is these people are fighting the access to their road, which I don't blame them a bit they have a nice road out there and it would be nice to keep it a country lane and protect them with our Comp plan that we worked on and the proper berming and fencing and things that we were trying to control the quality of life between the agricultural and residential. It would be a good opportunity to put that in the works. My concern is mainly the traffic flow. We are building up a lot of houses in that area and we are closing it all in the center of that section. And the main access for all of that traffic is going out to Locust Grove through Chateau Meadows and the Chateau Lane which is the main feeder. The reason I am talking tonight is to put my bid in early tot he developer and the people that are working with the developer to start looking at a way to put that traffic flow out to Fairview Avenue and eliminate some of this traffic on Locust Grove that is going to be, it is already out of control. And with the development by the church property we are starting to close that off too so maybe it is too late to even look at. But we need to start getting that flow out towards the main arterial which is Fairview Avenue and not Ustick Road or Locust Grove Road. And the developments that are under way now the problems, I deal with problems on almost all other subdivisions but initially that was a halfway plan to connect Wingate Place and Dove Meadows and the back part of Kearney Meadows all coming out to Fariview. But the way they are developing it it isn't happening. I don't know who dropped the ball or what is happening but they are going to get locked in there and I don't know how many hundreds of houses are out there that are all going to be going down Chateau Drive. I think that needs to be looked at right now before it goes any further into the final or preliminary plat and they start the drawing stages. It would save everyone some grief. Also, I have a problem with the drains, I thought the drain was corrected but I guess it is okay to dump the road drains into the irrigation canals because that is what is happening at chateau Meadows and when we had, when Butch had his problem with the water out there in this particular parcel. We looked at that, I thought there was going to be something done to correct that situation because that is not a good situation. I don't know if it is legal or not, maybe Larry knows. That needs to be addressed too as we proceed with development. They are just going to tile into that ditch that is there now and they are just going to keep feeding that street drain right into the south slough. That needs to be addressed also. Does anybody have any questions? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 13, 1994 Page 21 Johnson: Any questions of Don? Anyone else? Rick Schultzmier, 4105 North Five Mile, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Schultzmier: Presently I live in Boise, my mom Dixie Roberts lives at 2855 Wingate Lane. We moved out of Boise to get into a country setting and enjoyed the quality of life that is out there. Since I have grown up I have had to move back into Boise into houses next to me and unfortunately like most times we don't understand what we had before. The people on the lane out there have a quality of life that needs to be preserved. I can see that now that I moved in Boise and I would like to make sure you realize that is a private lane and that it stays that way. I think it is very important to keep some of that around still. That is basically all of the comments I have. Thank you Johnson: Anyone else? Burt Borup, 2640 Wingate Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney. Borup: I don't have as many statements as I do questions. I think what is important to the people on Wingate Lane is ultimately we all I think initially moved out there for the quality of life and I am sure all of us wished that it had stayed the same. But we can't stop the growth and we are all aware of that fact. I think one of the biggest issues on Wingate Lane is Wingate Lane, not necessarily the subdivisions or anything else. My question is does this board have final jurisdiction on what happens to that lane? Johnson: No Borup: Who does? Johnson: The City Council makes the final determination. The procedure is that at the initial meeting of Planning and Zoning which we are at now we collect data which is your opportunity as part of the public to testify and give us information and input. Following the collection of that data then we have the City Attorney look at it for findings of fact and conclusions of law. Which is nothing more than to address the issue legally. You know is the application legal, can we zone it there if we wish. How does it stack up in the courts with (inaudible). Borup: Does this entity have the jurisdiction to say this remains a private lane or does not? Johnson: No, and then it goes from the findings of fact and conclusions of law to the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 13, 1994 Page 22 City Council and that is the procedure. The City Council can make the final determination. did you have something you wanted to say? Shearer: If it is a private lane, I don't think Johnson: We are not talking about a private lane, I thought we were talking about the issue. Shearer: He is talking about the lane. Johnson: You want to take about Wingate Lane, Wingate Lane is not before us tonight. Borup: I understand that but I am asking a question in as much as could you possibly tell me what government entity has the final say so on saying whether Wingate Lane stays private or public? Johnson: I don't' know if we can, we will ask staff. Borup: Will you pass this information onto the people possibly that could give us the information? Johnson: We may get that answer for you tonight, we may not. We are not completed with this hearing yet and I am going to ask both ACHD and staff if they have comments on this application since we have had so much input and they are both here tonight. Borup: I guess it is of primary importance to everybody here that lives on Wingate Lane that one government agency an actual dictating policy can say to us this is a private lane as long as you do X,Y and Z it will remain a private lane. I think something needs to be put on paper and possibly as Floyd pointed out maybe it already had, maybe a portion of it already has. I am in the dark about a lot of things, and I have listed to and I have tried to be a good listener to just about everybody on the lane. But it is of prime importance to everybody on the lane of what happens to that lane. I realize that we are talking about a subdivision and not the lane. If this entity doesn't have the ability to pass that ruling that is understandable but I think everybody on the lane would like to know hard and fast black and white where we stand. If we do this will we remain one? If not what are our alternatives? Shearer: (Inaudible) property owners request it I can't see how it could ever be a public road. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 13, 1994 Page 23 Borup: Is there a situation where if the Shearer: The County or City can't go in and take property from people. That thing is a private road. Everybody here seems to be against this lane opening up and being public. Johnson: Not everyone. Shearer: But if it became a road and there was adequate stuff there and it was requested from ACHD and they took it over you would end up with getting your road paved and etc. Borup: I can attest to the fact that nobody has brought it up yet tonight but there is a real and present danger either entering that road or exiting that road. I don't think anybody is going to argue that fact with me that lives on Wingate Lane. And whether this subdivision goes through or not with the amount of traffic that we have in that area, sooner or later, it is going to take car wrecks or what is it going to take or who is going to. I am really lost, I am befuddled as to is it just the property owners than? To the best of your knowledge Mr. Shearer? Shearer: If you guys own the property Mr. Attorney? Crookston: Well, you already have the possibility that Ada County Highway District would decide that needed to be a public road and even if the property owners didn't like it they can condemn it. Borup: Second question, let's say there is an accident involved with somebody exiting off of Wingate onto Ustick that is a property owner on Wingate Lane and hypothetically speaking this person is at fault. Is the person at fault responsible since he is a resident of that lane and that lane posed a problem than is everyone on the lane at fault? Crookston: Well, the predominant fault is going to be the operator of the vehicle. Borup: I understand that, but (Discussion Inaudible) Borup: Is that a possibility speaking as an attorney? Crookston: I really can't give you (inaudible). Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 13, 1994 Page 24 Borup: I want to know everything that is involved in living on Wingate Lane from a legal standard, from a government standard. We know it from a neighbor to neighbor stand point. I think everyone on the lane pretty much plus or minus a point pretty much knows what everyone on the lane thinks. I would also like it to be a situation where possibly a document is drawn. Let's establish what can happen on Wingate Lane. If the subdivision chooses to stub a road onto Wingate Lane can they cross Wingate Lane. Johnson: I think we are getting a little off our subject here, I understand your concern and I think that, I am assuming you have a homeowners association, you have a road association. I would think that is something you would want to know and you need to fair it out. The agency that makes that determination, we may get you some information yet tonight if you hang around. Borup: One of the things is if they, I live directly across from a portion of this proposed development, if they choose to stub a road off in my direction and I know how sensitive the City is to landlocking any parcel of ground. Will in fact this be an exercise in futility, can they cross Wingate lane at some time? And if so whose permission does it take, does it take everyone on the lane's permission or does it take my permission or does it take my permission or the subdivision across the street? Johnson: Well, those are good questions, I am not sure we have those answers for you tonight. Borup: I didn't expect you to have the answers tonight. But I would like to be able to see some of these things addressed before this thing goes to plat approval. That is all I have to say. Johnson: Thank you, is there anyone else? Sheryl Howe, 2194 East Lochmeadow Court, was sworn by the City Attorney. Howe: My main concern is the water, we had as a lot of people know, you guys all look different up here, new people up here. We had like 6 inches of water under our house for about 7 months. And they did a lot of research out there and it is clay. We need to have that ditch behind us encased because it is going to be a mess if there are a lot of houses back there. It is major, it is wet under our house now, there was almost a lawsuit over this. Let's take care of this before it is a big mess. Johnson: I don't' think we have had a change on this board in about 5 years. I think City Council might be what you are thinking. Anyone else? I would like to see if the representative from ACHD has any comments to make. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 13, 1994 Page 25 Larry Sale, 318 East 37th Street, Garden City, was sworn by the City Attorney. Sale: Do you have questions or do you want me to talk? Johnson: If you can shed some light, enlighten the public with respect to private lanes and or future plans and if you have any comments regarding water and I also plan to have the City Engineer come forward. Sale: Wingate Lane is a private street, it is owned by some or all of the people who live along it. There is no public agency that has any right to that street. It can become a public right of way only under 2 situations I believe and one would be that the current owners of the street would request the highway district to accept it as a public road and in order for that to occur the highway district would require that it be brought up to public road standards before it would be accepted as a public road. Mr. Crookston was correct in that if the highway district determined that there was an overriding public need for it to become a public street. It could be acquired by the highway district. I don't anticipate that occurring. With regard to street run off mixing in the irrigation channels, we are allowed under certain conditions to discharge storm water run off into certain water courses, not all. We are allowed to discharge water after treatment into most of the drainage ditches in the County not live irrigation ditches. While listening to the testimony I worked on a vicinity sketch that we have here and it certainly isn't' gong to be good for the audience to view. This is the existing public street pattern in the area. Subject property, there is one street stubbed into it from the west out of this subdivision that I can't recall the name of immediately to the west. There is a stub street out of I guess it is Kearney Place it comes north up towards the property. There is another stub street out of the proposed Chamberlain Estates Subdivision that is about 300 feet west of this property, a stub street coming in from the west. I suspect that the highway district will require a stub street to this parcel's north boundary. We will look at that canal and see how large it is. We will want to get a street out to Ustick somewhere in here. A fairly major street actually that helps by draining this property back out to the north. This is Hickory Drive that comes in through Dove Meadows past the church, it comes up into this 40 acre parcel that has been, I think it has been acquired by developers, they met a time or 2 with us. I think we would want to see a street connection between this intervening area and that parcel so that people can find their way out to the arterial system. Eventually we will have another collector coming in from Eagle Road in this location somewhere. So the center of the section will be directed out to the arterial. Unfortunately it has to wait until it is all pretty well developed to do. Any other questions? Johnson: Any questions of Mr. Sale? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 13, 1994 Page 26 Rountree: There was indication of a requirement or possibility of stubbing a street into Wingate Lane, a requirement to do that. Sale: We will not require a public street connection to Wingate Lane or to put it another way I don't think we would allow a public street connection to a private street. Hepper: Would you allow a street stub to the east to cross Wingate Lane? Or would you require one? Sale: Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Hepper, I suppose we would entertain that if it were proposed. Certainly there is every right to extend a street across Wingate if it were needed by somebody on the east side. I can't recall the development pattern on the east side, those are all pretty large lots as I recall. Johnson: Any other questions? Okay Larry we may need other comments if something else surfaces. Gary Smith, City Engineer, do you have some comments you would like to make regarding water? Is there anything you can help there with respect to that ditch being tiled? It will be tiled, I know our ordinance calls for that. Nothing at this point, thank you. The developer, would you like to make some comments after you have heard the testimony? Hutchinson: Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, again I am Ted Hutchinson with Tealeys' Land Surveying. I have for illustrative purposes an Aerial photograph (inaudible). This is the brown house as it sits on the parcel, (inaudible). This is Wingate Lane as it extends down to provide access (inaudible). We have spent a great deal of time examining this parcel and the access issues that are involved with it. We looked at Wingate Lane and based upon our survey of that particular area when we just simply drive down Wingate Lane and take a look at it. First of all it is a very narrow street, there are numerous trees along one side, if that road were to be improved the majority of those trees would have to be removed. And then there are a couple of houses that sit up rather close and would actually end up in the public road right of way. As we looked at that we recognized that particular access into that parcel would not be a wise choice. I think that other ways into this particular parcel will be more convenient and actually better serve this particular area. So it is not our attention to make the connection to Wingate Lane. We also recognize that existing easements are in place for those persons that have access both on the east side of the parcel and to the south of the parcel. And that the access will have to be maintained for those individuals. We know that the Chamberlain Estates is extending streets to the west and will actually abut our west property line that are coming from the west to the east. And it will probably provide our first access points out to the western Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 13, 1994 Page 27 portion of the property out toward Locust Grove. We are looking at other options and as Mr. Sale indicated they are looking for an access point to Ustick road. Since it is ACHD policy to require that all of the interior traffic from a section be funneled through collector streets out to the major section line arterial. It is our plan to incorporate that type of roadway system into this development. This isn't a willy nilly type of development, we have spoken with your staff at great length concerning the requirements out in this particular area. We have come up with a couple of proposals that we are just looking at in the preliminary stages trying to plan for how this particular is going to grow and in essence come up with a viable plan that is going to be workable and yet preserve the existing neighborhoods and try not to have much impact on them. We have also worked with Ada County Highway District trying to make sure we meet their requirements providing access and public streets into the development. Listening to most of the testimony they are concerned about the access onto Wingate Lane that is not our intention to access Wingate Lane. We know the problems that exist out there, we don't' want to be dumping any of the traffic from this development down that particular narrow pathway. I think that would take care of or answer most of the concerns that have been addressed there. With regard to water, presently this site I believe is flood irrigated, as most parcels of agricultural use they are flood irrigated. With development you will see a decrease in that water use because we will go into a pressurized sprinkle system. And that will hopefully eliminate or help alleviate some of the problems with existing high ground water in that particular area. The homes on this site will be connected to municipal sewer, will be connected to community water service. So we have tried to avoid any impact on existing wells that are in that particular area. Again the only reason that you don't have a proposal before you at this time is we are trying to work out the logistics of providing a quality development that has good access. Obviously this is going to be a difficult parcel to market because it doesn't have any access directly onto Ustick or any of the other mile streets in that area. We have got to take care to make sure that we do come up with an access point that is going to provide us with a quality entrance into the development. (Inaudible) answer any questions that the Commission might have at this time. Shearer: Do you know this water problem is that strictly a ground water problem or is this irrigation water that has gotten away in that particular area. Is the ground water that shallow in that section? Hutchinson: Mr. Shearer I don't have any information to that effect. I believe typically Mr. Smith requires the establishment of the ground water levels in the area so we will be working toward that as required by the City Engineer. Rountree: What is the time line on your proposal? Hutchinson: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Rountree, we are hoping to probably make Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 13, 1994 Page 28 the next cut off date for submittal to the city staff. Our client has had people looking at possibly purchasing the Brown parcel and they want to know how the subdivision development is going to be laid out around that particular house to accommodate that house. We want to move as quickly as we can yet trying to make sure we address all of the issues as they arise. Johnson: Any other questions? Anyone else from the public that hasn't commented that would like to comment or an additional comment from anybody that has already been here. Suor: In regards (End of Tape) water table out there, this was a low spot, part of this was a low spot in Chateau Meadows at the time. And that problem was not addressed and what happened is the developers and (inaudible) did some test holes and then consequently what they did was broke the hard pan and gave this clay saturated soil and ability to drain between the hard pan and clay, fine (inaudible) as of this year which we had a dryer year than we did last year to my knowledge none of the people in question had a water problem including myself. But what is happening here if I might show you the existing, I started to talk (inaudible) is this waste ditch that comes out this northeast field. This is the property line to the north of the property that is in question right now. There is a waste ditch for irrigation that comes down here and incorporates the ACHD street drainage pipe down through here to this box right here and then drains into a lost ditch that goes along the west boundary of this property and into the south slough. What is happening is this comes down here and the mud and whatever from the field is contaminating these street dry wells. Because there is no separation of elevation of these pipes, when they cut loose up here and drain into this field it comes down in here and fills this drain up. And if I was ACHD (inaudible) in time they might have some work that they might not want to do. And my personal feeling is this ditch pipe and this street drain should be 2 separate pipes. The irrigation water should be separated from the street drain water just to keep down contamination. Johnson: Thank you. Sharp: What he was saying as far as the water they were going to have a sprinkler system am I to assume that is for all of the subdivision. Okay and he says that is not going to affect any wells, where is he going to pump this water from? It is not from the ground water. Johnson: He is talking about a pressurized irrigation system which utilizes surface water, isn't that correct? That is what our ordinance requires. Sharp: Well, where is he going to get the surface water, that is going to be pressurized to operate the sprinkling system? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 13, 1994 Page 29 Johnson: It comes through the ditches, the same ditches that are not to flood irrigate the property. Sharp: I see, and the other question I wanted to know. The person that he is representing that owns this property was here not too long ago trying to get another zone, denied because of the water problems and the hard pan. I wanted to know if anything had been done to correct these problems and what they propose to do besides the sprinkler system. I don't know if I ask you that or if I am allowed to ask him. Johnson: You have to address your questions through us, perhaps we will get an answer. Sharp: We do know she was in trying to get the I think 17 acres next to her because of these very problems. I want to know what was done to eliminate the problems that we can ad to them and make more subdivisions. And as I started to say earlier when I called these realtors, the 3 of them in Meridian there are over 600 pieces of property available new and used. (Inaudible) don't need more houses, there is certainly not a demand for building. (Inaudible) repeating constantly I would like to see the Comprehensive Plan and just how much building they intend to allow before they step back and look at the situations have been addressed. Johnson: Very good, I believe our Comprehensive Plan is now published, approved and for sale, it is $25.00. Sharp: Does it change with every subdivision? Johnson: No, the comprehensive Plan is a general guideline but it does talk about specific areas that are intended in the overall residential. And of course there is no impotice put on by the City to do that it is the property owners. But you need to read that because it gives you a general guideline on what the City is trying to do. It is a pretty comprehensive plan. It is pretty lengthy. Alleman: I guess my question was I thought that I would be able to testify on these once a plan was drawn. Shearer: You will Alleman: Is this the time to make comments on those kinds of things? Johnson: You can make comments now because it is a public hearing but you will Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 13, 1994 Page 30 have a better opportunity perhaps to get specific once we get a plan on what they are actually going to put in when the plat comes before us. This would show streets, roads, size of lots etc. Alleman: I am deeply concerned about those and I thought that would be the time for me to make my comments as to what those were and how they would affect me and what my opinions was of those at that time. So I haven't put any input in regards to these things at this time. Johnson: Well, you will get notified Vern. Alleman: And that would be the appropriate time for me to comment. Johnson: As a matter of fact at this juncture I would like to encourage all of you that testified tonight to keep track of this, follow it through to the City so you get an opportunity to go before the City Council on it when it gets there which will probably be sometime in November at this point. Is that about right? Shearer: You might comment too Jim that for some of the people's information that all of this approval does is annex the ground. This thing still has to come back before this group with a plat that has the actual lot, streets, etc and that is not approved at this time. That is another phase. Johnson: That is correct, anyone else? Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing at this time. What would you like to do? Rountree: Mr. Chairman, just for discussion purposes I would like to see since it is eminent to the proposal that is being worked on by the developer for this project before we work at preparing findings of fact and conclusions of law so we will at least have some information to base conditions. Johnson: What would you like to do? Rountree: I make a motion that we table this item until we receive the conceptual proposal at a minimum and possible a preliminary plat until our next regularly scheduled meeting in October. Hepper: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to table this matter until we get a more definitive conception, until we get more information on what is actually going in here, is Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 13, 1994 Page 31 there any discussion before we take the vote? Shearer: Wayne, can't we make conditions on the plat, can't we go ahead and annex this property and then when it comes in at the plat make the conditions on the plat? We don't' have to hold it up for those conditions that are going to be on the plat anyway. Crookston: It depends on what kind of conditions you want to make. The City including the Planning and Zoning Commission has much more authority to place conditions at the time of annexation then it does on the platting. They meet the ordinance requirements on the plat and it has been annexed than that is all they have to do. Shearer: That is all I wanted to know. Johnson: Do we have any further discussion? We have a motion and a second, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson I would like to take a 5 minute break at this time. FIVE MINUTE RECESS Johnson: Let's call the meeting back to order. ITEM #8: PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ASHFORD GREENS SUBDIVISION BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing, if there is a representative for Brighton or Ashford Greens Subdivision would you please come forward. Mike Wardle, 9550 Bethel Court, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Wardle: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission I have placed a slightly reduced scale drawing of the same project you have seen over the past few months. In fact just a brief update, several months ago the Commission recommended to the Council that the southerly 24 acres of this parcel be annexed to the City with R-4 zoning. And also recommended to the Council that the single family subdivision be approved subject to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 13, 1994 Page 32 the standards set forth in that R-4 zone. That item went to the Council at the same time there was an application submitted to deal with some of the none standard aspects of the project in the form of a variance request that dealt with the block lengths, with the lengths of some of the culdesacs due to the design and the desire not to cross the golf course in too many locations. Also dealt with some of the lot widths and so forth. At the action when all of these issues came before the Council on the 16th of August it was all tabled essentially pending a resolution of the overall issues and concerns on the parts of both parties. The first party being the developer and the applicant, the confidence that they can go forth with the total project in the future. And the second being that of the City of Meridian's desire to affect the other nine holes of this long time proposed golf course. What we have subsequently done was to re-submit the plan as it was taken to the City Council. There were only 2 minor changes that occurred in the review process both by staff and through the Ada County Highway Districts and other considerations. In addition there was one negotiation with the Steiner Corporation who have I believe approved a project for the area to the east which was the Fuller property. That particular issue related to the fact that there had been a proposal in and around the future clubhouse location and the parking to have some maintenance facilities. There had been maintenance facilities proposed there for the golf course and through discussions it was concluded that the maintenance facilities needed to be located in a more remote or obscure location and not right along a major access point into their project. So it was concluded that they will have lots coming up to that in addition there would be a slight exchange of consideration for a little bit of their property and there would be 4 lots added where there had originally been some parking and maintenance facilities. The other was, there other change that occurred in the process was a stub street to the north that the Ada County Highway District required in order to assure that property in the future will have access when it develops. Because they are restricted somewhat by the Eight Mile Lateral going through there, somewhat of a triangular shape. They would have access both probably to Ten Mile as well as Black Cat and to this subdivision. With those particular changes we did submit this for a conditional use request and essentially the issues before the Commission that we are asking to be passed onto the City Council so that all of the other items can be concluded with respect to the annexation with respect to the dedication of the balance of the golf course property. Let me just illustrate this also. In earlier discussions even before this Commission when this was originally heard the question was raised about the disposition or dedication of the golf course properties. The area identified as golf course north of this line had previously through the purchase agreement by the Brighton Corporation has been dedicated to the City. And that was park and parcel that dedication would not have occurred but nevertheless occurred as part of their purchase of that land. The area south of that line, all of that golf course land has not yet been dedicated and that is part of the annexation requirement. So when all of this occurs and comes back to the City Council with your recommendation as to what you Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 13, 1994 Page 33 feel the disposition should be for the Conditional use permit. That final action will be part of the total package of exchange of that land or dedication of that land and for all of the other elements of approval pertaining to the subdivision and the future development of the medium density parcels. So the specific, the request overall tonight is for approval under the PDR aspect of the ordinance and as a conditional use permit for the project as it has been presented that encompasses the single family dwelling lots, the medium parcels. Two of those parcels 14 and a half acres and 12 and half acres, 27 acres total as well as the golf course element. We also in that application requested approval of 228 single family lots some of which in the plans submitted are approximately 75 feet in width. I didn't do the calculation but Mr. Smith in the previous application had noted that about 36% of the lots were in the average of 75 foot widths. The balance of those lots either meet or exceed the ordinance. In addition to the 228 single family lots we are requesting conditioned upon approval for the medium density parcels at the requested maximum density of 8 units to the acre or 216 dwelling units. We have to state this evening that there is not a specific plan as yet submitted. We realize that in the conditional use process you have the right and the obligation to put a condition on those parcels that a specific development plan be submitted at some point in the future that would have to come back to this Commission and I am sure eventually to the City Council to receive site specific approval. At that point the specific density aspect will be addressed. We know that in our request it could not exceed that that has been requested it may be less depending on what the actual design is. And that approval would have to bring back elements again site specific elements relative to access interior roadways and parking, extension of utilities open space and landscaping and any other concerns or considerations that the City has. Now when we submitted the application and we did have a meeting 2 weeks ago with the Mayor and with Mr. Crookston to discuss the process and the elements of a PUD Conditional Use Application. We did submit and I hope that the letter that is dated September 2nd was in your packet that recalculated as a result of that meeting the density calculations. Very briefly if that was not included the overall project acreage including the Fuller dedication was nearly 155 acres, we have taken the Fuller dedication out of the calculation. Recognizing and discussions with the Mayor and Mr. Crookston that the project would have to stand on its own without that property. So the net acreage without the Fuller dedication being considered at 123.55 acres in the R-4 zone with a 4 unit per acre allowance could have 494 dwelling units on the balance of the project. We are again submitting 50 units less than that than the combination of 228 single family lots and the proposed density of 216 dwelling units on the 2 medium density dwelling units. We believe that the Commission in your conclusions and findings can pass onto the Council a recommendation for approval subject to the return in the future for those 2 parcels. We would also ask for your favorable recommendation with respect to other elements of the overall project that include the lots that are 75 feet wide or less than the normal dimensional standards of the zone for Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 13, 1994 Page 34 6 lots that are served by private driveways, for just 2 flag lots and then for 3 culdesacs that exceed the normal length of 450 feet and then block lengths which are in excess of the ordinance standards because of the configuration on the golf course. I don't know that there is more that I need to say unless you have questions because you have seen it before. There really are no significant differences or changes, but I would be happy to respond to your questions. Johnson: Mike, I may have missed this but did that meeting take place that you proposed in your letter between the Mayor and Wayne Crookston, your letter was to Shari. Wardle: Yes, Shari was in that meeting as well, but we just met to discuss the process to make certain that we understood how a conditional use application and a PDR would go through the system, yes we did meet. Johnson: Any questions of Mike Wardle? This is a public hearing is there anyone else from the public that would like to come forward at this time? Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing. Discussion? Rountree: What is the status of this parcel, has it been annexed officially? Stiles: Commissioner Rountree, Chairman, I believe they tabled it last time because they are waiting to get the land for the golf course deeded to the City prior to annexing it. Johnson: Is that your recollection Mike or Dave? Wardle: That is correct, that is the reason that the whole thing is on the table. But let's clarify that, the annexation issue was only for this southerly 24 acres, all of the balance of the project had already been annexed to the City previously. Johnson: Does that clarify your question Mr. Rountree? Rountree: Yes Johnson: Any other questions of the Commission, any discussion? Rountree: On that portion that is related to the annexation that has been tabled, is that going to go forth as a PUD zoning or is that going to be an R-4 zoning subject to a future conditional use permit. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 13, 1994 Page 35 Crookston: It is proposed at R-4. Rountree: So we are looking at a conditional use permit for that as well? Shearer: That is included. Crookston: I believe that is included in all of it. Rountree: So if the lower part has been annexed has it been zoned R-4. Crookston: Yes Rountree: And now they are asking for a PUD or a conditional use permit relative to the R-4. Shearer: We have already recommended approval on both the plat and the annexation. And now we have to Crookston: The conditional use application is for the planned unit development as an entirety. Rountree: Is that a zoning? Shouldn't it be zoned as a PUD then? Crookston: No, we do not have a PUD zone. The PUD is in the subdivision and development portion of our ordinances, not in the zoning ordinance. Shearer: We really don't have a PUD do we? Crookston: Yes, we have a PUD process. Shearer: But I mean on this project we don't have a PUD, we just have a straight zoning. Crookston: What they are asking for now is a conditional use permit for a PUD. Shearer: We don't have a PUD, this is just a straight zoning right, we are asking for an R-4 and R-8 basically zone. Crookston: No, they are asking for a PUD on the entire area. Shearer: If it is a PUD why are we putting in a conditional use that would be part of Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 13, 1994 Page 36 the PUD wouldn't it, you wouldn't need a conditional use. Crookston: Our ordinance requires a conditional use for a PUD. Shearer: Okay Johnson: Any further discussion? Mr. Sale. (Inaudible) Johnson: I did close it but yes you can approach us we always appreciate your comments. Sale: You may not this time, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, the Highway District is severely concerned over the possibility of a linkage between Interlachen Way and I think it is Dawson Lane loop street straight through the northwest part of this project. We are concerned about a direct street connection, I should qualify that . That is as odds wit the City's goal and the overall plan to access the clubhouse location from Interlachen. And I want to urge the City to carefully review future designs for this project to see if we can work together to get access to the club house without making a convenient cut through between the 2 parts of the project. We are very concerned that this will then become a direct route of traffic trough from Black Cat through to Cherry Lane. We have quite a few dwellings that front on Interlachen and we already receive complaints over the traffic on Interlachen and we find that when that traffic gets up to about a 900 to 1100 trips a day it really starts becoming noticeably uncomfortable for the people that live along the street. And also noticeably uncomfortable in our telephone ears. I hope the City and the Highway District and the applicant can work together to design a circulation system there that will avoid a through connection between the 2 parts of this project. Rountree: Don't leave because I have a lot of questions about what you just said. It seems inconsistent with the functional classification of Interlachen. Being functionally classified as a collector street. Sale: Interlachen is classified as a collector not all the way to its end. (Inaudible) Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Rountree also we are finding that those classifications that we made a few years ago and allowed dwellings to front on collectors are now coming back to haunt us. This is the functional street class map and this little purple line here represents Interlachen, as you can see it heads off to the east, it kind of loops through and back out to Ten Mile Road rather than coming through this way. We show a collector coming in from Black Cat and just graphic form show that we want a collector coming out of the center of the section of somewhere getting out to Black Cat. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 13, 1994 Page 37 The Northwestern end of Interlachen is a local street. Rountree: For about a block. Johnson: What was the question Charlie? Rountree: It is about a block and a half, the same line of reasoning with respect to traffic cutting, with the ability of the local entities to control traffic speeds by signing theoretically, (inaudible) has become a 35 mile an hour road. I suspect Ustick to the north, I suspect Black Cat will and I suspect that when we get Cherry Lane done it will be as well. We now have with this proposal a direct mid-section access with minimal interference to traffic to short circuit going around the section. We talk about these things but we have built that one it will be there with this. Sale: If, when we review the specific design of this area the multi family area if there is no way to avoid a connection to Dawson then the Highway District will probably require a deposit for speed reduction measures for Interlachen. Rountree: How about for, I can't read the street names on here, that street there whatever going to the east will basically be a straight shot to Ten Mile. Sale: But it will carry traffic from the subdivision out to Ten Mile, it shouldn't develop volumes in excess of 1000 trips a day. Rountree: If you can't travel on the perimeter on the section roads anything more than 35 miles per hour why wouldn't people save half a mile. Because they are driving through the neighborhood at 35 miles an hour even though it is signed 20 or 25. That is my concern, I understand what you are saying Larry, but we use that excuse here but we have the same situation someplace else and it is a poor excuse in those situations. We've got a potential problem in that section the way it is set up. None of these roads through that section have been designed to collector street standard like Chateau was at least through portions of it. Sale: Interlachen is for some of its length anyway. Rountree: (Inaudible) there is frontage on the whole thing. (Inaudible) would be (inaudible) landscape medians. But from that point east it is basically a residential street. I just point that out that I don't' see a solution. It is incongruent with the arguments doing something when we have allowed it to happen here. Sale: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Rountree, this I colored up a little bit better than the last map I did, the street you are talking about is this one right through the middle of Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 13, 1994 Page 38 the section. It doesn't' have the same benefit to travellers as a straight cut through from here down to Cherry Lane would be. If they go through here they still have to make the same distance down Ten Mile that they would have to do down Black Cat. So not being a traffic expert I am not going to debate it with you but I think there is more of a problem with this kind of a routing on through from Dawson to Interlachen than there is from the other street which is Harbor Point and the main collector entrance into the subdivision. Rountree: I agree with the advantage there but I see the potential for better access through this section that is also a traffic generator. Sale: We expect the streets in this project to be subject to speeding because of the long lineal design but you can't have otherwise and still work around the golf course. And we all want the golf course. We will hope to work things out so that we can minimize the number of phone calls we get in the future. Any other questions? Johnson: Any other questions of Mr. Sale? Thanks Larry, our public hearing has been close are you ready for the discussion? We need some action. Shearer: We need findings of fact on this? I move we have the Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law on this conditional use. Rountree: Second Johnson: It has been moved and seconded that we have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to the conditional use permit for Ashford Greens Subdivision, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #9: PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR RAVEN HILL SUBDIVISION BY ALLAN CHANDLER: Johnson: Is Mr. Chandler's representative here? Jim Merkle, 9550 Bethel Court, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Merkle: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I am here this evening on behalf of the applicant Raven Hill Partnership and Allan Chandler who is also here this evening. This application is for annexation with R-4 zoning on approximately 19.6 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 13, 1994 Page 39 acres and preliminary plat approval for 63 single family lots. This results in a density of about 3.2 lots per acre. The project is located, I think there is a vicinity map in your packet about a half mile south of Overland on the east side of Locust Grove Road. To the north of us in this vicinity is the Rim View Subdivision which there are about 4 or 5 1 acre lots on the south side of Charolais Drive (inaudible). There are a couple parcels to the west of this, this is the Nine Mile Drain on the west side of the property, the Hunter Lateral on the east side of the property. To the South of us is the Los Alamitos preliminary plat which I am not sure what stage of the process that is in. To the east of us is the Sundance Preliminary plat which has been before you and I think will be before you again. The applicant is proposing home sizes with a minimum of 1400 square foot as was typical for the adjacent subdivision and their approval. Access to the subdivision will be from Locust Grove Road, there is one (inaudible) of property that comes out and accesses this whole piece. However in addition to that we are providing access to the south to the Los Alamitos and to the east to Sundance Subdivision. Those exact, since this is the preliminary stage, I am pretty sure these will line up exactly but obviously further into the final design we will make sure that they do line up exactly. The streets as is typical will be constructed to the Highway District's standards, the interior streets with 50 foot of right of way, 37 foot wide streets curb to curb and 5 foot sidewalks as is standard in the City of Meridian. Sewer for the project will be extended from the existing trunk in Locust Grove Road in our access street and is deep enough to get under the Nine Mile Drain by a gravity and we will provide sewer service to the entire subdivision. Sewer service doesn't need to stub anything further than our subdivision proposal. This proposal will sewer out that way, Sundance will sewer out to the north. Water service to the subdivision will also be extended in from Locust Grove Road and will be stubbed to connect into the existing or the future subdivisions to the east and south of us. Also as was stated in Gary Smith's comments his approval of the subdivision obviously will be contingent upon a satisfactory result from their City Engineer's water model and he did state that in the comments and we acknowledge that. Pressurized irrigation will be provided to the lots from the existing Hunter Lateral to the east of us provides the irrigation now and that will be used for the pressurized irrigation system and most likely that system will be maintained by the Nampa Meridian. Right now I would like to address the City Engineer's and the City Planning and Zoning Administrator's comments. I provided to both Gary and Shari a written response to their comments. However, I would like to point out on Gary's his number 5 comment regarding this particular lot right here. Originally this was 2 pieces of ground separated roughly in the middle, this was access to the north, there was an old house that has not been lived in for I don't know how long. And then this piece accessed this, this is wide enough to provide our access, this is basically useless to the plat however we are platting it along with the subdivision and it will remain in ownership of the developer and he will be responsible for the maintenance and the liability. It is useless to the subdivision it is just one of those Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 13, 1994 Page 40 facts of life with a piece of property like this. We don't want it to be with the homeowners association because they are not going to use it for anything and I would guess that eventually (End of Tape) it will go to one of these 2 parties, I would hope. Also, Gary's comment #9 regarding the flood plain boundary for Nine Mile, my research on the most recent FEMA Map shows that the floodway and flood plain for Nine Mile Drain ends at Locust Grove, there is no designated Floodway or Flood plain east of Locust Grove on Nine Mile Drain so that is not an issue. Shari and her comments, her #4 comment regarding a buffer as is discussed in the comprehensive plan between rural residential existing and new urban density subdivisions. It takes about providing an adequate buffer, I would just like to state that I feel the area north of us and I will pull out this, I should have had this mounted but I didn't have time. This is the existing subdivision to the north of us which would, I will just set it right here, but you can get the picture. From here to here on our plat is from here to here on that plat. There are 4 lots north of us that but up to our north boundary. Those lots along that area of Rim View Subdivision are 1 acre lots roughly, give or take a few square feet. Right now the existing houses on all of these lots are basically clustered up along Charolais Drive. So basically you don't have a rural residential estate lot with one full acre of landscaping and home. The homes are basically clustered up in the front 8,000 to 10,000 square feet of the lot. And the remainder is just an open pasture area. It is my opinion that the pasture area basically provides us with some sort of a buffer between those residences and us. That would be my position on that particular comment. The pasture along in here, I do have some photos for my sidewalk, the pasture in here is 100 to 120 feet deep to the existing home. And that provides pretty good buffering in my opinion. At this time I would like to answer any questions that the Commission might have. Johnson: I have one little question in here that might just be a typo on #15 on the application C, are garages provided, someone has typed in no. Merkle: I would agree with you Mr. Chairman that is a typo. Johnson: Our ordinance requires 2 car garages. Any questions with Mr. Merkle? Hepper: You stated that house size would be 1400 square feet which is similar to an adjacent subdivision, which adjacent subdivision would that be that has a 1400 square feet? Merkle: Sundance Subdivision preliminary plat, which I know the preliminary plat was approved, there was a variance issue with lot sizes and it will be coming back before the City but it was originally approved with 1400 square foot minimums. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 13, 1994 Page 41 Hepper: By Planning and Zoning or by the City? Merkle: I think with the annexation ordinance and the findings required 1400 square foot minimums by Council, Mr. Crookston may correct me if I am wrong. Hepper: I was at one of the meetings where they suggested it. Crookston: I don't recall. Hepper: I believe the preliminary plat was approved with 1500 square feet. Crookston: Los Alamitos? Hepper: No, Sundance Merkle: That may be true, I don't' want to state one way or the other for sure. But in Shari's comments she has that we will provide on the plat a minimum of 1400 square foot and we are in agreement with her comment. Hepper: Yes, but I am not. I believe every subdivision south of the freeway is at 1500 square feet because when Sundance Subdivision was approved, and I consulted with Will Berg and we pulled out every subdivision south of the freeway and everyone of them was conditioned upon 1500 square feet or more. Merkle: I think that is true from what I recollect now. Hepper: Los Alamitos, Salmon Rapids, Sportsman Pointe, Hunts Bluff, all those are 1500 square feet or above. And Sundance I believe was conditioned upon the same conditions. So if in deed that is fact I would suggest that this be the same, that if the City Council elects to change that somewhere along the line than this may fall under that category. Johnson: Any other questions or discussion? This is a public hearing, anyone else from the public like to come forward. Fred Steinbroner, Sr., 1835 Charolais Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney. Steinbroner, Sr.: I live in one of the houses just north of this property. Which is the rim View lot which is in Ada County. Raven Hill is going to be just to our south. If I may, you may want to see what the thing looks like. The top pictures are the trees that border the end of our property there against this new project. The middle pictures are a close up of what is going on and the bottom pictures are of the animal life. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 13, 1994 Page 42 bottom ones were taken by the boy at the end of the street. There are hawks, there are birds of prey in those cottonwoods. The cottonwoods are not right in the back of my house, my house is the one where you see the dog and my son out there with the shovel. Johnson: I need to tell you that when you submit something to the Commission it becomes property of the commission. Steinbroner, Sr.: Good, the gentleman that just spoke, he said that he thought the buffer was adequate. But I tell you if you look at the pictures you can see that we look out there and you can virtually see forever. I mean you know 5 miles or whatever. Our closet neighbor in that direction was Mr. Allan Chandler, we couldn't hardly see his house it was way, it is in the picture someplace. You can see for blocks and blocks. So when we talks about 150 feet as being plenty of buffer I don't really believe that. But basically I am here for 2 reasons, one of them is that I understand that you demand wood fences around these building sites. I would like to say that I would like to see the wooden fence go up before any construction is done for obvious reasons, do I have to state them I don't' think so. And we would like to know where this fence is going to be really. As you can is it going to be up next to the trees, will it be beyond the trees. It is my understanding that there is an easement of 10 feet, the City Engineer says that in this easement is going to be underground utilities. Are they going to take the end of the lot where the trees are and are they going to hack the trees down and put these utilities where the trees are or is it going to start as the engineer says starting from the drip line of the trees. In other words are they going to leave these trees there. We are not talking about just trees, we are talking about something that has squirrels in, they have the peacock as you can see lives in one of those trees in the cottonwoods up there. Frankly I don't like the peacock he eats all the cat food he drives us crazy but he comes for dinner and lunch. But still he is there and we've got horses. The property that this is being built on had horses, it had pigs, never complained a bit because there is enough property over there for everybody. Now all of the sudden somebody is going to crowd in here and we would like to know and my neighbors are concerned also and we would like to know what is going to happen. I read the plan, it addresses taking down the present structures and such but it doesn't mention anything about the trees. And I would like to see the trees, which by the way I have checked the old post marks and it looks like our fence is, it is our fence, is 12 to 18 inches inside of our property line. We have enough land we are not worried about 12 or 18 inches, but what we are worried about is whether all of the trees and I know that for sure 7 out of the 8 trees that are in the back of my lot I think are on my property and 1 of them may be on the line. The cottonwoods most of the cottonwoods the big tall ones are probably on this piece of property. There are 47 trees all totalled on that land. I would like, #1 is not just saying that they are going to put a fence I would like to see it as part of your rule Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 13, 1994 Page 43 that he has to put the fence up for our peaceful enjoyment, the dust and the noise, etc, and this is probably going to take a year to build. We would like to see the fence put up and we would like to know what is going to happen to the streets and we would like to have the trees remain and if they say. By the way some contractors have a rule of cutting things down and then letting people worry about them later. I think that this thing should be addressed and if we can't get any satisfaction we are going to go to Fish and Game and see what they are going to say. But I don't' think it is necessary if you will make the rule that they should stay. Alidjani: Are those trees on your property, his property or on a ditch for fish and game or whoever is responsible for that? Steinbroner, Sr.: They are pretty close to the line, some of them are on both. Alidjani: Some of the trees are on your property? Steinbroner, Sr.: Yes, in fact the ones on my property which are the shorter trees, I don't know what kind they are you can judge for yourself if you like. They are shorter than the big tall cottonwoods. The ones that are on my property 7 out of the 8 are for sure on my property. And one of them may be on his property and may be right on the line I am not really sure. So when you are talking about easement are they going to take this easement, that is my question, are they going to take this easement and are they going to run right down under this ground. There is no way you can put a telephone pole down through that thing. There is no way you can dig a ditch and put utilities down that thing. So you are going to have to start, the easement is going to have to start on the drip line of the trees which is approximately on some of the trees it is as much as 8 or 10 feet. It isn't going to interfere with their buildings. If the buildings are 105 foot deep, I should say the property is 105 foot deep, they can sure find something place on there to build and by the way out in that country in the winter time especially there is no body around voices carry. We are talking you can hear somebody talk 4 blocks away, we used to be out in the country and we are not out in the country anymore. Johnson: Any other questions of Mr. Steinbroner? I appreciate your input, unless you have any thing further we'll see if someone else wants to testify. Fred Steinbroner, 1103 Michigan, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Steinbroner: I would just like to make a short statement and say that I really have no objection to the subdivision in the sense that it is just like all the other subdivisions that are being built around there. It is not at all conforming to what is already there and none of these subdivisions are conforming to what is already there, but they are Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 13, 1994 Page 44 layering. They are saying it is just like the one that is going to be built, whatever I can go on and on complaining about that. Basically is as nice or nicer than the other ones that are around there so in that sense I can't say much about that . I would like to comment on the buffering situation. The trees are the natural buffer between my parents property and the property next door. I just want to make that really clear to everyone here including the developer. That a fence should be built on their side of the trees in all fairness to the existing acre lots, acre homes that are already in existence. It is sort of like the situation where all the people are complaining earlier about the earlier situation, we have our little lane there. We really I think deserve some consideration for our existing little lane. We have 10 acre lots with nice houses, big houses, it is a very nice area. It is already in existence, all of these subdivisions with their postage stamp size lots are crowding in there and swallow us up and completely surround us. Okay so be it that is the real world, we acknowledge that. But we would like to have some buffering, some protection from all of these subdivisions that are going to completely surround us and swallow us up and are not going to be conforming all to what is already there. All I would like to see done, I think the main thing to make sure there is really firmly done is to protect that subdivision at least if nothing else using the natural trees that are already there. They are beautiful trees, they have birds of prey in them, they have hawks in them, they are fantastic trees. They are really beautiful, they would be, you can see them all the way from the interstate as you drive by. They are a scenic advantage to the City of Meridian for travellers and everyone else. They are huge trees over 50 feet tall, way up in the air. They are beautiful and I would just like to see them remain, there are 47 of them. I don't' think they will interfere with the developer's plans, I don't think they will cost him any money really or anything like that. In fact if anything in the long run it will exchange the value of the whole area. All they have to do is leave the trees there and build the fence on their side of the trees and make the trees a natural buffer. It would sort of make a corridor there, I don't' know, they might even have to change their plat map to show that, maybe, I don't know what the should do but they have to leave the trees there. The trouble is you can't build a fence and still leave the trees there because the fence would have to go right through the trees and it is like a small tiny forest in there. It is a real buffer, a natural buffer. So it is kind of a problem in a sense for them and for everyone. I don't really know exactly what the solution is but you can't build a fence through the trees and so they are going to waste some property I don't' know how they are going to do it but the point is the trees should remain. Whatever it takes to keep the trees there I really feel strongly the trees should remain. It would be a sin to take those trees out of there, absolutely it would be immoral. That is all I have to say. Hepper: Do the trees go all along several lots there or just your lots. Steinbroner: Yes, they go along pretty much the whole length. They are mostly right Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 13, 1994 Page 45 about in this are right here (inaudible). There is a real natural barrier, (inaudible) it is a sound barrier, dust barrier, wind barrier. (Inaudible) really beautiful. Hepper: Shari Stiles the Planning and Zoning Administrator stated that the plat should be redesigned to show transitional buffering between your property and their property. Steinbroner: I would like to see that done. Hepper: Do you think something can be worked out where if they would leave the trees you would accept that as the transitional buffering. Steinbroner: That is what I am saying, the trees are the natural buffering. We can talk about the back of the lot, a whole lot of buffering, the trees are a natural beautiful buffer. Hepper: You would rather see the trees than a berm? Maybe a berm with some shrubs on it or something like that. You would rather see the trees than that. Steinbroner: Yes, by far, I think it would be nice if they built a berm and left the trees and built something really nice in that area. Let me go on for just a minute, all of these developers are coming in there they are throwing these housing tracts in there just like cord wood, you know it we see it. There are no parks being allowed for it, there is nothing being allowed for it. Where are the cars going to go to come out of all of these tracts. You have narrow 2 lane streets on Locust Grove and South Overland. There is no way, these developers let's face it they are walking away with millions of bucks on this and the City or someone is going to have to pay to develop all of these roads and make 4 lane highways out of boulevards. There is no way all of those people are going to be able to get out on Locust Grove and out on Overland, not a chance. If you really look at the situation, if you go over there and look at it, it is already crowded. They are going to build hundreds and hundreds of these housing tracts, how are they going to get on the interstate. It is going to be gridlock every morning, it is already heavy traffic. It is not going to work out, you are going to have to within the next, immediately I am talking about when these tracts are done you are going to have to have 4 lane streets there. That isn't going to work out, I mean there are all kinds of considerations here. I think they ought to do more, I think they ought to put a berm there I think the ought to do all kinds of things. I could go on and on, but the point is it is America it is free enterprise it is capitalism they are not doing anything any worse than anybody else who is raping the place. I am just saying please leave the trees if nothing else leave the trees. Johnson: I think we got the point. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 13, 1994 Page 46 Steinbroner, Sr.: May I say one thing, it was sort of mis-stated in a way, the trees do not cover all of the houses going across. The house on the very end has no trees at all. I would say that Shari's idea whatever it was means that they would have to put something in this side and something in on this side. Shearer: It looks to me like there is already a fence down through there, why couldn't they put a fence down through there. If there is one now why couldn't one be put in there with the trees for the most part where they are at. (Inaudible) Steinbroner, Sr.: There was one question and that was could we put the fence next to the existing fence. My idea is that the existing fence is 12 to 18 inches inside of our property and if they try to move it out it will be right in the middle of the trees. Which would be a problem, but it needs something, some kind of a plan whatever the plan is. Johnson: Thank you, anyone else from the public, there is no one else here. Would the developer like like to say something? Merkle: I don't think it is Mr. Chandler's intent to cut down any trees. The trees there provide a nice backyard to lots that go along there. I am in agreement to Mr. Steinbroner on that. However, the one point he did make on the fence being on the south side of the trees I would oppose that. We would like to put the fence down the property line and Mr. Chandler could meet with them to discuss where the fence will go and try to minimize, I cant say we won't cut any trees down but we are surly going to try and save as many trees as possible. I mean the cottonwood trees, I am not a botanist or whatever it takes to understand cottonwood trees but the life span on those is 10 to 15 to 20 years on those if that. They send roots and suckers up and basically they are being fed by the irrigation ditch that runs down there. They are nice trees and they are a nice buffer and we are going to try to save as many as possible. I can't say tonight that not one of them will be cut down. Shearer: Have you surveyed the line yet? Merkle: Yes, the line has been surveyed, I don't' have that information with me tonight, but the boundary has been established by our survey department and he may be true about his fence being 18 inches. But we would like to meet with them out there to show them where the property line is and where the fence is being proposed. We don't want to put it on the south side we want to put it on the property line. Johnson: I think the key there is that you volunteered to meet with them and I think Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 13, 1994 Page 47 that is a good idea. Steinbroner: Well, I still don't think we are making our point here, we are talking about cutting down trees and I just want to stress that we don't' want any of the trees cut down that are within about 10 feet of the property line. Johnson: We understand that. Steinbroner: I don't think they understand how aggressive we are going to be, how upset we are going to be if any of the trees. Johnson: It seems to me that the solution would be that you just deed him that 18 inches of property where the existing fence is and build a fence right down where that one is. That is only a suggestion. Steinbroner: I don't' know maybe that can be worked out but the point is we don't want any of the trees (inaudible). Alidjani: We appreciate your point sir, but still it is his ground. Just don't forget that little point. The man bought the ground and he had a tree on that and if it is his ground and his tree he should be able to do what he wants. On the other hand I appreciate your point that what you are saying is the trees are valuable and beautiful and all of that is granted. Johnson: I see a spirit of cooperation here and I think it can be worked out. Steinbroner: I just wanted to stress that. I would like to recommend that be part of the condition of the approval of this property that none of the trees within 10 feet of the property be (inaudible). Alidjani: I guess you don't' hear us. Steinbroner: I do hear you, you are saying that this man has the right to do anything he wants with his property I agree. (Discussion Inaudible) Steinbroner: (Inaudible) that does not conforming really to the property that is next to it. You are annexing this property. (Discussion Inaudible) Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 13, 1994 Page 48 Alidjani: (Inaudible) get together with him and somehow come up with a solution that both parties are happy with. We don't have a chain saw to cut your trees. Steinbroner: He is interested in money so unless you make it a condition (inaudible) Shearer: Those trees are money to him too. It makes it a lot more valuable to have those trees so he is going to consider it. Steinbroner: He is going to consider it, he is a developer and he is interested in money. Shearer: Well if you have one on the property line I don't know what you can do but cut it down. Johnson: Well, developer, profit and money are really not bad words. Steinbroner: No they aren't but I am just saying that he can do it (inaudible) everybody happy. (Inaudible) Johnson: We need to get control here, we need to shut off the public hearing, there is no one else here. I will close the public hearing at this point then. Any discussion or comments. We need to move here. This is a request for annexation and zoning which would require findings of fact and conclusions of law. Shearer: I move we have the attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law for this project. Rountree: Second Johnson: It has been moved and seconded that we have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law on the annexation for Raven Hill Subdivision, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Is there any other motions? Rountree: I move that we adjourn. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 13, 1994 Page 49 Alidjani: Second Johnson: We have a motion to adjourn and a second, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:25 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: JIM JOHNSON, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK