Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesMeridian Planning & Zoning October 21, 2004 Page 13 of 46 MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Borup: Craig, staffs comfortable with that, some decorative -- some type of a decorative design in there? Hood: That's fine. Borup: Non-vegetation? Moe: It's already noted there. It says some type of visual feature, so that's fine. Zaremba: Just clarify that it doesn't have to be green or living. Borup: Yeah. You're correct. Number two could stay the way it is. So, maybe just five is the only one that would need to be modified. Oh. It also says or. Okay. Hood: The condition was really left open for vegetative or non-vegetative, so I don't personally believe it needs to be modified, but if you so choose to modify it -- Moe: I happen to agree with you a hundred percent. So, noting that, Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to City Council recommending approval of CUP 04-038, to include all staff comments, conditions of the staff memo dated -- or for the transmittal date of October 15th, 2004, for the hearing date of October 21st, 2004. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from September 2, 2004: AZ 04-020 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 43.18 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for proposed Bellingham Park Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC -east of South Locust Grove Road and south of East Victory Road: Item 8: Continued Public Hearing from September 2, 2004: PP 04-027 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 164 single family residential building lots and 13 common lots on 43.18 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Bellingham Park Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC -east of South Locust Grove Road and south of East Victory Road: Borup: Okay. Our next two items, No. 7 and 8, are both concerning Bellingham Park. We have received a request to withdraw the application. The applicant is redesigning the subdivision and said when that is completed they will be resubmitting it. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 21, 2004 Page 14 of 46 Zaremba: And just to clarify, this is a total withdrawal, not a continuation or -- Borup: That's the way I read the letter. Is that correct? Siddoway: That is correct. Zaremba: And I always wonder do we need to move to accept the withdrawal or do we just go on? Borup: In the past we have made -- Zaremba: We often have made the motion. Borup: Usually we go ahead and do it just to cover ourselves, now that we have got some good advise -- Zaremba: Now that we have real legal advise. Nary: Well, I appreciate that, Commissioner Zaremba. The agenda is in your prerogative, so you should move to accept that withdrawal to remove it from your agenda. That would be a more appropriate way. Zaremba: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I move that -- let's see. Did you open the Public Hearing? No, you didn't. Nary: You don't need to. You don't need to open the Public Hearing, you can simply move -- Zaremba: I just want to make sure he didn't. Nary: Okay. Borup: No, I did not. Nary: Okay. Sorry. Zaremba: In that case, Mr. Chairman, I move that we accept the applicant's request to withdraw Items 7 and 8 on our agenda, which is AZ 04-020 and PP 04-027. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2004 Page 58 of 81 Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion recommending approval of PP 04-028, request for a preliminary plat approval for 33 single family residential building lots and three common lots on ten acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Arcadia Subdivision by C7 Development, 3665 Jericho Road, including all staff comments dated August 30th, 2004, for the meeting date of September 2nd, 2004, with the following changes: On page seven, preliminary plat special conditions, omit item number two. On page eight, as opposed to omitting item three, I think we should go ahead and restate that the required development agreement addressing the fencing along Lot 6, Block 4, matching micro-path requirements be inserted in its place. And item six, second line, replace the applicant with homeowners association. On page nine add a 10th item, require a sewer easement in the northwest corner of the development to exit the subdivision -- oh, excuse me, northeast corner so the sewer can exit the subdivision. End of motion. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor. Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 12: Public Hearing: AZ 04-020 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 43.18 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for proposed Bellingham Park Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC -east of South Locust Grove Road and south of East Victory Road: Item 13: Public Hearing: PP 04-027 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 164 single family residential building lots and 13 common lots on 43.18 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Bellingham Park Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC -east of South Locust Grove Road and south of East Victory Road: Borup: Thank you. That concludes that application. Okay. The next Public Hearing is AZ 04-020, request for annexation and zoning 43.18 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Bellingham Park Subdivision by Gem Star Development and also PP 04-027, request for preliminary plat approval of 164 single family residential building lots on the same project. We would like to open both hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. Staff has prepared about a two and a half hour presentation, if that's okay. Just kidding. Borup: Well, we have started before 11:00, so I guess that means that we can just keep going. Hawkins-Clark: No. I will try to make the staff presentation to the point here. The application before you -- this first one is an annexation and zoning request and the property is on the east side of Locust Grove Road, about a quarter of a mile north of • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2004 Page 59 of 81 Amity. The Ridenbaugh Canal runs along the north boundary. The Ten Mile Creek bisects the property over here on the east. The property is designated in the Comprehensive Plan -- and this is a correction to my staff report. This was, actually, pointed out in a letter that was given to you by the property owner to the south, but this -- all of the property is designated medium density residential, with the exception of this approximately five acres, which is south of the quarter mile section line, and that, actually, is designated low density residential in the Comprehensive Plan. I think we have a Comprehensive Plan map. Yeah. You can see here the differentiation between the yellow and the green was made -- and this is the 2002 land use map -- was basically just made right across the quarter mile point within Section 29. You can see also on this Comprehensive Plan that there are -- there is quite a convergence of water facilities in this section, with the Ridenbaugh running east-west, the Ten Mile Creek, Eight Mile Creek, so those are issues -- excuse me -- issues will come up a little bit later on, but I just wanted to point that out to you. So, to go back, the property is contiguous to the city limits on the north side here in the northeast corner. Tuscany Lakes Subdivision is what's shown in yellow here. They are developing from Locust Grove to the east. They also have started Mecena Heights from Eagle Road building to the west. The area that is actually immediately north of this has not been final platted yet, but it has been annexed and it is zoned R-4. This map does not reflect it, but the property that is located here, this flag L-shaped property, came before you a couple of months ago -- or maybe last month I think it was, as Chatsworth Subdivision. That is going before the City Council September 21st, I believe. So, that has not been annexed yet, but this body has recommended approval of that, so those are the general developments in the area, as far as city developments. This would be, obviously, the furthest south that the City of Meridian would annex throughout the area of impact. This is -- we have not gone south of the half-mile point between Victory and Amity. So, the annexation findings are outlined in my staff report. We do, for the most part, find that the finding for annexation and zoning can be met. The R-8 request does comply with the medium density residential designation that's there. The portion that is designated as low density residential is three dwelling units or less in the Comp Plan. The applicant does have the option to ask for the low density residential to be bumped up to medium density residential. They did not do that in the Comprehensive -- I mean in their application and, as I mentioned, I neglected to address that in the staff report. But I think you will be hearing more about that from public testimony. So, I think that kind of hits the highlights on the annexation and zoning, other than we have one outstanding issue with the annexation and that is that this Ten Mile Creek is a separate parcel, fee simple ownership, by the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District Bureau of Reclamation and we did not receive notarized consent from them for that. I asked for that in the staff report. The applicant has submitted a letter that is from Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District, which, basically, says that at their staff level they don't see any issues with their board saying that we don't mind consent, but their board has not acted yet to say that they agree to consent. So, that is up for this Commission tonight. If you have concerns about passing this onto the City Council without that, that is for you to discuss tonight. On item number 13 is the plat. This is a colored rendering that was submitted by the applicants recently. There is a couple of changes, slight modifications from what the original preliminary plat was. The two main ones are that here at the entrance off of • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2004 Page 60 of 81 South Locust Grove Road, Ada County Highway District did ask for that to be moved up slightly during their review. This does reflect that change. The other change is the configuration of the lots down on the south side of their entry collector road. They have now proposed a common driveway coming off of the knuckle and that will serve two flag lots that are here and that is slightly different. They did not have that common driveway originally. This stub street is located here. There are eight lots in this area. There is an existing house on the lot that is closest to Locust Grove Road. There are two other existing houses, actually, on the property. One is located on this large lot here, which is about three quarters of an acre in size, and they have accommodated the existing house there. There is another residence -- existing residence that I believe is down here in this area, which is proposed to be removed. The other features of their preliminary plat, the -- there is a hundred year flood plain, which is also addressed in my staff report, which you can kind of see grade out here. It is a fairly sizeable portion of the site. As you can see it's -- it's really created here at this point where the Ten Mile Creek crosses -- intersects with the Ridenbaugh Canal. There is a 60 inch culvert at that point where the Ten Mile Creek all kind of funnels in and has to go through that culvert and it appears from FEMA's research that they're showing that that's going to cause, you know, some potential backup in the one percent chance that there is a flood. And this is the general formation. And we have asked basically for some hydrologist input and study on that, which we have not received yet. But I will let their engineer talk a little bit more about that. If I could just draw your attention to page eight of the staff report. That's where the preliminary plat special considerations begin. There is about six or seven issues that staff felt needed to be pointed out. The first one there is the street side yard setbacks for this large existing house here. The residence side setback would be 15 feet. They would need 20. They are asking and have explained in their staff report they are submitting a variance. Their argument is that they -- as designed, they cannot meet the 20-foot minimum side setback on a street, because if they did that these lots on the south side of the street would go below the minimum 6,500 square feet and they have to swag this street to the south, obviously, to accommodate that. So, they are arguing that -- that the variance is the way to go, since it's at 15 feet and the street needs to be that wide in order to accommodate the highway district width requirements. So, they are proposing a variance for that. The special consideration B is the double frontage for that lot. The original application had this lot to have frontage on both of these streets. You can't see too well on this, but they have now proposed a new common lot on the east side of this, so the front will be to the west. The side setback is here. And, then, on the east they now back up to a landscape common lot and not a public street. So, that issue is taken care of. Then, on page nine of the report, item C is -- deals with the hundred-year flood plain and I have already addressed that. D is the regional pathway location. As you may recall from the Comp plan slide that I had up earlier, there is a regional pathway that's shown along the Ten Mile Creek. Tuscany Lakes Subdivision has been approved with the pathway on the east side of the Ten Mile. The applicant has met with the city parks director about the crossing of the Ridenbaugh, as well as Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. They have concluded that there will never be a bridge, a pedestrian bridge in that crossing. As I have mentioned, there is a number of facilities -- these are two fairly large irrigation facilities and, besides that, the Irrigation District owns about a five acre parcel right here, which they use for -- i • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2004 Page 61 of 81 as I understand it, dumping of their tailings and other maintenance things and they really do not want pedestrians in that area. So, what they have proposed is that the pathway would only be constructed down in this corner in this common lot and, then, I will just go back to this slide here. So, again, we are talking about this location. The pathway, not being able to cross the Ridenbaugh, the question is where would it go? And what the parks director -- and Ms. Wildwood is representing them tonight -- have talked about is that the -- it could continue over to the east and, then, cross the Ridenbaugh over in this general area where there will be a street --abridge in the future. And, then, it could make its way over and continue on at that point. So, I guess the Commission's comments on that location are certainly welcome tonight. Staff, given the unlikelihood of that crossing, it does make sense to probably just preserve the future location when we see development to the east. Then, the last one of the special considerations I wanted to mention is the sanitary sewer and, actually, Bruce, do want to touch on the sanitary sewer? Freckleton: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, the sanitary sewer situation out in this area is we have a -- kind of a split. We have a main line that comes down Locust Grove. There is a main that is proposed to come on down Locust Grove. We also have a main trunk that goes into Tuscany Lakes and will come through this portion of Tuscany Lakes and punch out somewhere in this vicinity here, that will continue on down generally in this location of the Ten Mile Drain. The subdivision as designed, they had -- they had designed everything to -- to generally sewer everything west of Ten Mile Creek out to Locust Grove and everything north of -- or easterly of Ten Mile Creek would sewer out to the trunk line coming through Tuscany Lakes. Our facility plan that was developed by our consultants, which we use for sizing trunk lines, shows a line pretty much at 650 feet paralleling Locust Grove. That is the service area boundary. Everything west of that line sewers back to Locust Grove. Everything east of that line sewers back to this trunk line here. Like I said, the facility plan is developed based on those service areas and the volume of sewer that's generated from those service areas to set the line sixes and so as designed or as they had proposed originally, taking all of this area, dumping it over here, they are jumping over those service boundaries and we have -- we have basically come against that and have limited them to roughly 650 feet. Now, I have talked with the engineer for the project and that 650 feet can be -- we can work on that line. It doesn't have to be exactly parallel. We can follow -- more or less follow the contours of the land. Their phase line -- I was just in the process of trying to count up the number of lots they have in phase one and I think they exceeded the 50 lot maximum that the fire department has placed a condition on and it looks to me like -- like if we stuck to the 50 tot maximum, that we would be pretty close to where we want to be with the sewer coming back to Locust Grove. So, when you get to that point of formulating a motion, public works department would be fine with taking a maximum of 50 lots to Locust Grove. Everything else has to go back towards the Ten Mile trunk. Any questions? Zaremba: So, in the way it was originally planned and that you're proposing to stay with, at some point the -- what probably would be phase two, this area, whatever sewering they do has to cross Ten Mile Creek? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2004 Page 62 of 81 Freckleton: Correct. Zaremba: How do you do that? Bore under? Freckleton: Correct. Just like we have to bore underneath Ridenbaugh Canal up in this area. Zaremba: Yeah. Okay. Freckleton: The applicant's engineer did tell me that they have had some talks with the developer of Tuscany and they have some verbal agreements for getting access to that sewer through there, so I think they are well on their way of getting that line through that area. Hawkins-Clark: Just two other quick items. One is I wanted to clarify that the police department has a condition in the staff report which states that all of the lots on the east side of Ten Mile Creek are prohibited from building permits until one of these two stub streets provides a permanent secondary access out to the east. The applicant did meet with Chief Musser and I'll let them go further into detail on that, but what I -- I received a voice mail message from the chief, I did not talk to him, but he did leave a voice mail and stated that he is comfortable with the lots that -- that are fronting on this first roadway being allowed to be developed without that permanent secondary access, so they would still only have the one permanent access, which would be this culvert crossing of the Ten Mile, but he felt the number of lots that was here that front on this street, they could sufficiently provide service to with just the one access, so -- the other point I wanted to make is that we did receive written comments in the public record from a Mr. Jason Wolfe and Mr. Michael Gray, who have both outlined their concerns there. And I think unless there is any questions at this time, that ends staffs comments right now. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Zaremba: Yeah. I did have one -- actually, one comment on one of the most recent things you said. I think the police department said that there would be no certificate of occupancy, as opposed to no building permit on those. At least that's what I'm reading on page 14, which means they could build them, they just couldn't be occupied. Hawkins-Clark: Good point. I guess if the builders want to exercise that right, they could do that, but we would probably want to change that. Zaremba: You would prefer that there be no building permit? Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2004 Page 63 of 81 Zaremba: Okay. Then, the Sanitary Service comment about the -- the one private drive that they won't go on to pick up trash, should that actually be a note on the plat that that private drive will not be served by trash service and that they need bring -- haul their stuff out to the street? Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Zaremba, the county engineer has given pretty strong indications that he supposed to have survey documents, plats, being used to enforce those kinds of issues. So, no, probably the plat is not a good place for a comment that is more of a servicing, maintenance kind of issue. Zaremba: Development agreement on the annexation? Or do we just leave it as a concern and -- I'm just thinking of notifying the two potential owners of that lot that this is not something that's a surprise. Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. The covenants, I guess, is one way to do it. It could be, you know, a deed restriction, covenants, you know, certainly the Sanitary Service company has the authority under City of Meridian ordinance to -- Zaremba: Well -- and that's their standard requirement everywhere, but -- Hawkins-Clark: And that's their standard. Right. Zaremba: These two owners might be surprised and because of the length of their private driveway they might expect otherwise, but you're saying they need to learn that some other way, besides the plat or the annexation development agreement? Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Anyone else? Moe: Yeah. I'm just curious, have we seen anything yet in regards to an easement for - - through the Tuscany Lakes Subdivision for that sewer? Freckleton: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Moe, no, we have not seen anything. I know they have had some discussions, but we have not seen anything in writing. Moe: So, I'm sure they will be more than happy to tell me where we are at when they get up here; right? Borup: Okay. Would the applicant -- Zaremba: Staff did leave a question hanging, actually, about whether the P&Z Commission even wanted to proceed without seeing Nampa-Meridian's agreement to the annexation of their piece of property and I think the information given was that Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2004 Page 64 of 81 Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District's board of directors meeting is on September 7. The likelihood is that they will approve that portion be annexed into the city and I would comment I have no problem with going ahead under the assumption that written response to that will be provided prior to the City Council hearing. Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Zaremba, yes, that would be ideal. We would -- if we could have your recommendation on that, should you get to that point tonight, then, we would make sure that probably -- we wouldn't even notice for the City Council meeting until we get that, because, obviously, if they don't get that, they can only develop east of the Ten Mile Creek. Zaremba: Okay. But I guess my question is to other Commissioners, are we comfortable going ahead on that kind of assumption? Rohm: I think so. And the developer full well knows that that has to occur, so -- Moe: Exactly. Borup: Well, there is more than just that question, too. Zaremba: But I don't think that question requires us continuing it right at this moment. I think we can move whatever direction we are going to go, including hearing testimony and -- Borup: Oh. Right. Zaremba: -- and make some decisions that -- Borup: Kind of wait and see, then. Zaremba: -- that includes that being brought to a successful conclusion before it goes to City Council. Freckleton: Mr. Chair, there is -- staff has -- this is an issue that staff is a little bit hazy on as well. Where it is, actually, a simple right of way -- or not right of way, fee simple ownership, state code, as far as annexation goes, you're required to annex in adjacent rights of way, ditches, highways, railroad right of way, and things like that. Where this is a simple owned chunk of land, that's where we are a little bit vague on whether we can just do it without their consent and so it's kind of a legal question and -- maybe Chris has some input on that. Gabbert: Thank you, Bruce. Commission -- Chairman, Members of the Commission, it's my recommendation, from looking at this, since the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District had not given consent for approval, it might be stated at the staff level that they are going to, it would be my recommendation that we go ahead and have the Public Hearing tonight and, then, continue the final decision until we get the results by -- and Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2004 Page 65 of 81 that actual decision by them, so we can go ahead and take testimony and we wouldn't have to notice it, but we would actually continue the actual decision. It could be bumped to the Consent Agenda at the next meeting or whatnot. But we don't actually do the annexation until we have that notarized consent. That was the recommendation of counsel. Borup: Thank you. Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Wildwood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is Susan Wildwood. I'm an attorney. My office is in Boise. I'm here on behalf of the applicant and if I can very quickly answer some of the questions that I think are hanging out there. I had had discussion -- several discussions with John Anderson and, actually, John was trying to figure out a way that he could sign the consent and I said, well, I -- unless you're a chairman of the board, I think we are probably going to have to go to the board. He has recommended it. He's had a tentative discussion with one of the Commissioners and it looks like it's a go, but we certainly understand what your concern is, simply because it's one of the most unusual situations where we, instead of a prescriptive right, we have fee simple for both the Ridenbaugh and the Ten Mile in this area, which is -- it sort of leads me to the very brief discussion about the regional pathway. And I'm going to bounce around. I think staff did a great job of walking through what this is and I'd like to just tap on sort of the major questions and, then, if you have any other questions hanging out, then, we will get to those, if that's all right. In this location of the Ridenbaugh and the Ten Mile, this construction season the district is actually going to be constructing two electronically controlled spillways and they are adamant that there not be any sort of access across those waterworks in that location. One, it's a liability issue, but, two, more importantly, it's all the equipment that they are going to be having in that vicinity and they don't want -- it would affect all of this property here. Then, the bridge is off of the property and that's why when I went in and talked with the parks department, we debated where in the world are we going to be putting that pathway. If you look at the preliminary plat that I have down here, it's sort of -- we discuss several different items. One, because the Ten Mile actually comes in at an angle, would it be appropriate to take a pathway in part along the Ten Mile, out the common area, where, you know, I said we will be happy to do that. It didn't make a whole lot of sense. Since you're going to have the pathway coming in here along the Ten Mile, to have it come in here and, then, go back out to the property on the east and this didn't seem to make a whole lot of sense, but if that's where you ,want that pathway, we aren't going to have an objection, but it did seem more appropriate to come along the Ten Mile and, then, curve up to the east to go over to one of the bridges, which is, actually, going to be placed across the Ridenbaugh somewhat east of the property. So, we did have that discussion. We spent a lot of time talking about other alternatives, come up the Ten Mile, out through the subdivision and out. The parks department also that it might not be a good idea to try to take your recreational traffic through the subdivision, simply to come back into the pathway and go east, and so after spending probably an hour talking about every possibility we could think about, it appeared the most appropriate to go ahead -- the properties to the south and east of us will be developing along the Ten Mile and have them cut -- bring that pathway in an Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2004 Page 66 of 81 appropriate location back out to the -- out to the east, so that you would still find a way to connect, but we simply can't figure a way to get you across the Ten Mile in any of those locations. As Brad pointed out, the district also has the property in this location, they don't want anybody over there either. So, we are sort of stuck on the regional pathway, not that we would have resisted it, but it doesn't seem like we can get it in there any further than what you are looking at. With regard to the comment from the police chief, the -- on this little document I have sort of marked in the lots and I have available to you -- we tried faxing it over, but by the time you fax a fax, a fax, a fax, you end up with Amtraks, but have the chiefs signature on the letter indicating which of the lots he would agree could be developed and perhaps even occupied, plus the building permits have been issued, so we'd kind of like to have that language changed, too. But he did agree that his concerns would be allayed, because all of these lots would, in fact, front along -- and I believe it's south Bradcliff and there would be a cul-de-sac access on either end that would have to be constructed in any event, so those lots would come in and they would have visual access along the backs of those lots, it wouldn't be a situation where you would have all of these lots hidden back in and you couldn't see what was going on with a single entrance. So, that was the background of that discussion with the chief. Moe: Has that been submitted? Wildwood: I was going to submit the almost readable one that I have. So, that would take care of the issue sort of on the regional pathway and the issue of the police chief. With regard to -- there is one correction I would like to make in the staff report and I am not really sure how we all missed it, but there is, actually, a statement on page -- page 11, item number eight, any portion of the flag lot for Lots 12 and 15, Block 3, beyond the 16 foot wide driveway surface, shall be landscaped, but I think that might have accidentally made its way in from another staff report, because the only two flag lots we have are actually down here. There aren't any other flag lots on here. So, that does need to be stricken from the staff report, because we have never had any flag lots in that area. With regard to the sewer sanitary access, as Mr. Freckleton has pointed out, we have agreed not to violate the sewer boundary. Mr. Bailey, the engineer, is here and he's available to answer any of the questions on the sewer of -- together with the issue as to whether or not what the discussions have been with the developer up in Tuscany. The initial discussions are -- will give you -- when you -- when you are ready to connect, we will give you the easement coming through. They have started doing the work up here, but it's going to be awhile before we are ready to go in and do this development here. As you can tell from the discussion, we've got some fairly complex things going on here, the issue of where the sewer is coming in versus this boundary on this side, you have the request from the fire department not to have more than 50 lots developed, so you have sewer coming in this direction, we have -- we want to be sure that we have the annexation of the Ten Mile, because, otherwise, then, we would annex a piece of ground we couldn't get sewer too and we couldn't annex a piece of ground we could get sewer to. So, all of those pieces we are trying to work together and bring them to fruition at the same time. The common areas that we have here, I provided a packet for you, so if I could just leap ahead a little bit, there wasn't much discussion by a a Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2004 Page 67 of 81 Brad. The common areas that we have here, there are photography of the types of amenities that we will be having in here. You will see a basketball court. This will be available for lacrosse, soccer -- there isn't going to be an organized field, but it would be available for those kinds of games. We would be meeting the fencing requirements. This gives you asample -- the middle recreation area where they have this sort of amenity, this would be -- this recreation area, basically, in phase two, pool, a little clubhouse, tot lot, and, then, the area on the east side would have available a gazebo type area and those photographs are in your packet with a listing of the various kinds of amenities that we are proposing in that particular location. With regard to the secondary access, if you look at the plat, we have the connection here on South Netman, either this connection to the south or this connection to the south would be going in in order to do the full development of the project. We have this section of this property here under contract, so we will be working on that, that will be coming into you at some point, but that will be a connected access in order alleviate the concern of the fire department. So, we will be picking up the fire department access question going down to Amity and it's going to be roughly -- it's this piece of property, but we would be connecting down to Amity, so that we can provide the secondary access that the fire department is looking at. We, obviously, will not be able to connect to the east until the property to the east develops. And, again, that's the area where we were talking about the regional pathway. The -- we had submitted a letter indicating our concurrence or responses to any of the concerns that the staff had and we are right sort of down to the questions that staff had. Staff had recommended approval with resolution of the hundred-year flood plain. That is shown probably a little bit easier on the gray map. Mr. Bailey is going to address that, the studies that have been done, and, then, the discussions with Nampa- Meridian. That's shown roughly on the preliminary plat. And the -- we talked about the frontage setbacks and access for Lot 13, Block 5. Brad discussed that. You can see a little bit better on the larger map where the new common area will be, showing the access going toward the front of the house, then, Mr. Bailey is going to be discussing the hundred year flood plain, as well as the sanitary service lines. If I could direct your attention -- excuse me. I need your head just a little bit out of the way. I didn't want to laser you. I apologize. Okay. Sneak up on that puppy. Okay. The subject property is in green, it's a little bit hard to see in this section of the map. Mr. -- Brad talked about the fact that there is this small section that is down in the R-4, rather than in the R-8, but there is a significant amount of development that, actually, has occurred in county development outside of that impact area. So, while this would be probably the farthest south, there is a significant amount of development that's already out in that area and the -- with the development of Tuscany and the sewer coming -- the plan bringing it down along the Ten Mile, you will be seeing more applications coming in. There was a comment about -- the question as to whether or not this constitutes urban sprawl or are you actually developing the way that you're intending to do. Keeping in mind that you have done your sewer studies, indicating that the sewer connection will be coming down the Ten Mile, as well as down Locust Grove, you have filled in this area here. Tuscany is filled in. This piece of ground is undeveloped, but as far as we can tell nobody has been successful in convincing the owners of that land to even consider any sort of development. Most likely you will be seeing, with the extension of sewer, the reasonable development headed south in an organized direction. It is within your Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2004 Page 68 of 81 Comprehensive Plan. It does follow along with moving outward from the center, while you have this section of land, which belongs to the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District, the rest of the properties are filling in in a reasonable, orderly manner coming out from the city services and we think that this does fall in with the correct accommodation. I apologize; we all missed the section of ground here that's in the R-4. Otherwise, you would have seen the request for the R-8. And I'm not exactly sure -- tonight was the first night we heard about it after the reading the letter of protest. So, that does need a resolution. I can tell you that Mr. Gray is here and he would be testifying and he is -- they had some brief discussions outside. He was requesting that these eight lots be reduced to five. Now, his property is -- let me make sure I have got the correct piece of ground here. This is kind of difficult. This is Mr. Gray's property; is that right, Mr. Gray? This piece right there. Right there. And his -- his house and shop are located here. His shop is between his residence and the edge of the property. He had requested that this be reduced to five properties, five lots in this area. Now, the way it's planned, there would be exactly five lots immediately adjacent to him anyway. There would be three other lots that are closer into the roads. So, his request -- and I'm sure that he will discuss this with you -- we would already be having five lots at his boundary, so that would actually match that part of his -- what I think he's going to testify to. He also requested a solid vinyl fence along this area. We are completely happy to do that. We would even suggest putting it on perhaps a one or two foot berm, so that what he would have is a higher fence. The other thing is is the residence on this lot closest to the street is a single story house. We would even -- actually be wilting to restrict Lots 5 and 6 to single height dwellings, no two story dwellings, so that there would be three single story dwellings. His house actually faces, if I recall correctly from the aerial photo -- and I have it for you if you would like to see it -- his residence appears to face east and west. So, we think that that would do everything to buffer any of the concerns that he has. With that, Mr. Chairman, I would stand for any questions. We do have -- Mr. Nickel will be talking to you about the Comprehensive Plan. Dave Bailey is here to answer all your engineering questions. I'm a lawyer; they don't let me do any of those numbers and any of that engineering stuff. I have got lots of ideas about it, but it doesn't mean I can get you those kinds of answers. So, with that, sir, I would be happy to answer any of your questions. Thank you. Moe: One question I guess I would ask. You're saying the lots that are on the far south, the three to the west would be single level, but the other two you would anticipate could be two story; is that what you're telling me? Wildwood: Yes. This -- let's see. Oh, that's not me. I'm going, oh, dear has -- this particular lot -- they would have to be building closer to the street, so a two story house in that location is not going to impact a view. It would be significantly farther away from here. Again, the same thing would be true on these houses. This is -- I think that this is the property line. Let me see if that's correct. Let me guess. So, the property line -- his property line is right here. And, again, his house and shop -- if I may just step over and turn the aerial photograph around, maybe that would help. I will even hold it up. I will play Vanna White here. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2004 Page 69 of 81 Moe: I wouldn't be able to see it if you didn't. Wildwood: I'm going to bring it over. I'm going to bring it over, but I have to do it at the microphone or I will get in trouble for not making a record. Mr. Gabbert is going that's right. Okay. This is that south boundary. Please -- this is an old old old design, but this is the aerial photograph that we had. Here is Mr. Gray's shop. Here is his residence. And this is the visual line. So, let me bring that over to you. And I am happy to report that is not our current design. In fact, the hidden map may give you a better idea. I hadn't realized that on that particular map it would show his property in relationship to those other lots. Moe: Thank you. Wildwood: If there is no other questions, thank you very much, gentlemen. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Bailey: Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. I'm David Bailey with Bailey Engineering. My office address is 1500 Iron Eagle in Eagle. And I will talk real quickly about two of the issues that Susan -- I think must have fooled her and convinced her I know something about and so I'll tell you what I do know about them and -- Borup: Okay. Before you start I might just mention, this may be a good test of our new guidelines. You have got 77 seconds left. But we thought to be fair that since the time was already -- most of the time was used up, should allow you the same three minutes anybody else would have, so -- Bailey: All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very quick, then. On the hundred- year flood plain, it is shown on the map there. That's a zone A, which means that there have been no base flood elevations determined for that, which means there is no detailed study in effect. When the detailed study was done to the north, you can see how narrow it gets there and Paul Koonz of Koonz Engineering did the study for the Tuscany Subdivision to the north, we have retained him to work on the study, I don't have any results from him yet, because he gets backed up, because he's so good at what he does, he gets lots of work. So, we have got him working on that and I'm hoping that we are going to have some results here probably within about a month. So, hopefully, that's before we get to the City Council meeting that we will have the results from him. And the outcome of that, I couldn't predict what it is, that's why we hire engineers to do it, so they can do the calculations, but I'm suspecting that we are going to find that either the culvert, which is at the northwest end of this, which is, actually, an 84 inch culvert -- I was out there today walking around and measuring that, as opposed to a 60 inch -- either that culvert there is an issue that's causing this backup of the water or it's -- or the actual -- with a detailed study, can be shown to be within the area there. We don't want to build houses in the flood plain. While it's technically feasible to do that, we don't want to do that, and the developer doesn't want to do it and so we are going to correct the map, basically, and if we have to do modifications to the ground to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2004 Page 70 of 81 correct the map, we will do that. Or if the study shows that it's contained within that channel, then, we would have the map corrected based on that. So, that's our intent to - - as we move forward here. The second issue is to the sanitary sewer and we don't have any problem -- we do need to bring the sewer line down Locust Grove from the southwest corner of Tuscany Lakes, I think it's called, on the east side of the road, about 1,500 feet to the entrance of this project here and bore underneath the canal. That's the sewer and water we are going to be bringing down Locust Grove there. I kind of shutter when I think we are bringing that all the way down and we are only going to serve 50 lots off of it, because it's going to be quite a lopsided construction project to get that there, but I think we can probably work on a latecomers agreement with the city for the portion that's not in front of our property. Secondly, I met with Kent Brown of Briggs Engineering, so I haven't had any discussions with Greg Johnson at all directly, but I did meet for awhile with Kent Brown and he told me of their plans for Tuscany and somewhat -- I hope I'm not giving anything away that he didn't want me to. He didn't tell me not to -- of the plans for the property to east of this, okay, and so we have talked about what we can do there and we told him that we had probably made some deals with the parks department on the way the pathway would go and he wasn't jumping up and down and screaming, at least, you know, when we told him that. Borup: Thank you. That was your time. Bailey: That is my time? Borup: Yeah. Any questions from Commission? Moe: I just want to make sure that I'm clear in regard to the easement from Tuscany Lakes. Have you had discussions with them in regards to getting that easement? Bailey: Commissioner Moe, we have had -- I had a general discussion with Ken Brown, who represents him with Briggs Engineering, and even if we don't get the easement, they have promised to bring the sewer to the end of that phase and we would have to wait until that phase was built to get it, if we couldn't get the easements, but in our discussions it appeared that we could get the easement to bring that down. Moe: Okay. Zaremba: I would like to ask a flood plain question. Back to your subject one. If your engineer determined that the flood plain was fairly similar to the way it's depicted, your solution would be to provide fill, so that you brought those properties up above the flood plain line? Bailey: Commissioner Zaremba, there is, actually -- there is, actually, three potential solutions of actual work to be done on site to fix that. One would be to -- to replace this culvert with a larger culvert and that would allow the water to flow through, instead of backing up in this area. The second would be to widen the channel in this area and provide that storage volume within that 110 or 112 foot wide area there. And so the U Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2004 Page 71 of 81 third solution may be to do fill in this area to raise it up above that area. We still have to provide that volume of storage for that water or move it downstream. One of the two has to be done. So, just filling these lots may not solve our problem, it might cause a worse problem upstream, although that may be part of the solution. Zaremba: So, my next question while you're still there, though, would be to staff. One of the concerns was that solution that would be made to the problem here would push the problem upstream or downstream. Is that still a concern? The solution that he is -- solution choices that he's suggested? Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner, it is a concern in terms of pushing aflood -- potential flood problem further upstream or downstream, yes. But I think the question remains up in the air at this point, since we don't have the study back, and I mean that's why I put that as one of the main outstanding issues tonight and if you don't feel comfortable moving it on, then, that's your prerogative, but -- Zaremba: Then, back to Mr. Bailey. Would your engineer, when he's doing the study that he's going to do for you, in analyzing probably those three options, also address the issue of moving the problem somewhere else? Bailey: He would. Absolutely. That's part of what you do in a study is you got to store the volume, move the water, and not increase the problem downstream or upstream, for that matter. Zaremba: Okay. Bailey: We can't create a worse problem anywhere else, we have got to work within the constraints of what we have. Zaremba: So, we would learn about an answer to that question at some point? Bailey: We will learn an answer to question at some point. Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you. Bailey: And thank you for the extra time. Borup: Okay. Mr. Nickel, did you want three minutes, too? Nickel: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. I will be very brief. Shawn Nickel, 52 North 2nd Street in Eagle. Regarding the Comprehensive Plan -- and staff did state that the majority of the property is within the medium density residential designation. It is true that we do have that small portion that lies within that low density. It's always been my understanding of the review of comprehensive plans that, you know, while they Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2004 Page 72 of 81 do designate certain areas, they aren't necessarily site specific, and so I think that the fact that this is a 1.8 acre parcel that we are trying to develop that's outside of that designation, it's not like we are asking for like this whole piece right here to be considered -- well, it's close enough where it touches the boundary, let's include that in the medium density. We are only talking about this small 1.8-acre area. If you average out the lot sizes that we have there, they come out to 8,668 square feet each, which would be in line with the R-4 -- an R-4 zone, if we were to rezone that property. The overall density is 4.4 dwelling units per acre in that 1.8-acre area. So, I just wanted to point that out as a point of clarification. I think that it's appropriate what we are asking for. I will leave that to your staff to make that determination or advise you on that. Other than that, your Comprehensive Plan does call for proper transitioning. I believe we have done that with those five lots that are immediately adjacent to that -- to the gentlemen who is probably going to get up next and talk about that. So, with that I will stand for any questions you may have on those specific issues. Borup: Questions? Zaremba: While you are there, I would ask staff a question, actually, on the Comprehensive Plan subject. Is this request for R-8 within the one step up or step down from the Comprehensive Plan designation that would be allowed? The Comprehensive Plan establishes what we would like to see in an area, but, then, allows a step up or step down. Is the R-8 within that? Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner, it is. Zaremba: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: The R-8 is within the one step. Zaremba: So, in fact, it would comply with the Comprehensive Plan? Hawkins-Clark: Right. I mean, you know, that is -- I guess it is an issue for discussion. I mean our goal is not to see every parcel that's designated low density to automatically be bumped up to medium. I think that would defeat the purpose of diverse housing sizes and lot sizes, but -- but the opportunity to request that bump is there and I think the purpose that we need look at -- the goal we need to look at is the compatibility being accommodated through the plat, because as Shawn pointed out, the density is -- is technically there. I mean it meets -- it meets the low density, so -- Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Okay. This is the time for public testimony. Do we have anyone who would like to testify on this application? Gray: My name is Mike Gray. I live at 4460 South Locust Grove Road, the property that has been discussed here the past ten or fifteen minutes. I also have left you guys - Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2004 Page 73 of 81 - excuse me -- the Commission a copy of a revised letter that was -- that has a September 2nd date on it, that supercedes the one that we had written on September 1st, as a result of looking at the revised preliminary plat that I saw at the Planning and Zoning office yesterday. I would like to correct one statement that was made relative to R-4 zoning. In the tow density residential, the Comprehensive Plan identifies an R-3 or less, not an R-4, and in this particular case we have two noncompliance issues relative to the Comprehensive Plan. The first of which is that the area that was in question that has been discussed lately, that area is within the low-density designation in the area use map. The low density -- that low-density definition means R-3 or less. And they have eight houses -- eight lots in there currently and I suggest to the Commission that that number of lots be reduced to five to bring it in line with the R-3 density. And the second point is that the Comprehensive Plan also establishes a requirement for screening and landscape buffers for developments more intense than the adjacent residential properties and I think you can all agree that the subdivision that's proposed is more intense than an RUT subdivision with two lots, each lot being almost six acres in size. As a result of that, that means to me that there should be an adequate buffer built between the Bellingham Park Subdivision and the Terrier Subdivision, and in my mind reducing the number of lots from eight to five is integral in obtaining that buffer, because it allows those homes to be built off the property line in an adequate space to provide some buffer. So, I request that -- that there be a solid six foot fence -- six foot fence built along the property line on Terrier -- on the northern boundary of Terrier Subdivision, limit the homes in those five acres to one story in size, and increase the setback and make it consistent with the existing home that they are intending to leave in that Bellingham Park Subdivision. There was also a comment made in the staff report relative to compatibility of zones within the area and in that report they said the R-8 was compatible, but they cited other R-8 subdivisions in that and the R-8 subdivisions that were cited are a quarter mile north and on the west side of Locust Grove Road and totally disjointed from this particular subdivision. The adjacent subdivisions to the north, which is Tuscany Lakes, is an R-4 and all of the land to the south is an R-3 or low density housing. So, an R-4 zone would be more appropriate. Borup: Okay. That did conclude your time. Unless there any questions from any of the Commissioners. Zaremba: I do have one question. Would you describe the Terrier Subdivision for me? Is that -- Gray: The Terrier Subdivision is a two lot RUT subdivision. Zaremba: What size are the lots? Gray: They are about 5.85 acres apiece. Zaremba: Each? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2004 Page 74 of 81 Gray: I would like to make one other comment and you guys have my recommendations in my write-up, but this is in regards to the posting of this Public Hearing. And realize that the developers had the sign posted in the appropriate amount of time and I included some pictures in there. It was posted on the 20th of August, I believe. On the 23rd of August the sign was down and laying in the weeds and I took that picture that you see in that attachment there a week later, which was this Monday, and -- which means it was down for seven days. So, that sign was, actually, only visible to the public for five days prior to this Public Hearing. I think the ordinance that requires that sign be posted should be modified to also include maintenance of those signs, so that this doesn't occur as in this subdivision and also at the Chatworths Subdivision, in which the sign wasn't even visible -- and I drive up and down that road all the time -- until the day after the Public Hearing for Chatsworth. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Wolfe: My name is Jason Wolfe. I live at 4646 South Locust Grove. I'm the property just south of Mr. Gray's. In looking at the proposed development and the R-4 development immediately north of that, it seems that the R-8 zoning doesn't appear to be necessary in this area. The density that they have, as they have already stated, is, generally, within the R-4 standards. I think that that is -- is adequate. I think that it better meets the surrounding areas. I think putting an R-8 density zone there sets a dangerous precedent for future development, especially that contract land that they have there that's in the low density area. My guess is that when that gets developed you will see more R-8 development out there. As an engineer, the numbers that I'm seeing here have me concerned. The flood plain, that storm -- hundred-year storm flood plain area, there is ways to correct it, but it's really tough to do. You can't just widen the channel, because the flow is a relationship between area and speed. If you make it more wider, you will just make it slower, it doesn't change the height of the flow at all and it's not going to make a difference. You're going to have to do some type of fill. It's the same thing with the culvert at the end of it. You make the culvert bigger, it's just like a stream moving into a lake, essentially, because that -- the Ridenbaugh Canal is more massive. So, that you can make a bigger culvert. However, it's not going to make a huge difference to what's shown there. As a homeowner in the area -- I am needing water. I'm concerned about traffic. I saw the traffic study that was published by ACHD. It says that there is approximately 1,100 more vehicles anticipated due to this development. That's 164 lots. What it doesn't take into consideration is the other six developments in the area, with approximately 1,000 lots coming in. Using a similar multiplier, that is an increase of approximately 9,000 to 10,000 vehicles per day in that area. The infrastructure cannot handle that load. It's a dramatic increase and I don't think that it adheres to the Comprehensive Planning in that area. I am thoroughly opposed to zoning that as an R-8. I feel there is some pretty good arguments for it. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Wolfe: If there is any questions? i • Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission September 2, 2004 Page 75 of 81 Borup: Questions from the Commission? Thank you, Mr. Wolfe. Do we have anyone else to testify? Come forward. Dalton: I'm Sheri Dalton, I own the property at 2180 Amity, which is directly south of the eastern boundary of the subdivision here. Let's see. Be right there. I have a question to the Planning and Zoning Commission and to the staff as to why there is a midline separation between zonings and why doesn't it fall down to Amity Road. At one time the -- it was only changed about two years ago, I guess. My question is why is -- Borup: That's not a zone. Dalton: -- why is it in that location? ' Borup: Yeah. It's in the Comprehensive Plan and that's just --aline had to be drawn somewhere, I guess, is part of it. And that was what came out of the recommendations from the committees working on the Comprehensive Plan. Dalton: Okay. Because as a potential developer myself, I'm questioning why there is a line that doesn't meet -- you know, it's at a mid section, as opposed to an actual section which would follow Amity Road. Borup: Did you put different input in than that at the meetings? Dalton: No. Borup: Okay. Dalton: But that's my question. Borup: That may be part of it. There was no input from anybody in that area. Dalton: Maybe I wasn't notified. Borup: No. It was -- it went on for two years. Dalton: Okay. Anyway, that's my only question, is, you know, you're talking about variances, you're talking about changes, we are talking about one and a half acre parcel here that's falling into a no-man's land, I'm just questioning how the zoning was done the way it was. It's kind of a midline. Borup: So, you would be in favor of the medium density designation to go clear to Amity you're saying? Dalton: Of the higher zoning. Yeah. That's all. • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2004 Page 76 of 81 Borup: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Zaremba: I would ask a question of staff or either other Commissioners. I knew at one time where the end of our area of impact is as we go south and I have forgotten where it is. If you know, can you refresh my memory? I know our zip code goes all the way down to Hubbard, which is like three miles farther south than this, but I don't think that's where the area of impact is. Hawkins-Clark: It's a quarter mile south of Amity. Zaremba: That's the end of our current impact zone? Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: That is correct right there. That map is the area of impact. Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Borup: Okay. I guess -- are we ready for final comments? Wildwood: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, again, Members of the Commission, my name is Susan Wildwood, I'm here on behalf of the applicant. I think this map is kind of -- actually, kind of telling and I am appreciative that it's up there. You will notice that it isn't exactly a straight across line as far as the R-4, R-8 differential. You will see that you have got some R-8 over here, you have got some over here, looking at the various properties, it isn't just as simple to say that the whole area is R-8 or R-4. In looking at this particular project, keeping in mind, again, the cost to extend the infrastructure. When you start pulling -- drilling under the Ridenbaugh or when you start looking at those kinds of requirements to bring the sewer in in accordance with the sewer plant, south in these areas, the somewhat higher density again supports the extension of infrastructure and, although, I know that there has been some criticism leveled at Meridian for the density of what it's looking at, I am going to make a pitch for farmland. And you notice that the city of Boise -- I don't know how familiar you are with the insistence on -- in Boise, but I can tell you what's happening in the north end, because of the cost of infrastructure is so extraordinary, they are looking at every way they possibly can to maximize the land and when you look at this particular project, it brings in a significant number amenities, eleven percent of this is usable open space common area, with a lot of amenities. The density herein supports the extension of city services. It is within the R-8 zone. I know we have a little bump down below, but it is within the step up, step down, 3.85 is the gross density on the project. And it is a good solid Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2004 Page 77 of 81 project coming in. There is some larger lots down through the 6,500 square foot lots. I know that we do have the issues that are outstanding as far as bringing that piece of paper into you from Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. It is like, oh, man, that meeting is a week too late, but we will have that for you. I'm pretty confident. You do have the issues that are outstanding on the flood plain. Again, a bit of a scramble there. We don't have that information for you yet, but I would ask your careful consideration of this and I am sure that you're looking for confidence in any decision that you make and that you feel like you want to have a sufficient amount of information to make whatever recommendation it is to the City Council. We appreciate your time and appreciate working with staff. This is not exactly one of those cookie-cutter subdivisions trying to work around the roads, the amazing canal system out there. So, thank you, again, for your time and attention and I would stand for any questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Borup: Questions, Commissioners? Wildwood: Thank you, sir. Borup: Final comment? Any comments from staff? Zaremba: While staff is thinking, I would ask staff a question. Apparently, the ACHD commission acted on the preliminary plat for this application yesterday. Have we gotten any updated information from them yet? Hawkins-Clark: I'm sorry. From whom? Zaremba: ACHD. Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner, the Ada County Highway District commission yesterday at their noon meeting did approve the revised plat that was shown on the slide tonight. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Borup: Okay. I know I said earlier that the issue of annexing the Nampa-Meridian property, I would be satisfied to move it forward, as long as that was settled before the City Council Public Hearing, but I am changing my opinion on that. I have -- as always, the City Council wants us to solve problems before they get there and I, actually, now that there are two problems in my thinking, one is the flood plain and one is the ownership of that strip. My inclination is to continue this hearing until those are resolved, but it sounds like the flood plain issue is at least a month from now. That certainly would be long enough to get the Nampa-Meridian issue resolved. Apparently, ACHD issues are resolved. But that's my current thinking. Any support or objection? Moe: I, actually, would agree and at the same time I would anticipate at that point we probably have something as far as an agreement in the easement from Tuscany Lakes as well. So, take care of that issue as well. • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2004 Page 78 of 81 Zaremba: Dealing with the sanitary sewer -- Moe: That's correct. Zaremba: -- boundary issues. I agree with that. Rohm: I think that's as big of an issue as any of the other two. Zaremba: I'm satisfied that the regional pathway is going to be off of this property, no matter what happens, so that really isn't an issue. That resolution is it's not going to go through this property no matter what, so -- that one seems to be resolved to me. Borup: Other than the discussion that it will go through, basically, a corner of it. Zaremba: Whether or not it would go through a corner it? I tend to agree that it doesn't need to do that little two sides of the triangle to get back off of this property again. Unfortunately, that would put the whole burden on whoever the development to the east is to provide that whole pathway. They may do it along public roadways as well. But it may be a case of just asking for a wider sidewalk along the section that's going to connect to an eventual bridge on the north end of those properties. Rohm: Before we move to continue, I would like to have some input from the applicant as to dates specific that they feel comfortable that they could have these issues resolved. It appears that the earliest would be October 7th. Zaremba: In support of what you're saying, it would sound to me that the earliest that they could provide the information would be October 7th. I would like to leave a little time for staff to analyze it after that. Rohm: Well, good point. And just looking at the calendar and so maybe from our side of it, the preferred day would be the 21st. Zaremba: Of October? Rohm: Of October. But I also want their input on this as well. Moe: I would agree on that, too. The 21st. Wildwood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. After some kibitzing in the back trying to figure out when Mr. Koontz is going to be available. We have no promises, but I think it may be a good idea however, so that we don't get into a notice difficulty is to come back on a date certain. We will have information back into staff and if we can meet that 21st date, having information in early, and, then, giving staff some time, so what I can do if we can have a date certain, so that you don't to have go through the expense the trouble of re- noticing and, then, we can re-notice -- • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2004 Page 79 of 81 Borup: That was our intention. Wildwood: And, then, we can come back with a status report. We have gotten -- and by that time we will know how we are in the study, are we done, do we have the report, et cetera, if we need a second continuance, simply so that staff has a chance to digest it, we can do that. Rohm: Yeah. I think that we have to continue to a date specific and, then, if, in fact, you're not ready we can continue it once again. Wildwood: Yes. Thank you, sir. Zaremba: Well -- and I would include in that readiness that staff should have the three - - the answers to the three outstanding issues ten days before that hearing. Rohm: Exactly. Zaremba: Are you on the motion? Rohm: No. No. I am not. Gabbert: Chairman, Members of the Commission -- Keith, over here. Borup: Oh. How are you doing? Gabbert: I have a quick question for staff, if it's all right. Brad, there has been a lot of talk tonight about -- as opposed to doing R-8, people doing an R-4 and getting a variance for some of these sizes and just in my time here I haven't seen a whole lot of that processing go, the R-4 with a variance, as opposed to an R-8. Could you clarify what the -- just tell me a little bit what the difference in the procedure is -- or why is it that much more difficult to do an R-4 with a variance and that you just go with the straight R-8, even though you're meeting the requirements. Hawkins-Clark: Sure. The difference is that the variance is not an eligible option for reducing the lot sizes or frontages. I mean they really need to use the Planned Development Process in order to accomplish that, so if an applicant chooses to develop with an R-4 and they just draw a plat without a development and they need 80-foot frontages, 8,000 square foot lots. If they do an R-8 they need 63-foot frontages or 6,500 square foot lots. If they do a planned development, then, that gives them some flexibility, but the variance, really, is not the appropriate mechanism. Borup: Yeah. I may have given you the wrong impression. The ones we have seen have all been through planned unit developments. • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2004 Page 80 of 81 Zaremba: Well -- and I would add to that that when I first came on this Commission we saw a few that apparently were planned developments, R-8 with request for exceptions on the lot sizes, and I vocally expressed my displeasure at chipping away at the R-4 zone in that manner and ask the question of several developers why are you afraid to ask for an R-4 -- I mean, excuse me, an R-8. You ask for an R-4 and all these changes, why not just ask for an R-8 and I think a lot of them heard that and are responding to the fact that I expressed a discomfort with chipping away at R-4 in that manner. Gabbert: Yeah. Thank you. I just wanted a little clarification on that. Rohm: In this particular case, this five acres that's within the low density is -- Zaremba: 1.9, isn't it? Rohm: Oh. Excuse me. 1.9. Is in support of what legal counsel is speaking to, though. Let's go the other direction, but I can sure see what you're saying, too, Dave. Zaremba: Well -- and maybe that's an issue that still needs to be resolved. Have we had the motion on a continuance yet? We haven't. What -- whether or not we want to ask that that 1.9 acres be an R-4, I mean we have subdivisions where the whole subdivision isn't the same zoning. Rohm: Do all those lots comply with R-4? Borup: No. Zaremba: No. Borup: He was talking about the -- if you took an average -- the square footage was over 8,000 feet on an average, but the lot sizes -- Rohm: There are some that are less than 8,000. Borup: Yeah. There is three of them that are over ten and there is several that are under seven, so -- Rohm: It's probably better to leave it just as it is, then. Borup: And I agree with Commissioner Zaremba. All the noncompliance issues -- but I do like the single zoning, especially if there is some diversity in the lot sizes and that's something I have felt for a long time. You know, a whole subdivision full of 8,000 square foot lots is not near as attractive as something that's got some tens and some sevens. Okay. Are we ready for a motion? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue the public hearings for AZ 04-020 and PP 04-027, for resolution of the items that are actually specified in the staff report. • • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2004 Page 81 of 81 I'm sorry. Continue it to the date of October 21st, our regular planned hearing on October 21st, with the understanding that the necessary information will be to staff by ten days before that. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Borup: You continued both hearings? Rohm: Yes. Borup: All right. Thank you. That concludes our Planning and Zoning meeting for this evening. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn. Zaremba: Second. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second to adjourn. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. THREE AYES. Borup: Meeting adjourned at 11:50. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:50 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED KEITH BORUP -CHAIRMAN ~ ~ DATE APPROVED ATTEST: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR, CITY CLERK