Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 6, 2003Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 35 of 94 Zaremba: In that case I will make a stab at it. Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of CUP 03- 002, request for a Conditional Use Permit for an additional public school classroom building in an I-L zone for Meridian Academy by LItV Architects, 2311 East Lanark Street, to include all staff comments, with the following changes: On page four, site specific requirements, paragraph one, the proposed use requires -- change that to 110 parking spaces. That only 97 spaces are provided. Strike the rest of the sentence. We recommend that the applicant ask for a variance for the difference when presenting this to the City Council. Paragraph two. Landscaping. The second sentence: Trees should be placed every 33 feet -- 35 feet -- excuse me -- 35 feet along the eastern perimeter, not western. And that's it. Rohm: I will second that. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 10: Public Hearing: AZ 03-003 Request for annexation and zoning of 14.31 Acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Timberfalls Subdivision by Dan Wood -south of East Ustick Road and west of NorthLocust Grove Road: Item 11: Public Hearing: PP 03-002 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 50 Building lots and 6 other lots on 14.31 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Proposed Timberfalls Subdivision by Dan Wood -south of East Ustick Road and west of North Locust Grove Road: Borup: Next project, Public Hearing AZ 03-003, request for annexation and zoning of 14.31 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Timberfalls Subdivision by Dan Wood. This is south of East Ustick Road and west of North Locust Grove Road. And accompanying that is Public Hearing PP 03-002, request for preliminary plat approval of 50 building lots and six other lots on 14.31 acres. Same applicant and project. Like to open both of these public hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The subject property is on the south side of Ustick Road about halfway between Meridian Road and Locust Grove, surrounded by existing subdivisions on three sides, the Bedford Place, Granite Creek. The aerial photos, as you can see here, you see all the existing lots and homes built around it and this has been a -- just farmland. They are requesting annexation and zoning to R-8. I do believe all of the surrounding residential subdivisions are also the R-8 zone. The plat on the 14 acres includes 50 building lots and six other Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 36 of 94 lots. The lots vary in size from 6,500 square feet, which is the minimum for the zone, to 15,000 square feet. There is a large centrally located open space in the center that would be a -provide the open space requirement for the lot for the subdivision. They are requesting a reduction through the alternative compliance provisions of the landscape o rdinance t o a Ilow t he I andscape b uffer a long U stick R oad t o be reduced from the 25 feet required by ordinance to 20 feet, which I believe matches the landscape buffers that are provided by the adjacent subdivisions. They have spoken with Brad Hawkins-Clark, the interim planning director, and he has agreed with them on that reduction. The staff report from David, Sonya, and Bruce you should have and if you go to page six you will see the additional considerations that need resolution. On the-first one, simply a block length issue. Block one, which is here, is less than our minimum block length, which is 300 feet, and requires a variance. Block 2 is, then, longer than the 1,000 foot maximum, so we have one --one too small, one too large for the ordinance. But we would just ask that they would submit a variance application for the block length. I might interject here that we have so many of these variance and -- vai•iances on block length around the perimeter, that we are taking a look at revising that ordinance, but until that happens we need to stay consistent with these variances. But that is something that we are looking at. Both those block length issues can be combined into a single application. Item two is the landscape plan. Apparently, there were s ome revisions t o t he c entral b lock t hat tweaked t he s hape a nd t he I andscape plan doesn't yet reflect that. Apparently, it's not too major and it simply states that we like the revised landscape plan submitted with the final plat application, which would be required anyway. It also mentioned in there the support for the reduction of the landscape buffer along Ustick Road. Those are fairly easy to overcome. The next two are the more difficult ones. The Onweiller Lateral courses along the south portion of this property and has a 35-foot wide easement for maintenance along it. That lateral is already piped, as I understand it, but there is a maintenance road that runs along it as well. Currently, as shown on the plat, the lots go all the way to the edge of the property line and do not stop short of that easement or the maintenance road. We don't believe that the easement should be considered part of the lots, since -- especially the portion that the maintenance road is on. We understand that the applicant is in negotiations with Nampa-Meridian to obtain a license agreement to allow 20 feet plus or minus. I understand that it varies a little bit, to encroach into the easement, but only far enough that it doesn't interfere with the maintenance road. If the applicant is able to obtain that license agreement, then, the plat needs to be modified to place those lot lines at their proper location and place the maintenance road in a common lot behind them. If they are not able to get the license agreement, then, there would be 35 foot wide common lot behind them. But I've had indication from the applicant that they feel pretty confident they will at least be able to encroach part way. Thus, the plat -- they need to get that license agreement and, then, revise the plat accordingly, and we would recommend that the' modification to the plat happen before this goes to Council. Item number four is similar. There is a waterway adjacent to the west side of the property that shows a 15 foot wide easement and we also have a question about the -- whether that is able to be encroached on or not. Currently, they encroach with the lot lines right up to the property line and, again, we need to have the applicant address the encroachability of that -- of that easement and if it's not encroachable, we will need that one in a common lot as Meridian Planning 8 Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 37 of 94 well. Item five deals with access into the central open space a nd micropaths. The ordinance as written deals with requirements for micropaths if they are provided. Staff would -- currently there are these connections in, but they are all grass and I believe there are also some stormwater swales that skirt around the outside edge of that open space lot. We would like to see some micropaths built to provide access into there on a hard surface, although I can't say definitively that the ordinance would require them. So that's kind of an additional consideration, should there be or should there not be actual micropaths. If there are, then, it comes with requirements for fencing height, which we would recommend be placed as a condition on -- around the open space anyway, so that you can have the visibility from the adjacent lots into the open space and is less likely to become a problem area for them. If you do decide to require micropaths, it would need to be included as a requirement of the annexation. Item six is the fencing adjacent to the open space lot and I already described that. So, those are the significant issues. We do feel that in general the subdivision is a good one. It's harmonious with the surrounding neighborhoods, it's in similar character, and -- but we just need to get these modifications made and corrected before approving it and, with that, I will stand for any questions. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Steve, on the recommendation on the pathway, you're just recommending access into the park just from -- the pathway would just be the length of the lots? Siddoway: Yes. I believe we specified in the report the -- it's site specific comment number nine on page nine, construct hard surface pathways a minimum of one lot in depth leading into the open space common lot in the following locations and, then, specify the lots and blocks. Borup: Thank you. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Nickel: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Commission, my name is Shawn Nickel, I'm with Land Consultants, Incorporated, 52 North 2nd Street in Eagle. As staff stated, we are asking for an annexation request with zoning from R-1 to R-8. Our proposed density is 3.42 dwelling units per acre. One point of clarification. I hope you have my revised plat in front you. I even wrote revised in red on the front there. Borup: Yes. Nickel: Good. The reason for the revision is when we were working both ACHD and Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District on establishing easements and right of way, we were required to revise our application and that's what that revision that you have in front of you is. We, actually, are down by one lot. We are down to 49 buildable lots, instead of 50, and five common lots. Those lots range in size from 6,500 to -- Centers: Five common? Nickel: Five. I believe five. Meridian Planning 8 Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 36 of 94 Centers: You have six. Nickel: Yeah. Five. Centers: So you lost iwo. Nickel: Two total lots. Right. One buildable. So that did drop us down just slightly, 6,500 to 15,000 square foot lot sizes within the development. Our total open space is 1.43 acres, which is ten percent of the total site of that. The park is 1.06 acres, which is 7.5 percent. So, we do have -- a good chunk of that is usable open space. This does meet the intent of your Comprehensive Plan that was adopted in 2002 for the medium density, three to eight dwelling units per acre, which we would consider an in-fill, because as you saw on that original map, that original map up there is surrounded on three sides. Because it was surrounded, we did have three existing stub streets that we had to put into our design. That's the main reason for the block length issues and I do have those variances that will be submitted tomorrow to staff and those will be forwarded to the City Council, hopefully with your recommendation for approval of those if you so choose. And we are in favor of the staffs modification of that zoning ordinance requirement. It seems like every time we are up here we are asking for variances for block length. Real quickly, we are in favor of all of the conditions that staff is recommending. We do have some clarification we'd like to talk to you and staff about this evening. First of all, from dealing with staff over the last couple of weeks, I was under the impression that we were going to be recommended for approval tonight. I was --just found out this evening that staffs recommending us to take care of some of those issues. The main one was the Onweiller Lateral and the lateral for the ditch that's on the western boundary. As I stated earlier, that was the one reason for the revision to the subdivision plat. We are currently working with the irrigation district, Nampa- Meridian Irrigation District on the encroachment issue on that south lateral. When we met with them and they established that 35 foot easement on there, it was obvious that there is quite a large chunk to be taken out of those south -- the south lots up against the southern boundary. What the agreement is, is a verbal agreement with the irrigation district -- was to allow us to encroach into a portion of those -- of that 35 foot easement, but to allow t hem u p to 15 feet for their maintenance road, w hich a xists o n t he s ite. Now, the maintenance road and the piped ditch is actually just a bit off of our property, but the easement does encroach into our property not quite the 35 feet. So our verbal agreement with the irrigation district was to get a license agreement to encroach up to the maintenance road and, then, to have our fencing be along that 15 foot boundary and, then, either -- and, then, staff had the condition to either have the homeowners association -- well, they will own it, but maintain that open space, that common area, or have the irrigation district do that. So that's part of the agreement that we will have with the irrigation district. Centers: Yes. So, Mr. Nickel, you don't have a problem with number seven on page nine, because they state unless the application provides -- Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 39 of 94 Nickel: Right. Exactly. Centers: Number seven? Nickel: The only problem I have is staff wanting us to get that resolved before you all make a recommendation to the City Council. We are confident -- Centers: No. We can make the recommend with that condition. Nickel: And what's what we are hoping. Centers: Correct. Nickel: But other than that, we are in favor of that. If, for some reason, negotiations were to break down and we would have to comply with that 35 feet, as you can see, we are going to have to do some major revisions to our plat and probably be back in front of you. Centers: Right. Nickel: We are confident that's going to be resolved Zaremba: If I may clarify for myself, regardless of whether it's 15 feet or 25 feet or 35 feet, you will make this into a separate lot that's a common area maintained by either homeowners or an irrigation district? Nickel: Right. One more point of clarification is that staff does state that -- in number three, under additional considerations on page seven: The back of the lot shall be set at the encroachment line with a remaining 15 foot wide portion. Now because that ditch is off our property there is going to be some portions of that common lot that aren't going to be exactly 15 feet wide, they might be less. So I just want that to be clear that that's approximately 15 feet to accommodate that maintenance road. So, that was the issue on that. The same goes for that western -- that western property line with the ditch on that. We also have a verbal agreement from the irrigation district. We are going to be required to the that pipe and it's just a matter of what type of encroachment they will allow us. That will also be part of the license agreement with the irrigation district. Zaremba: And, again, you will make that a common area? Nickel: Again, if we don't, we will meet that -- Zaremba: However wide it -- Nickel: StafFs requirement. Borup: Shawn, that ditch crosses Ustick and supplies properties to the north of Ustick? Meddian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 40 of 94 Nickel: Uh-huh. Borup: Is that what that is? Nickel: Regarding the pathways, if -- if staff can -- could you put back on the landscape plan, Steve? And staff is actually making arecommendation -- we met with your staff last week regarding the issue of pathways and we agree that we would provide a paved pathway into that -- into that subdivision at those three -- those three locations, two from the east and, then, one from the south. We aren't in favor of doing it as a micropath per se, but we are going to pave the length of -- can I use your pointer? So the pavement would be the length of this lot right here, this lot right here, and that lot right there, and, then, the rest of it will be the natural grass and it will provide people access and it will be an actual defined pathway into that park. Centers: How about that one? Nickel: Oh, I'm sorry, I -- Zaremba: There are four of them. Nickel: There. There. There, and there. Borup: You are intending to do one on the north? Nickel: I thought that was our plan. Yes. A portion of this lot right here might be used for retention, drainage retention. As you look on the plat you will. see those funky lines that kind of go into it. That's where we were intending to bring the water for drainage -- storm drainage down. This property actually flows in this direction right here. So, as your staff is recommending in that condition, we will provide a pathway in those locations I described. We are also in agreement to provide --that we will have -- within our CC&R's the requirements for fencing along the open space and that is that four foot solid with the option of the two foot lattice on top of that, so if someone has a lot and has a big dog, they need that additional, at least you will have the height to restrict the dog, but also will be able to see into the park and it adds extra protection for kids that might be in there. So we are in agreement with that as well. The only other issue I have -- and this is more of a question for Bruce. It's a question for Bruce and it's in regards to pressure irrigation and, actually, secondary irrigation. I briefly talked to him about that. It's my understanding, from talking to Bruce, that we are going to required by code to provide a secondary irrigation source; is that correct? Freckleton: That's correct. You have to have a backup, be able to supply water for the pre-season and post season. Nickel: From what I understand from talking to Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District is in this area -- if you put the colored map that had the three other subdivisions -- I guess in Meddian Phanning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 41 of 94 this portion of the irrigation district, these other subdivisions are only hooked up to the primary irrigation and do not have a secondary irrigation source and from what the developer was told by Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District is you can't isolate this system -- in other words, if we use the city -- the city system for our secondary access, that it's hard to isolate this subdivision from the other subdivisions that don't have that secondary source. So, I guess my question -- Borup: So you're tying into the existing pressurized irrigation line from the other three subdivisions? Nickel: Right. And so I almost got the impression from Nampa Irrigation District that they don't want us to use their system if we are going to be hooking into a secondary system with the city. Have you heard of that? I'm actually asking this as a question to Bruce, more than anything else. I just don't want to get locked into a situation here. Freckleton: M embers o f t he C ommission, M r. N ickel, you k now, I t otally u nderstand where you're c oming from, l u nderstand w here t he i rrigation d istrict i s c oming f rom. Unfortunately, at the time those subdivisions went in they didn't have a requirement for that secondary source. The biggest headache that we have is when there is not a backup source, people will dual connect. When you have dual connections, more often than not t hey are done illegally. Every dual connection that we have out there is a potential source for contamination to our water system and it's a health hazard. That is the main driving force for the city requiring the single point connection, is it gives us one single point to monitor for back flow. When we have a single source -- or, excuse me, a secondary source in a subdivision, we don't allow any other connection to the system at the homes. So I don't have a good answer for you right now. We are going to have to look into that a little bit. I mean I can think of ways that you can isolate it. Nickel: I just wanted to bring that up as a -- as a discussion item. I think that, Commissioners, that we can work that out with your staff prior to City Council. More than anything, I just want to get on the record that I don't want to be trapped in the specific system. It sounds like we can work with your staff and I would be willing to do that. Borup: I have got a question pertaining to that, Mr. Nickel. Have you talked with the irrigation district on -- on the volume they would require for a secondary connection point? Nickel: My developer would have and I'm not sure -- Borup: I guess where I was going to, the systems are all maintained by Nampa- Meridian. Is there anything preventing a secondary tie in that would -- that would service all four subdivisions? They are the ones doing the building anyway. Can't that extra cost be -- Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 42 of 94 Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, if I might weigh in on that. It certainly is possible. I would guess that it would require more than one connection. Borup: That's what I was wondering. Freckleton: I mean you may end up with one in Granite Creek and one over in Bedford and, then, maybe another one in Timber Falls, but -- Borup: I don't think it's tied into the Granite -- Bedford. Nickel: I don't think it is. I think it's just the one to the south. Freckleton: The point is it can be retrofitted. I mean I don't see any problem with that. It's possible. We can work it out. Nickel: And I apologize for putting staff on the spot. I wanted to just get it out there and I think it probably can -- Borup: Depending on how many points it would require, that would -- that would also prevent some potential problems in those other areas, too. Freckleton: One question I have, Mr. Chairman, if I might. Shawn, are you going to have your own -- are you going to have a pump station in this development or are you going to be just tying into existing stubs from the other developers? Nickel: I thought we were tying into existing stubs is what we were -- yeah. Freckleton: So a pump station is not within the boundaries of Timber Falls. Okay. Nickel: Correct: Borup: Which makes the secondary source a little more -- would have to be in at that point also, then. Freckleton: Not necessarily, Mr. Chairman. It could be in Timber Falls and, you know, we .could valve it off where it connects it up with the other subdivisions, thereby supplying city water to the system for the shoulder season. I certainly think that probably the best -- the best case scenario here would be for Nampa-Meridian to work with us and developer and do some retrofitting for these subdivisions -- Borup: To bring them all to the current requirement. Freckleton: Correct. I think it's to everybody's benefit for that to occur. Borup: Proceed, Mr. Nickel. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 43 of 94 Nickel: 0 h. And, then, one I ast i ssue,Commissioners, a nd t hat's c ondition n umber four, which is on page nine, and that talks about -- Centers: Page nine? Nickel: Page nine of my staff report. I don't know what yours -- it's in regard to perimeter fencing of the subdivision. And the second sentence says permanent perimeter f encing shall be required a round the subdivision, unless the city agrees in writing that such a fence is not required. The majority of the area around our subdivision already has existing fencing. We are going to provide fencing on the south through our --through the irrigation district and, then, along our berm on the north along Ustick Road. I just wanted to put that on the record for staff to recognize that -the majority of that is already in place. Centers: Mr. Chairman? Well, do you have the staff report? Nickel: I have the -- I don't know that I -- Centers: Because -- Nickel: Dated March 6? Borup: Our number four is on page eight. It's just -- Centers: March 6. Yeah. Because I want to refer to page nine, item seven. That's what I have, anyway. Freckleton: Shawn, are you working off of a draft? Was it one that Dave e-mailed over to you? Nickel: Yeah. You know, I might be, Bruce. Let me grab my other -- Borup: Do you have -Shawn, you have item number seven, though, don't you? Nickel: On what page were yours, Commissioner Centers? Centers: Well, p age nine, i tem s even. The n ext t o t he I ast s entence i n i tem s even where it says 15 wide portion. I think you referred to you'd like to see that approximately 15 feet. Would you like -- would it be applicable to have that read 14 to 16 feet? Nickel: No. No. There are some places where it could be -- Centers: Well, then, how can you say approximately 15 feet? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 8, 2003 Page 44 of 94 Nickel: If you can think of a better wording that will keep us from having to make it 15 feet or something less, that's what I was getting at. Centers: Yeah. And I agree with you. Nickel: Okay. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if I might just suggest scratch 15 foot wide and so it would just read with the remaining portion. Nickel: That would be great. Centers: Very good. Nickel: Thanks. Centers: And, then, in addition, number nine on the same page. So you're in agreement that there would be four foot fencing along all the pathways that you intend to install? Nickel: That is correct. The way that reads, lot six includes all of those -- all of the pathways that I pointed out earlier. Centers: Yeah. Nickel: So that would be for that whole lot and it would be the four-foot with option of the two-foot lattice on top of that. Centers: Right. They, actually, didn't refer to the fencing along the pathways and that's why I added that there. So you're in agreement with four foot fencing along all the pathways. Nickel: Right. Centers: Of course, the perimeter, you had mentioned that. Nickel: Yeah. And the way I looked at that, all of those are encompassed in lot six and so, yes, that's fine. Centers: Okay. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, item number ten right below that is the one that talks about the fencing adjacent to the open space. Centers: We were just talking about the open space lots, though, Steve. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 45 of 94 Borup: But those pathways are -- Centers: Are all apart of -okay. Good. Good. Borup: Any other questions. Mathes: I have a question. Borup: Go ahead. Mathes: How wide are you going to make the path? Nickel: Staff made a recommendation on that. Siddoway: If I can jump in, I would say it just should conform to the micropath ordinance. It would be five feet wide as a minimum, with five feet on each side. You already have 15 feet in -- Nickel: I believe they are all at least 20 feet wide. Borup: So five feet would work fine. Siddoway: It appears that the one coming in from the south is only 14. The rest are 19, 20, and 20. Centers: And what's the ordinance, Steve? Siddoway: Fifteen would be the minimum by ordinance. Five feet for the pathway and five feet on each side. So it would be one foot difference. Nickel: And we would not have a problem making that 15 feet wide on that south -- Centers: You have got room. Zaremba: Let's see. For my question we will probably need the plat plan. That would do. Would you count for me the other lots? You're saying five other lots. Nickel: Did I count wrong, Commissioner? If I did I apologize. Zaremba: Just point them out to me, because I -- Nickel: There are six. I missed one. The knuckle --the knuckle island in there, so -- do you want me to go to the screen and -- Meddlan Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 46 of 94 Zaremba: No. You have answered the direction my question is going. If we add as a separate common area lot the southern easement and the western easement, now you're going to have eight other lots; right? Centers: Well, you'd have to come back. Borup: Actually, I only see five. Nickel: Yes. You would have eight. Zaremba: Not only the discussion of how wide they are going to be, they are going to be into separate easements into separate lots. The question questions they are struggling with are how wide they are. So there will actually be eight once you do that. Borup: I only see five up there now. Nickel: As staff m entioned, that was our o riginal landscape plan. The little knuckle there at the top actually has a landscape island on it. Borup: Oh, you added another one in there. Nickel: The plat you have in front of you that says revised is the current plan. Borup: Any other questions for Mr. Nickel? I have got one back on the -- at the beginning you were discussing approval from Nampa-Meridian on the encroachment. Did you have a time frame when he's guaranteed that? Nickel: Commissioners, if I would have known that staff was going to make that - if I would have known that they were going to make that recommendation tonight, I would have tried my darnedest to have something in writing from them this evening. I definitely will get something prior to City Council. Did you have a condition in here that says we have to have that prior to City Council? Borup: And you're completely -- you're completely confident you can have it prior to that? Nickel: Yes, I am. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Ten days prior. Is that one of those things that needs to be ten days prior'? Siddoway: I stand on my comment that I think it needs to come back here. Council came down very hard on staff and a couple of applicants this week on Tuesday for projects that were incomplete and things coming in right before the meeting and they really do not want that. So that's my recommendation. One thing that we can't say Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 47 of 94 tonight is if the -- the encroachment is not allowed on the west side, it's likely to make some of those lots smaller than the minimum. If 15 feet is taken off, we know it will take it below the minimum lot size, but will that whole 15 be unencroachable? I don't know. And without some of those questions resolved - I think we need to know where that line falls. Nickel: Mr. Chairman, we - Borup: Well -- a nd that's why I b rought t hat u p, b ecause that's my concern. I f this project goes to City Council and it's not taken care of, not complete, that reflects on this Commission. Nickel: I do understand. I guess that we are confident, because if we don't get that agreement, not only can we go to City Council, I think we are going to have to come back here, because we are going to have to redesign the subdivision. Verbally we were told that the ditch on the west, because there is not going to be a maintenance road on that side, requires it will be piped, that we can encroach all the way to the property line on that one, so I'm confident that we are able to do that. As far as the southerly one, if we have to -- if we can't get that agreement after we have been told that we could and we have to provide 35 feet of a common area, I think we are going to have to do a major redesign of the whole subdivision and we will be back in front of you, so -- Borup: But back in front of us after it's already had a hearing at City Council, unless you ask to have it pulled from the agenda, I guess. Nickel: I do understand staffs concerns. I think we can get -- if you are uncomfortable with it - and I heard you talk about the last -- the items a couple times before, that you're all booked up on the 20th,rf that's the only issue we have on this, I would like to at least be tabled for two weeks, rather than losing a month, and that will really put the pressure on me to get Nampa-Meridian to commit to that. So, if you do feel like you do need t o t able u s, I w ould r equest t o, p lease, b e t abled for t wo weeks, r ather t han a month, since that could be the only issue we have to resolve. Borup: We will discuss that. I didn't -- Nickel: Just keep that under consideration when you discuss you decision Borup: Well, I know how I would feel if it was sent back to us from City Council, especially after the discussion we have just gone through. Zaremba: They have been pretty clear about wanting to have things resolved before they see them. Nickel: And, again, Commissioners, had I known tonight that we were going to do that, I would have brought it. If you look at the actual discussion of the staff report on those items -- I guess it is your page eight also. It does state -actually, page nine. It states Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 48 of 94 in that first - in that second paragraph, evidence of support from the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District for the encroachment will be required prior to the preliminary plat approval by the City Council. So I thought I had some additional time prior to City Council to get that agreement. So I would have tried to have it today. Anyway, I will leave that for you to discuss. Centers: That's the way I read it, too, Mr. Nickel, to be honest with you. Borup: Any other questions from the Commissioners? Zaremba: Not at this time. Nickel: Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else that would like to testify on this? Mr. Wood? Wood: My name is Dan Wood. I'm purchasing this property. I'm the one that talked with the irrigation district. I got them a copy of the plat map. That's when the revisions came about and I talked with Bill, who, in turn, has talked with John Anderson, and they are the ones that have come back and said, hey, Dan, we will go ahead and -- you will need to enter into a license agreement, you know, but I can't enter into a license agreement until I actually own the property. But what they have said is they want their 35 feet, but they will let us encroach within 15 feet of the pipe. So where the pipe is, in some cases, part is on Finch Creek, they want 15 feet, so they have room to, you know, go continue to mow the weeds and things like that. So what I'm going off of is what they had told me. They usually have been pretty good for what they say they usually stick to, so -- Borup: Is this plat accurate as far as the location, as far as you know? Wood: Yes. Borup: The way I read this, all of it is in Finch Creek. Wood: That's right. Borup: You said part of it. Wood: Well, the reason why I say that, Keith, is it zigzags so much there is spots where -- that's why Shawn was trying to deal with the 15 feet. You can see some places where we don't even need the 15 feet and other places where, because of the way the bend is, we are going to need more or real close to the whole 15 feet. And all Bill said is that they need 15 feet to maintain it. Meddlan Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 49 of 94 Borup: It looked like where it widens out is it would have had a box in the middle of the roadway, so it would have to be moved in that location it looks like. Wood: So it seems like we were honing in on that easement, so I figured at least I should let you know I have talked with them and that's what Bill has told me. Borup: So they are saying at this point they won't -- they won't enter into a final agreement, but will they do a -- Wood: We can get a letter from them. Borup: Saying that they will once you are in ownership. Is that what the letter would say? Wood: What the letter will say is what Bill has -- what I have just said is the fact that, yes, there is a 35 foot encroachment there, but they will allow me to encroach within 15 feet, so that they have enough room. Borup: Okay. Wood: So I can put my fences -- Borup: So, you're saying the letter would say they would allow that, they just won't enter into an agreement, of course, until you own the property? Wood: Correct. Borup: Yeah. Any other questions? Do we have anyone else to testify on this? Come forward, sir. Alden: I'm Tim Alden. I live at 3095 North Boulder Creek, which is in Granite Creek just to the east, and I understand the comments that deal with the provisions for providing fencing around the perimeter of the new development has been completed. Ijust -- for point of clarification, the fencing that's there is chain link fencing and does not screen from view and, of course, it would be my preference that fencing screen us from view, not only after the thing is -- after the development is completed, but while it's going on, so that out my backyard I'm not looking at the dust and noise and that sort of thing. Is that something appropriate for this group or is there another forum for asking that question? Borup: No. This would be the proper - so the chain link fence that's there, that was put in by Granite Creek? Alden: Yes. Borup: Is that correct? Meridian Planning 8 Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 50 of 94 Alden: Yes. Borup: And that was the type of fence they chose to put in as their perimeter fence? Alden: What that did was it kept the livestock almost all the time out of our lots. On the other side of Granite Creek where it borders other properties, it was a cedar fence that would screen from view, but it's just along that pasture land that it was chain link. That's my only question. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question? What was your preference for the fence along your property line? What type of fence would you -- Alden: I would like something that would screen the view, so that when I'm -- so it provides some privacy after the subdivision is complete and other people are living -- you have a backyard abutted right up to mine. Rohm: The lattice that can slide down a chain link fence, is that adequate, in your estimation? Alden: That would provide a screen. Of course, I'd rather have a nice cedar fence, but I realize that -- Rohm: Well, I'm just thinking of having two fences butted up against each other seems a little bit redundant, you know, so -- Alden: Yes. Yes, it does. But I don't know if there is a requirement -- and I didn't want to go to the expense of putting one up myself prior to knowing what the developer's plans were for that. Borup: Is it your understanding that that existing fence is -- well, it would be, it would be entirely in your property. Alden: That's my understanding, yes. Borup: Okay. Alden: Thank you. Borup: Thank you. I had a question, Mr. Siddoway. I was going to ask this earlier on the -- that's on the area of perimeter fencing. Does that -- how is that understood between two existing subdivisions in this case? I mean I don't see where it's that different from back lot lines on the same subdivision. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, the ordinance is not speck. We would simply --atypical scenario is simply to require perimeter fencing to keep the trash from blowing during Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 51 of 94 construction from one property to another. We don't specifically require cedar, although that is the fence type that is usually used by developers. We have seen chain link before. It does seem a little odd to require a cedar fence to back up to an existing chain link fence. My opinion is that the existing chain link fence would meet the requirement for the perimeter fencing and if neighbors want to be screened from view from it, they could slat it. But we have -- we generally require permanent perimeter fencing in areas where it does not currently exist and that's typically cedar, but not always. Borup: But most of the time that's against unplatted properties. Siddoway: Yeah. It's -it's even more important in our view if it's against agricultural to keep things from blowing over to the farms. Borup: Okay. Well, I think Mr. Nickel's statement I remember him saying is that most of the perimeter was fenced, so -- I don't know if we ever got a clarification on what that means. Siddoway: I think it was east and west side -- that they would be providing it on the south. Borup: Maybe we need -- at the end we could clarify that. Anyone else like to come up and testify? Come on up, sir. Mosier: My name is Gary Mosier. I live at 965 East Ustick. And -- it's the one acre at the top right at the property. Yes. There has been no mention of the fencing around that property -- bordering my property, which is barbed wire fence right now. You mention they put fencing at the south, fencing at the north, but nothing was mentioned about that little corner. Borup: Okay. So there is no fencing there presently? Mosier: Not unless you consider barbed wire -- Borup: Right. Okay. Anything else? Mosier: Well, I don't know if this is the appropriate time, so I'll just ask. I believe that there is just -- my property, maybe one other piece of property, that after this is zoned city, is -- remains county, remains county property. My question is. Is there any expectation or requirement for me to hook up to sewer and septic when this goes in? Borup: Not unless you choose to be annexed yourself. Mosier: And when Isell - if or when I sell the property, is there a requirement there? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 52 of 94 Borup: Meridian has traditionally not annexed property without application by the owner. There is a provision under -- less than five acres it may happen, it's just never happened yet. Is that correct? Siddoway: That's correct. The city's never forced annexed property. There is a provision t o a Ilow t hat for a nclaves. I w ould s ay t here i s n o plan i n the foreseeable future that your property would be forced to annex and be required to hook, although it is feasible that that could happen under state code. Borup: Most of the time people request that, like when their sewer system fails or something like that, then, we see them back here asking for annexation. Mosier: Now, if I requested annexation, because of sewer and septic, would it be advantageous to do it at the time that they are putting in the subdivision, rather than after? I mean I don't know where you hook up to sewer or hook up to water. In my situation is it wise for me to know ahead of time what's involved in that if I chose to? I'm not leaning that direction, but I'd like to know. Borup: That's something you may be able to discuss with the developer on having sewer line access to your property. That's something you maybe could work out with him, while they are putting this in to have a stub to your property or something. That's been done before. Mosier: Something to discuss with the developer. Borup: Right. Mosier: But not with the city? Borup: Yeah. The city would -- would not require that. Is there any foreseeable reason the city would require that, Bruce? Mosier: I'm not talking about requiring anything, I'm talking about tying into the -- Borup: Yeah. Well, that be -the developer will be putting all the sewer lines in, so that would be something to be discussed with him. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I would invite you to come in and talk to us and we can show you where sewer water is in the area and we can -- Mosier: Well, that's why I asked if this was the appropriate time or -- Borup: It's a good time to bring it up, but to get real detailed, you need to go into the public works department. Meridian Planning & 2aning March 6, 2003 Page 53 of 94 Zaremba: I would say while people are digging around you this is the right time. We would welcome you into the city if you so chose. Mosier: Okay. Borup: Thank you. Mosier: Thank you. Borup: Thank you, sir. Do we have anyone else that would like to come forward at this time? Mr. Nickel, do you have any final comments? Nickel: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, again, Shawn Nickel for the record. And that was the reason I had brought up the perimeter fencing, was because Iwas -- we are aware that there is existing fencing around there and it's kind of -- it seems redundant to build a fence up against another fence. However, the developer has stated that if the gentleman that talked first is wishing to have a cedar fence to block out, then, he would be willing to -- my developer would be willing to split the cost with him on that portion if he'd lik®. Typically, we put in the CC&R's the type of fencing that's allowed, so you have a concurrent fence all around, but typically the builders build the actual fence and in this case since there is already a perimeter on that -- Borup: Which of the two gentlemen were you referring to? Nickel: Iwas referring to the first one gentleman. Now, with regard to the second gentleman, I'm a little confused, because I thought that a portion of his property was chain link -- had chain link in there and I don't know if that's the case or not. We will work with him on that and if, indeed, it is not, it's just barbed wire, yes, we will be required to -- by code to have that perimeter fence put up and we will do that on that portion, so -- Borup: I could propose maybe another alternative on the chain link fence. Would you be willing to put the slats in for any of the property owners that would like that? I think that would cost you less than putting a fence up. Nickel: If they were to come forward -- Borup: Well, that's what I was saying. Well, no, I don't know -- well, that would be up to the Commissioners. But I'm saying I don't know ff they necessarily need to come forward, but they have to be notified that that's an option somehow. But it would definitely cost you less than putting up a solid perimeter fence, but we realize we can't -- Idon't know if we can require that, because it's not on your property. Nickel: Yeah. I would be a little uncomfortable with having a requirement for an off-site -- Meridian Planning $ Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 54 of f!4 Borup: Right. But we could require another fence put up. Nickel: You could, I guess, but my feeling on that is it's kind of redundant. Borup: Right. And I agree. I think -- and that's been mentioned, but I think a good altemative would be -- Nickel: You're kind of putting us in between a rock and a hard place here. Borup: Right. But I think a good alternative would be to offer the slats. Maybe some of the neighbors might not want it, but those that did, if that -- if you think that would be acceptable. Nickel: I don't really want to commit to that right now. Borup: Just thought it might save you some money. Zaremba: Well, make it a two part offer. Offer the slats or go in halves with the cedar fence, which is what you originally said. Centers: Exactly. Zaremba: Offer them both offers, you know. Nickel: Given that, I think the slats would be a better alternative. And, then, regarding the -- to get off the subject -- regarding the sewer, we will talk to the neighbor and see if he's -- you know, if he's interested in getting a sewer tap or bringing -- or having us bring a sewer tap over for him and, then, I think staff suggested that they talk to him as well. Centers: Tell him he can't hook up unless he's in the city. Nickel: That's true, I guess. I have learned that the hard way. That's all I have. Borup: Any other questions for Mr. Nickel while he's here? Okay. Did you have another question, sir? Mosier: I don't want to drag this out. Borup: Okay. We need to get you on a microphone. Mosier: There is a small section where I have a chain link fence four feet high that is not on the properly line, it's back about ten feet. There is an irrigation ditch that goes between that small section of chain link fence and the pasture. Now, exactly where the boundary -- property line falls, I'm not a hundred percent sure. We have the barbed Meridian Planning & Zoning March 8, 2003 Page 55 of 94 wire fence, the irrigation ditch, another strip of property, and, then, a chain link fence that runs up against my barn. So it's not like the dividing -- it's not a dividing fence. Borup: Right. Yeah. Zaremba: The point is that fence is not your property line. Mosier: Well, my --the chain link fence is --yeah, it's not on the property line. Borup: No. I think they stated they would be putting a fence along your property line if there is none there now, other than the -- Mosier: He mentioned that he thought part of it was chain link, but it's not a property line fence. Borup: Okay. Mosier: I just wanted to clarify that, because if we get into this thing and -- Borup: No. We were talking about property line fencing. Have you got other comment on that, Shawn, or - Nickel: Commissioner --and that's why I said I don't want to argue with the gentleman, because I just don't know, but we will take care of it. Borup: But it's understood we are talking about property lines here. Commissioners, unless there i s a nyone else -- I t hought w e h ad finished t hat b efore w hen I h ad M r. Nickel come up. Centers: I have got to say that I -- the 20th - I think we need to see them again on the 20th. Commissioner Zaremba wouldn't be here. But we've covered a lot of it tonight. I think on the 20th it would be quick, so I would be in favor of the 20th. Why put them off. Every day is a buck. Borup: That would --and that would clarify the -- either the encroachment -- Centers: Correct. Borup: And if it's more than that, if it's -- I guess they would need to decide whether it would take a whole redesign or not. Centers: Well, then, we would have a letter in our file that they have postponed. Borup: That would probably -- that would be the only -- that be the only issue that we would be addressing at that time, wouldn't it? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 56 of 94 Centers: Right. Yeah. Zaremba: The fencing issues could be decided by then and -- Siddoway: You know, Mr. Chairman, the only concern -- we will need to get the revised -- the revisions back ten days prior to that hearing, which is Monday. Zaremba: Next Monday. Siddoway: And I don't know if that gives enough time to the applicant, but -- Borup: Probably not, since they don't know if they have to do a revision. Nickel: Commissioner, Shawn Nickel again. We are hopeful -- we are confident we are not going to have to do that. If we do have to revise it, I'm assuming we are going to have to be postponed again. Siddoway: You're at least going to have to revise it to show the property lines along the encroachment. Zaremba: The two more common areas -- two additional common areas will need to be shown. Nickel: Right. And Idon't -- I personally don't see that as a considerable change, because I know that if we have to do that -other than the 35 foot, if we have to do that, we are going to have to redesign the whole subdivision, but just the 15 foot - Borup: So you're saying you can have that by Monday? Nickel: I don't know that I can have it by Monday. It's going to depend on getting a hold of the irrigation, but I'm going to try to have it. Centers: Well, Mr. Chairman, you know, we have the special meeting on the 26th and we agreed to hear a couple other items then. Siddoway: That's less than one additional week. It's six days after that one. Borup: Normally --that's not anormal -- what would be your preference? Nickel: My question is. Is it necessary to get that change in ten days prior if it's -- Borup: It depends on whether you want us to send it to City Council or not. Nickel: Good point. We will try. We can try to get and, if not, I guess we'll have to be tabled. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 57 of 94 Borup: Okay. Well, if you have averbal - I mean if you think you have got a verbal agreement with the irrigation district, you have got tomorrow and Monday to draw that on there, which is not a time consuming thing to draw that on there. Nickel: Right. I'd like to try to -- Zaremba: And the irrigation district, I think, in the past h as given concept letters or something like that when they -- Borup: Well, they still -- you don't need the letter from the irrigation district ten days prior to, do you? You just want the plat showing how it would be, assuming they are going to approve it. Would that work? Or is that stretching it? Siddoway: I think it's stretching it. Borup: Okay. Centers: Mr. Wood mentioned that he could get a letter subject to his ownership and I think he intends to do that. Nickel: And that's basically what it said in your staff report, it was evidence, that not necessarily the agreement itself. Borup: Well, then, also, if they are not adjusting any lot lines or anything, other than that showing that encroachment, there is not a lot for staff to review in this situation, then, is there? Siddoway: If they are not what? Borup: If they are not making any other lot adjustments or -- other than this common lot for the -- Siddoway: No. We'd just have to recheck the lot sizes and -- it wouldn't very hard, no. Borup: The smallest lot is 8,400 feet right now. Siddoway: Along the south. Borup: Right. Right. That would be affected is what I meant. Siddoway: The question also exists for the ones on the west. Borup: Yes. Siddoway: And those are down to 75. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 8, 2003 Page 58 of 94 Borup: Yeah. Those that could have a problem if they require more than what was verbally said. Nickel: And, Mr. Chairman, I wasn't going to bring this up, but -- I didn't want to confuse things, but when I was sitting back talking to the developer, he stated that our engineer told us that was actually a user ditch and might not have to have a common lot at all, it might just --there might not even be an easement there. Borup: Didn't Nampa-Meridian state that on there or did they? Nickel: I didn't see it on there. Borup: Okay. That was just on the staff report, then. Nickel: So there is a good chance that there might not even be - or they can put that on there, but stated it would be a user ditch, so it might not even require an easement there. So, if that's the case -- I do understand if we do have to put a common lot there, it's going to eat away at those 6,500 square foot lots. Borup: But you're saying if it's a user ditch, it can just be within an easement? Nickel: Right. I don't want to bring that back up again to confuse you. We will get that from the irrigation district. Borup: So, at this point what's your preference, the 20th or 26th? Nickel: We'd like the 20th and I think we could get something to staff. Borup: Even though -- Nickel: I will be busy tomorrow. Borup: Okay. Because if it doesn't make it to them, we may not be in a mood to put it on the 26th. Are you willing to take that chance? Nickel: Yes. Borup: Okay. Centers: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: I would like to move that we continue Items No. 10 and 11 to our March 20th meeting. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 59 of 94 Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second to continue to March 20~'. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Okay. We have got one final thing. Commissioners, are you ready to go ahead or do we need a break? About a five minute break? Okay. We will take a short break at this time. (Recess.) Item 12: Public Hearing: AZ 03-004 Request for annexation and zoning of 1.37 Acres from R-1 to L-0 zones for Montvue Medical Clinic by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - 360 East Montvue Drive: Borup: Okay. We'd like to reconvene the meeting. Any of you that are still discussing are welcome to do that out in the foyer. Okay. Public Hearing -- next item is Public Hearing AZ 03-004, a request for annexation and zoning of 1.37 acres from R-1 to L-O zones for Montvue Medical Clinic by Pinnacle Engineers at 360 East Montvue Drive. We'd like to open this Public Hearing and start with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The proposed annexation is for the 1.37 acre lot in the southeast corner of Montvue Subdivision, which does abut the St. Luke's Meridian Medical Center property, as well as the Touchmark property to the east. They would like to annex the next 1.36 acres to construct a medical office building. They are requesting L-O zoning, which does match the surrounding zoning, and also is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Here is a copy -- an aerial photo that is a couple years old. You can see that -- the first couple of phases of St. Luke's built. The most recent phase is not pictured here. This is the St. Luke's Drive. This is Montvue Drive and the subject lot. You can see the existing homes in Montvue Subdivision. I believe these are submitted as elevations of the type of building they intend to construct. Those photos are too small to see, so I'm going to skip them. And this is the proposed site plan. The site plan per se, is not up tonight for approval, but they have submitted it, as we do request with all our annexations or rezones, to show what the applicant intends to do with the property. The private road connection that's shown does run from St. Luke's private drive to south Montvue. That one piece of this is probably going to shape up to be the most significant issue of the application tonight. It has a long and proud history of debate over whether it should be public or private, some of which I will get into tonight and some of which I will save. The primary access to the medical office is intended to be off of St. Luke's Drive. It would not make much sense for this project to have its only access off of the existing access that Montvue has, which is clear up here near the intersection with Franklin Road, which is just barely off the map, and Eagle.