Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 5, 2003 P & ZMeridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 19 of 100 Zaremba: I assume that's a happy move for you. Congratulations. It's not so happy for us. McKinnon: Sorry about the surprise. Item 7. Public Hearing: AZ 03-010 Request for annexation and zoning of 39.15 acres from RUT to R-8 (PD) for proposed Trailway Park Subdivision by Hillview Development Corporation -east of North Meridian Road and south of East Blue Heron Lane: Item 8. Public Hearing: PP 03-011 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 161 building lots and 25 other lots on 39.15 acres in a proposed R-8 (PD) zone for proposed Trailway Park Subdivision by Hillview Development Corporation -east of North Meridian Road and south of East Blue Heron Lane: Item 9. Public Hearing: CUP 03-021 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for single-family residential use with reduced setbacks, lot sizes, lot frontages, and house sizes in a proposed R-8 (PD) zone for proposed Trailway Park Subdivision by Hillview Development Corporation -east of North Meridian Road and south of East Blue Heron Lane: Borup: Okay. Next item for Trailway Park Subdivision. We'd like to -- we have three hearings in conjunction with that project. We'd like to open Public Hearing AZ 03-010, request for annexation and zoning of 39.15 acres from RUT to R-8, planned development for proposed Trailway Park Subdivision by Hillview Development Corporation. Also PP 03-011, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 161 building lots and 25 other lots on the same 39.15 acres. Also CUP 03-012, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for single family residential use with reduced setbacks, lot sizes, lot frontages, house sizes, in a proposed R-8 PD zone for Proposed Trailway Park Subdivision by Hillview Development Corporation. Again, we'd like to open all three Public Hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Kirkpatrick: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, again, this is three applications, an annexation and a Rezone of 39.14 acres. It is currently zoned RUT and is located in the county. They are proposing a Rezone to R-8. The application also consists of a Conditional Use Permit and a planned development for what will be 145 single family detached dwellings and 16 single family attached dwellings. There will be a total of 161 buildable lots. The applicant is also requesting reduced lot sizes, reduced frontage, reduced setbacks, reduced house sizes for the zone, and to exceed block length requirements. They will -- this will be done through the planned development. The property is located on East Blue Heron Road, north of Fairview Road, and east of North Meridian Road. What I'm going to do, briefly, is go to what I think will be some of the major issues that will come up while you discuss this application. These are things that staff has asked for the applicant to change in order for staff to recommend approval Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 2D of 100 of this application and I think you all have in your packets a comment letter from the applicant addressing some of the points that staff had asked for changes and they are disputing those changes. I'll go ahead and starting going through those. Let's see. We are going to do that one last. The Fire Department-- get my pointer. Well, you can see this turn around there. The Fire Department has asked that parking be prohibited in the turn around of Block 8 or that building on Boise Place on the plat prohibiting structures in the rear of the lots. The Fire Department is concerned that if there were cars parked in the turnaround, they would not be able to access these rear lots in the event of a fire. They would like for either parking to be prohibited at that turnaround so that trucks would be -- the trucks would be able to make that route or for there to be a restriction on the plat where no structures could be located at the rear of the lot. Let's see. The second thing here -- this is actually apoint -- let's go to the -- the applicant is proposing to pipe a portion of the Jackson Drain through their open space. This is a 2.05-acre park to be located there. The applicant is proposing that they pipe the Jackson-Drain where it goes through this park. I want to point out that our Comprehensive Plan calls for us to -- calls for the Jackson -- calls for the Jackson Drain to be designated as a creek to be improved and protected. We want for you all to make the interpretation whether piping the Jackson Drain there is, indeed, improving and protecting the creek. It's up to you. Let's see. I think our next major issue is going to be addressing this regional pathway. The Parks Department standards ask fora 10-foot wide regional pathway and for five feet of gravel to be located on each side of the pathway. The applicant -- the applicant's proposal only has two feet of gravel on each side of the regional pathway. The Parks Department --and David addressed this earlier --they preferto have five feet of gravel, because their machines that are set up to spray are set up for five feet of gravel on each side of the pathway. Let's see. We have the applicant -- we have asked for the applicant to add an additional micropath to improve connectivity in this area. This would be between Lots 11 and 19 of Block 5. Let's see, I want to get to the ponds, which I think will probably be our biggest issue this evening. Okay. If we can go back to the aerial photo. Okay. Let's see. There are -- these two pieces of property that I have designated with these arrows are directly adjacent to the subject property. This is the proposed subdivision. I'll go ahead and point that out. On this piece of property, there is located -- I'll go ahead and get you the exact name of the establishment. Actually, we have the property owner here. Meridian Meat Packers. They do wild game processing, domestic, and wild fowl processing. I have actually taken a tour of the site and we have a concern -- while the meatpacking establishment is located here, these ponds here -- or these lagoons are actually part of the meat packing operation. The way that I had this explained to me through Jamie Schwer -- and he's here tonight, so you can ask him questions -- was that while they are washing down equipment and washing down the floor of the meat packing facility, some of that runoff -- or this runoff goes through a grease trap and filter. Then, into these ponds -- or these lagoons that are located next to the subdivision. Now, I talked to our Legal Counsel today and our Planning Director and the termination that we had made is that these lagoons, even though they are on a separate parcel from the meat packing facility, are part of the meatpacking or processing plant. Our landscaping code requires there to be a 35-foot buffer between a processing industrial plant and a residential development. We are asking that there be a 35 foot buffer between the ponds and this proposed development. I'll go back to the plat, so you can see how that's going to affect the subdivision. Essentially, we are Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 21 of 100 talking about these duplex lots. These are the attached family homes on the western side of the property, would have to be -- they would have to do a reconfiguration and change where these lots are created -- where these lots are depicted. We are not as concerned about these lots at the south that aren't directly next to the lagoons. We are concerned about these lots to the north. Okay. Are there any questions of staff? Centers: Mr. Chairman. Could you go back to the initial map that you had up there. Is this pretty much land locked? Surround by city is what I meant. Borup: Oh, yes. Kirkpatrick: Correct. Centers: So, it's agreat in-fill situation? Kirkpatrick: The subdivision? Centers: Right. Kirkpatrick: It is in-fill, yes. Centers: Thank you. Mathes: Can you explain how a building envelope works? Kirkpatrick: Okay. Go back to the plat. Well, an envelope -- and, actually, we could probably have Bruce address this also. A building envelope would be the buildable area that is marked on the plat, so there would, actually, be a box on that that and, then, there would be a plat note addressing that a building is only allowed in that box on the plat and it would live throughout the life of the subdivision as a plat note. Centers: Thanks for asking that question, because I was wondering, too. In other words, you're going have a footprint on a specific lot that the only place they can build the house is right there? Kirkpatrick: Correct. Centers: How is that going to assist the Fire Department? Kirkpatrick: Well, if the Fire Department-- Centers: If there is cars parked. Excuse me. Kirkpatrick: Right. I guess the way that Joe Silva from the Fire Department explained this to me is they have a certain length of hose on their trucks. If they are able to park at the edge of this cul-de-sac without entering it, with this building envelope those hoses Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 22 of 100 will be able to reach within the building envelopes and he's the one that, actually, recommended that building envelope idea to me. Borup: And what distance did he recommend? Is that in here? We don't have a distance recommended? Kirkpatrick: That's a clarification, actually, that we could ask before Council, if it's not in those. Borup: Another question I had. The 35 foot buffer, was that in those last -- which ordinance was that a part of? How long has that been -- Kirkpatrick: It's from our landscape ordinance and -- Borup: Was that what it is, in the landscape ordinance? Kirkpatrick: Correct. Borup: Okay. That answers my question. Centers: But the applicant has stated in her comments that if the Fire Department insists, they'll just simply remove the island and -- Kirkpatrick: And that would solve this problem. Centers: And that solves the problem and they are just trying to provide some esthetics, I think, that -- I think we need to hear from the applicant. Borup: Okay. Anything else on your presentation? Kirkpatrick: No. I think that's it for now. Borup: Would the applicant like to come forward? McKay: Becky McKay, I'm with Engineering Solutions, 150 East Aikens, Suite B, Eagle. I'm representing Hillview Development, the applicant in this application. Can everybody see that? Centers: It's nice to know your way around. McKay: Yes. As staff indicated, there are a few items that we do disagree on. I will just, basically, go over some of the project and, then, I will delve into the staffs conditions and some of our concerns with those conditions. As Commissioner Centers indicated, this is an in-fill parcel. The definition of an in-fill parcel was that, typically, at least 80 percent of the area around a particular open or vacant site is developed, so this would qualify as an in-fill parcel. The property is approximately 39 acres in size. We got multiple mixed uses around us. As staff indicated, there are two existing ponds here. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 23 of 100 They are located in an R-1 residential -- estate residential zone under county jurisdiction. To the west of that is an M-2 zone, which is the -- where the facility is located. The M-2 zone is a general industrial zone under the county. We have the Aspen Hills Apartments. We have Bridgewood Park 4-plexes. We have La Playa duplexes or attached single family. We have mobile homes to the south. Then, we have single-family dwellings along our eastern boundary and single-family dwellings along our northern boundary. We do have kind of a hodge-podge or a mixed use around this particular parcel. As staff indicated, we have 161 building lots. Of those, 145 are single- family dwelling lots and, then, we have 16 attached lots. I'd like to show you a few pictures of the area out there to kind of give you an idea of what is around there. We have got the Jackson Drain, which traverses the site. It comes in and enters at the south boundary and, then, runs diagonally. Even though the Comprehensive Plan designates that as a waterway that they would like to see protected, I don't think that that prohibits the piping of that facility. It is under Nampa-Meridian Irrigation jurisdiction that there is a 75-foot easement associated with that facility. According to Nampa- Meridian -- John Anderson is who I spoke with -- it is their preference -- not only their preference. They would mandate since that facility traverses through our pocket park, which, obviously, draws children, small children, mid size children, they would prefer that it be piped, it is their facility, according to that quote from Mr. Anderson, and we do not view it as a water amenity. I'd like to show Commission some pictures of that drain, kind of gives you an idea -- this is a picture --and I'll submit these for the record. This is a picture up by Blue Heron Lane. As you can see, the drain is fairly deep, fairly wide. In the summer, according to Mr. Anderson, it runs a substantial amount or a high volume of water. When it traverses through the site -- I have some photos that kind of give you an idea -- here are some photos of it as it traverses the site. I don't know if any of you are aware of, but Nampa-Meridian does not allow us on drains to go in and do what we call afour-to-one slope, which is typically what we try to do when we are making a drain a water amenity. That standard comes from Boise City's ordinance. We kind of use it as an industry standard in the valley, in order to take a water facility and make it what we consider safe for our children to be around, so if they fall into it, they can walk out. This, however, would not meet that criteria of a water amenity. Nonetheless, it is on your Comprehensive Plan that amulti-use pathway be constructed along the -- along the drain and what we show here in our plan is a multi-use pathway that we will be constructing and that is one of our amenities that we ask for under our planned development, we would be constructing that multi-use pathway along parallel with the drain. This is the historical location of the drain and, then, the drain came through here and, then, it goes up. As you can see, the majority of that drain has been retained and retained in its historical location. We will come along, install the 10-foot asphalt pathway, and make a connection here in mid section and, then, we will be bringing a connection here. This was one that was added by staff that we said was fine we'd make this connection here. The pathway would, then, cross the public right of way, come across, and, then, we'd bring that pathway on up, link with our sidewalks and, then, bring it on up to the north and, then, link with some future sidewalk up at Blue Heron. This property has multiple stub streets, as you can see, that are preexisting, so as far as the design of this development. We were very restricted in order to, one, accommodate and preserve the majority of the drain and, two, make these intersections, our primary access being James Court and, then, Blue Heron Lane as our secondary access. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 24 of 100 James Court is a collector roadway that leads out to Meridian Road, which is a minor arterial. As you can see, we are providing landscaping along there and, then we have our pocket park here, which is approximately two acres. Now, staff has asked that we come through here with -- right here with a pedestrian access. In my response to the staffs comments I'm opposed to that. For one reason, this block is less than 800 feet it does not exceed that 1,000-foot. Secondly, we are constructing sidewalk with -- along our roadways and I just don't see that that is beneficial -- you know, we are not breaking up an excessively long block, so, thereafter, in order to run one through there I'm going to lose a lot on each side. That's two lots. We came off the end of each block and provided landscaping and some -- and the sidewalk would be detached and running in that, just to kind of give it a little bit of an extra flavor and we do also, for the record, have a stub drain on our eastern boundary. It's piped through this development here that adjoins us, The Willows. This comes here, opens up, comes down, and then, dumps into the Jackson Drain. I have been in contact with a resident that lives on Lark Place. According to that resident, she indicated that their fence is inset about 20 feet from where their property line is because of that drain and she said that she was going to speak with her neighbors and see if they would consent to allow us to pipe that, therefore, getting rid of that and, then, working out with Nampa-Meridian the possibility of them being allowed to move their fence back to where their property line is or exists. And I have spoke with John Anderson of Nampa-Meridian concerning that. He said that is a possibility. He will require that we provide some type of a separate lot, so they could access the pipe if any maintenance needed to be done. They don't want it just in a backyard, but they would consider reducing that easement from 60 feet if we put it in pipe, which, therefore, could allow them to recover those 20 feet that we lost. I have dwelt with this before and according to Nampa-Meridian we always have to have consent of the property owners in order to do work on a ditch facility. I stressed to that individual that she would have to get with her neighbors and get them all to agree and, then, we may be able to make that work. She said it's kind of an eye sore for them at this time. That's stub drain is not a real pretty thing, as you can see here. It is coming into the site, there is a pipe that's coming from the east, and so it's not a real beautiful facility. If we could eliminate it and, then, they could be allowed to use that area, that would benefit them and that was -- seemed to be her position. We have a real good project here. The designation on your Comprehensive Plan is mixed use neighborhood. That's the same designation to the east -- or to the west of us. The ponds that were brought up by staff -- I'd to submit this into the record. As you can see, they take on a lot of ground water. The facility that they spoke about primarily does jerky and pepperoni processing. They don't -- they don't have any live kills there or whatever you call it in that type of industry, so it's not like it's an Armor processing plant that's next to us. I went into the facility, it was very clean, very sanitary, and they do primarily jerky and pepperoni. They do, do some live game. I asked what -- you know, what's out in those ponds. They said, oh, primarily ground water. They do flush out -- they have some drains in their floor, they do flush out their equipment, some brine, they said some soaps, some bleach that they use to clean, but we are not seeing any solvents or anything like that. Also, that property owner to the west has came to our firm and has retained us to submit application to the City of Meridian for annexation and zoning to eliminate those ponds, get that facility on city sewer. They would like to develop that area with some type of mini storage to service this primarily residential area, which Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 25 of 100 that's the long-term plan, but that would, obviously, be very compatible. As you can see from the pictures that I have shown you, the ponds -- there is ducks, there are geese, there are willows -- I don't see them as being grotesque or horribly looking. As you can well see, there are multi-family developments right adjoining them. I just don't -- I think that staff is just getting a little bit overwrought for nothing. I know what the ordinance says, but I just don't see that it applies here. Going through, you received -- you guys all got a copy of my responses to staff -- the staff report. Concerning the pathway, Doug Strong called me Doug asked if we had enough room to go with a 10-foot wide asphalt and five feet on both sides. What I told Mr. Strong, I said we would have to blowup our topographic map, take a look at that, and see if we have got enough area to make that work. In doing so, we did have some areas where we are very tight, so that's why, you know, we figured Nampa-Meridian standard is 14 feet for access. If we did a 10-foot asphalt path and we had two feet of gravel on each side, that gives us a total of 14 feet for Nampa-Meridian which, one, meets their criteria. Yes, sir. Centers: Excuse me. You really want the pathway for the development, don't you? McKay: I think it would be a very -- Centers: It's part of your initial plan. McKay: Yes, sir. Centers: Yes. McKay: Yes, sir. There is a pathway to the southeast that I guess there is just a short stretch that at some point in time they will link up, so we could end up seeing it and I guess there is a path to the northwest, so this is a good linkage between those two segments. I don't know where the five-foot gravel came from. This is the first time I have ever encountered. I guess, you know, there is a new director for the Parks Department and they are, obviously, trying to come up with standards and I encourage that, but there are situations where we are restricted on the area. Item G under annexation and zoning with the Fire Department. We put that landscape island in this -- we put this landscape island in this kind of little knuckle thing, because it breaks up the asphalt. Unlike a standard turnaround, this is just done in order to get the frontages that we desire to make this kind of nook here a buildable area. It breaks up the asphalt it's just an esthetic thing. I guess our opinion was if a fire -- if this house was on fire, I don't see that truck pulling up right smack in front of it, they are most likely going to pull up right here. I guess I have never asked Meridian Fire Department how long their hoses are. Boise City told me -- we have a maximum cul-de-sac length there -- I think it's like 700 feet. I said where did that come from? They said our hoses are only 700 feet long. I guess I would be shocked that Meridian's hoses only go 150 feet, but maybe that's the case. If this is problematic, I guess we'd rather remove it, than try to make -- take on a cumbersome process of identifying building envelopes and restricting parking -- I mean it's just not worth it. We were trying just to make it look good. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 26 of 100 Centers: Excuse me, Ms. McKay. If you just put a no parking sign that kind of matched the aesthetics, wouldn't that please the chief and please everybody else? I think that's what he said. McKay: I think he wanted the building envelopes, too, in addition to that. Centers: Oh, in addition to the signs? McKay: I believe so. If -- Centers: I thought it said no parking or -- Borup: It was or. McKay: Ithink -- Borup: The staff report said or. McKay: Did it say or? Centers: So you put a nice looking little sign up. McKay: If we could do no parking, I guess that would be up to the applicant if they could live with no parking on those cul-de-sacs. We have done it in some projects. Under Site- Specific Number 1, that was -- that's the issue of the existing sewer easement. There is a sewer easement along the south boundary on the western side. I guess it's been there for many, many years. Bruce indicated to me that the sewer line is not centered in the existing easement. Our plat reflects that existing easement. Bruce would like to see, I believe, ten feet of clearance, so he said we are only talking two or three feet. I don't see that that's a problem. I can work with Bruce on that and move that lot line further north. I didn't realize that it was such a minor amount, but he clarified that for me. As far as access, Bruce talked about restoring the gravel road. Right now it's just weeds. I don't think you can drive down there, but then, the question arose, well, and then, if we don't put gravel on it, then, what do we do with it? I guess, you know, maybe Bruce has some ideas on how we could handle that as far as if they ever had to get back in there and maintain that. Item 4, we just want to make sure that we aren't required to fence any of our perimeter which already currently had fencing. That's a given. Then, Item 5 would be the 35-foot landscape buffer, which we definitely disagree with. Item 6 would be the five feet of gravel on each side of the 10-foot pathway. Then, Item 9 being the added micropath in that lot, nine I think it is. Then, under site-specific for the CU, I wasn't sure -staff made a comment about a tot lot, but there was no clarification on that. I believe it read item four, site-specific CU, add a tot lot to proposed park, Block 9, Lot 13. Centers: What are your two amenities now? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 27 of 100 McKay: Our two amenities - we are providing 13 percent open space and the multi-use pathway. Those are our two amenities. Borup: So, you're saying your amenity would be additional open space. I mean you're already required to have open space. McKay: Well, I don't know when she says tot lot if she meant play equipment or -- I guess I need her to clarify which -- Kirkpatrick: By tot lot I meant including play equipment in the park. Borup: So, what were you planning to have in the park? McKay: At this time we had planned on, obviously, having our pathway and putting in trees, landscaping, and, then, typically my clients take a look at, you know, what they want, if they want to add some additional things to it. We thought we had met the requirements of the two amenities. I guess that was our -- Centers: Well, that's the question. Have they met the two requirements for the PD? Kirkpatrick: They have, but they have minimally met the requirements, but we are asking or suggesting that they provide a tot lot. Centers: Okay. Kirkpatrick: But, yes, they have met the requirements. McKay: But I guess it's up -- it's the discretion of the Commission and, obviously, the Council to determine if the amenities meet the demand of the proposed development, so that -- I'd leave that up to the Commission. We have a real good project here. I think the city has wanted to see this particular parcel developed and make all these connections to all these stub streets and connect these developments together. We feel we have got, you know, a good project, we have a lot of site constraints to work with, but all in all this is a good project and we feel it can benefit this area. We are providing two types of mixed uses, the amenities, and our density, as I indicated, is 4.11 building units per acre. The designation allows three to eight. We are in that mid -- middle range. Do you have any questions? Borup: Questions from the Commission? Centers: No. I interrupted enough. Borup: I don't know, Becky, if you went into any explanation on your rationale for some of the reduced setbacks, lot sizes, frontages, et cetera, other than that allows you to have more homes, but is there any other rationale? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 - Pg 28 of 100 McKay: Commissioner Borup, we went with a planned development because it did allow us to go down to the 6,000 square foot versus the 6,500 that is the minimum lot size for that R-8 zone. Typically, in the in-fill projects cities encourage those developments, so they most generally have a little higher density, have differing lot sizes that may be less than the standardized lot sizes to encourage the development of those parcels. Those parcels are usually pretty spendy and we are normally dealing with a lot of different site constraints. The drain, the stub streets, they limit our design and they limit our density. In order to get it so it is economically feasible, we had to go with the planned development, asking for allowances on these setbacks, frontages, and lot sizes. Borup: Actually, the one I'm interested in probably most, maybe, is the cul-de-sac frontages. I don't see any 25 percent -- or 25 foot in your design anywhere. Well, the staff -- did you request those -- a minimum cul-de-sac lot frontage? Staff has it in their report as 25 feet. Was that not -- that was not a request for the applicant, then? McKay: I think she may have been --she must have got it from a Site Plan Borup: No, I didn't see -- McKay: As I look at those, it looks like they are all 40. We have 40-foot frontages all along -- Borup: Well, you -- no, I didn't -- McKay: Along the cul-de-sac to the north. We are looking at our -- Borup: You mean to -- to the cul-de-sac, but you're talking your little bump out there? McKay: No. Borup: You got a 36. McKay: No, sir. I'm looking at -- Borup: Oh, that one. McKay: The width on these is 40 feet. Borup: Okay. No, I was looking on the single family. McKay: On the single-family we have the little bump out, which has a 33-foot frontage. Borup: Right. Well, you're down to 30 is the smallest I see. McKay: Yes. I don't see anything that's 25. Not that I can see. I don't see anything less than a 30. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 29 of 100 Centers: And, Ms. McKay, you had mentioned the CUP Site-Specific Number 3 you agreed with and, then, you requested reduced setbacks and minimum house sizes, but you didn't get specific. On your memo, Page 4. Borup: I think the reduced setbacks would just be from 20 to 15 on the house, as long as you had 20 on the garages, is that -- McKay: Yes. I think -- I think that response was just to bring that to the attention of the Commission that we had asked for -- Borup: Well, no. Okay. Now that stays the same. I'm sorry. The reduced setback is on the two story to be reduced to five feet is your request, rather than ten per story -- or five per story. McKay: Yes. We are in agreement with staff. We don't -- I don't think we -- Centers: Okay. So your bold type -- McKay: -- have any disagreement. Centers: -- on Number 3 -- McKay: Yes. I think that was just a mistake. I'm sorry Centers: Thank you. I caught you. McKay: Yep. Borup: Any other questions from any of the Commissioners? Okay. We did have a couple of people that signed up that may have some questions. Are any of those here and would like to come forward on this application? Come on. Bengoechea: Excuse me for my ignorance. My name is Mike Bengoechea, 2061 Lark Street. I'm going walk over here. This ditch bank that she's talking about back here that is -- that's my house right there. We are all for getting that filled in. I really think my biggest concern is -- and this photo really doesn't show it, is this is Willowbrook right here and we all know where the car wash and the Primary Health is on Jericho. Well, to me it makes more sense to -- people coming down Fairview going home, they are going to go down Jericho to Willowbrook to get to their house. They are not going tc use these, which is going to increase traffic in our subdivision huge. That's my only real concern about the whole thing and I just want to make that point. Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Brylet: How are you doing this evening? I'm Shawn Brylet, 451 East Brown Bear Street. The only problem I have with this, folks is Ms. McKay saying they have an irrigation ditch in here. They also have irrigation -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 30 of 100 Borup: It's a drain. It's not an irrigation ditch, I don't believe. Brylet: The water actually runs through this ditch right now -- or drains however, you want to put it. There is also a piped irrigation -- can't show you on that. I can show you here. This would be my land right here. This is an irrigation -- piped irrigation underneath here that feeds a pressurized irrigation system for the Fothergill Subdivision. When Mr. Fothergill still owned this property that's annexed -- not even annexed yet, but his personal agricultural use property, they put an opened outlet right here, so that he could irrigate this field. That box to irrigate that field sits in my yard. What I need to do is either get rid of the box, because the only way to flood this is to drop a gate in there. That box is four-by-four by eight feet deep. He has gone through right now and covered that box, put a steel plate over the top of it. Now, when they release this property, this is going to come back into my yard. All I need to know is what we are going to do with this box. Borup: We will get an answer from the applicant on that. Your preference I'm hearing you say you'd like it removed; is that correct? Brylet: I would, actually, like the box removed. Now, I don't know what that's going to take as far as Nampa-Meridian Irrigation or is that part of the development for Engineering Solutions or maybe that even falls back on the John Ewing part of the Fothergill Subdivision. That may be another option to look into. The other issue I have is Ms. McKay said the perimeter of this is all fenced, except half of my yard. They stopped -- they stopped fencing this after that box. Now my yard is still open to this field back here. Borup: They would be fencing the area that's not fenced Brylet: Okay. Okay Centers: And, Mr. Brylet, the applicant has also stated -- and I'll read it verbatim. The irrigation ditches will be piped where necessary to serve downstream properties. Those irrigation facilities that serve only this property will be abandoned and they will have to do that properly and we will make that a requirement. Brylet: Excellent. That's good to hear. Borup: But I think where his concern is that the box is on his property, it's -not on this property. Brylet: Right. That box is, actually, on my property. But there is, actually, a box and a manhole cover and they sit side by side. Borup: Okay. We will get an answer from the applicant. At the very least I mean they would need your permission to do that, of course. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5. 2003 Pg 31 of 100 Brylet: Well, they are still going to have to access this through the field now, because there is no access through my yard anymore. There is a huge shed here and a swimming pool. Borup: Okay. Brylet: And so the only way to access that is through the field now. If they build the houses on there, there is no access to it. I guess the other complaint that some of us have as the neighbors, the size of these homes or lots in here and we are not quite sure as to why they can build a smaller lot, as compared to the existing subdivision that it backs up to. If that can be looked into as far as maybe increasing the size of these lots on the perimeter outside to match the lots that they back up to in the existing subdivisions. Centers: I'd like to address that. Brylet: Okay. Centers: They are going with this type of development and providing a lot more open space within it. If we took out the open space, then, they would provide the larger lots. They are not going to with any more lots per acre that you have, because they have the open space. Would that be correct, Mr. Chairman? Borup: Well, I think that was one of the reasons and probably the other is at some point the change needs to take place. You know, on the one side of their property they have apartments and mobile homes. If they went with those size lots, they would be much smaller somewhere there needs to be a transition. Brylet: Okay. Thank you. Borup: Otherwise, you know, a project that's up against a 40-acre lot, the whole area would be all -- Freckleton: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Yes. Freckleton: Can I address a question to the gentleman on irrigation? Borup: Yes. Freckleton: Sir, can I ask you a question? Just wondering, the pipe that you're referring to, is it north of the -- of this proposed subdivision's boundary? In other words, does it go across the back of the lots at Fothergill Point or is it in -- Centers: Mr. Brylet? It's a headgate, isn't it it's a headgate. Meddian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 32 of 100 Brylet: Yes, it's a headgate. It, actually, is piped underneath in the Fothergill Point Subdivision. Freckleton: Okay. If I understand you correctly, what happens is the box in your yard is a checkpoint where they turn the water south into -- into the proposed site. Brylet: That's correct. Borup: And does it continue on? Is that what you're wondering, Bruce? Brylet: The water does continue on downstream to the irrigation pump house for the irrigation of Fothergill Point Subdivision. Freckleton: Right. At the time they were irrigating this field where the subdivision is going to go, they would check the water out to run down to this field. Like you said. they'd have to put in a headgate on further downstream to check the water back and, then, I assume that the water would drain off into the drain ditch that crosses the property. Brylet: Exactly. Freckleton: Okay so, with this development, if they are not utilizing that water, it's probably going to be abandoned and they'll deal with the ditch. Borup: But that's just the headgate, isn't it? Now, if this ditch continues on, you can't -- you can't abandon that whole thing or you won't have water to your pump station. Centers: Well -- excuse me. The applicant said they are going to -- it's going to be piped where necessary to serve downstream properties. They know they have to do that. They are just going to abandon the headgate. Freckleton: Yes. Mr. Chairman, the water passes through onto the west now. The only time water would go through that is when they actually checked it back to water the field where Trailway Sub is going, which won't be necessary -- Borup: It doesn't go through the check station, through that check box? Freckleton: It does. It goes on through to the west to the pump station for Fothergill, but, historically, when they were going to water the field here where Trailway is, they would have to drop in a headgate and back the water up and push it out onto this property. Borup: Okay. Brylet: Yes. That's right. That's exactly how they have to do right now. Unfortunately, the John Ewing subdivision, when they put it in, then, as a developer, never put anything in there. He told Mr. Fothergill that all they would have to do is drop this in and they never capped it or anything. Everybody was informed that this was an open -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2D03 Pg 33 of 100 open system, basically, and never worked as well as they had planned on it. What they did is they put a manhole cover next to it and when they put this manhole cover in as a checkpoint for this irrigation, they had to actually build up the manhole cover. There are three layers of cement concrete on top to bring up this water high enough so that it didn't flood or wash out my yard. Now I have a box and a manhole cover to feed the existing Fothergill property that's going to be part of the Trailway Park Subdivision there, so -- Freckleton: Okay. Brylet: Thank you. Centers: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else? Badger: My name is Ryan Badger. I live at 660 East Grouse Court, which is the cul-de- sac to the northeast to the proposed subdivision. I just have a couple of points that I want to bring up. First of all, we have talked a little bit about it today, it seems like the developer wants to decrease just about everything on the subdivision as far as the setbacks and lot sizes. As Chairman Centers has talked about, we understand that -- Centers: Chairman Borup is on the end there. Badger: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Are we working our way there? As mentioned earlier.. they are putting in some nice green pathways we appreciate that from our subdivision in Fothergill. The one thing that, as Chairman Borup did bring up that we would like to see, in talking to many of my neighbors, we appreciate the -- as we move from the apartments we see some duplexes there, which brings in -- obviously, people that are going to want to purchase those. They are not going to want to build a big 400,000 home that will create a good tax base versus a 120,000-dollar home. We would like to see in the north and also on the west some comparable home sizes that that would -- a natural break would also be the road there. We are not asking that their setbacks or, I'm sorry, their lot sizes are 60-foot frontages on most of the subdivisions that surround them they are about an average of about 75 to 70 on some of those. I mean from our standpoint, we appreciate all the roads and the stuff, they are going to benefit a lot of people, but we just think that some of those things should be addressed and within a matter of losing one or two lots. We feel also that the smaller homes could have the potential in the distant future to bring -- to decrease property values within our own subdivision, because of our bigger lot sizes and so by creating somewhat of a buffer, we see some people on the back on the northeast corner there, I mean they back up to three houses, three total houses there, realizing that is a cul-de-sac lot, which is somewhat oddly shaped, but, nonetheless, it could decrease. I also have a comment, the gentleman that lived on Lark Street, when this subdivision takes place and general traffic is routed through the subdivision, what is the developer's plan -- you know, we see the billboards about the marvelous Trailway Subdivision that will go in, which will. obviously, fill in this area. How are they going to route that traffic? Is it through the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 34 of 100 existing neighborhoods or is it through the wide road at James Court, which is a relatively wide area, but, yet, going through apartments, which Idoubt -- maybe the developer is really going to want to send his folks to buy a home through the apartments. I mean our fear is a little bit that they are going to send them on a round about way, increasing traffic in our own subdivision unduly by that. I guess those are just some questions that I guess I would like answered and -- Borup: We can discuss some of those. I don't know if we can necessarily answer all of them. I mean traffic is going to seek its own way. The one thing that is very unique about this site is it has six access points and so there is an opportunity for the traffic co disperse six different directions down six different streets, rather than being funneled in on one particular -- there may be some that get more use than others, but it looks like for once ACHD was very careful about planning for this to eventually be developed and we have good stub streets all the way around, so we are not funneled in on one location. Badger: And I agree with that, Mr. Chairman. I guess I just wondered what's going to be the main access point for the developer to shufFle that traffic through, are they going to want to push that through the apartments from a -- Borup: Yes. Badger: Or are they going to shufFle that way back through the subdivision and somewhere else. Borup: I have got a question on your -- and I definitely agree that it's good to have some break point between sizes. I can't remember how you -- you said that -- you know, between lot sizes and where would be a natural point. Would you think it's better to make that change on a street or a backyard? On street, you're looking at someone's house right across from you, whereas a backyard you really don't have much in common with the neighbors on the back as much. Badger: And I understand your point there, too. I happen to -- in my cul-de-sac, I live on two -- my backyard neighbors, have two backyard neighbors and every summer night their 15 year old kids are out there playing until 10:30 at night and I'm just saying, you know, it's nice to have one backyard neighbor, you know, you kind of funnel that noise through you. If you have three backyard neighbors, it just increases the ability to make friends, but also to have other things, -- you know, you just have to deal with in the neighborhood. I guess -- I'm not asking them to get rid of all their lots, but I think reducing it by a couple of lot sizes on both those sections on the east and north -- we are not asking for, you know -- you know, I don't think we are asking for that much, so -- Centers: I think you have to give the -- and I look at both sides, but I think you have to give the applicant an A for creativity with that parcel of land with that drainage ditch coming right through it and sitting next to -- and throw a rock to a meat packing plant. It sits right in the middle of the property surrounded by city-owned property -- I mean city property. I think you just have to give a lot of credit to the creativity there and Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 35 of 100 understand that with that developed, it will help everyone else's tax base in the long run. if you follow what I'm saying, that maybe it will allow your taxes not to go up necaus~ we are able to collect some taxes in that area. Does that make sense? Badger: It makes sense from the standpoint that it was my understanding earlier that a 120,000-dollar home barely breaks even, from your comments. Centers: It does. It does. Badger: How would that help out our tax base? Centers: The first few years -- for the first few years. The other thing you have to give credit to is the 15 percent of open space, see, that you're not considering that's within there. If they didn't provide that, if they went with an R-8 subdivision, like you live in, you would have a lot more lots -- or not a lot more, but you would have as many lots, but they might be bigger. You'd have just as many homes. And I don't think I'm too far from wrong on that. Badger: Yes. Like I said, I'm not here to pitch a fit. I guess my standpoint just goes back to what I said before that I don't think it's too much to ask to lose a lot on either side of those boundaries. You go from 161 to 159 and if that is a big deal, if that's a deal breaker for the Commission, then, we will live with it. I mean we are going to have to live with it anyways. Our point is that we don't ask that -- we are not asking that much. I mean it's just a natural flow from the duplexes to some fairly crowded housing to, you know, maybe we lose a couple lots on those two borders. Centers: Well, let's have the applicant address that Badger: Yes. Fair enough. Centers: Okay. Borup: Thank you. Anderson: Hi, my name is Leslie Anderson. I live at 1890 East Blue Heron. This proposed subdivision I'm directly adjacent to up here in the northeast corner. My lot's right there on the corner of Blue Heron and Lark. I don't object to this lot being developed. I think it's probably a good idea. I expected it for the nine years that I have been there that, eventually, we would see lots next to us. Homes. I just wanted to join in Mr. Badger's comments that I'm disappointed in the lot sizes that are going to be right next to my house. Lost my train of thought. Sorry. I think that adjusting the lot sizes -- it looks to me like on this map that the smallest lot sizes are abutting these two subdivisions, the Fothergill and my Meridian Place Subdivision and the larger lots in this development are, actually, going to be bordering the apartments and the mobile home park. While I'll give them an A for creativity, for, you know, the diagonal line and -- that runs right through the center of it and ponds that they have to deal with, I appreciate the parks that they are putting in. I feel that they could have been a little more creative in Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 36 of 100 protecting the surrounding homeowners and the lot sizes. I mean the lots that I'm looking at right next to mine look half the size of mine and of several others along that eastern and northern border and it looks like Mr. Badger is going to have, like he said, three backyards abutting his property. Borup: So, the lots in your subdivision are closer to 12,000 feet? Anderson: Pardon? Borup: 12,000-foot lots in your subdivision, then? Is that what you're saying? Anderson: Well, I don't know -- it looks like they are quite varied in my subdivision. However, my lot is approximately, I think, 100 by 80, or 100 by 60. I'm not very good at math, so I don't know what that works out to as far as -- Borup: 100 by 60 would be the same size as these lots. Anderson: Well, then, maybe I'm off. I know it's 80 feet wide. Borup: But you're on the corner? Anderson: I'm on a corner. Borup: Okay. Anderson: Yes. That's my concern and also the comments by Commissioner Centers on the other project where he was discussing 110 to 20,000-dollar homes, which these are going to have to be on this size lot, there is just no way around it. My home was recently appraised at 169,000. That is my concern is the effect on the surrounding property owners values and I think with a little tweaking and just increasing the lot sizes in this other -- this northeast corner where they have -- it looks to me like they have got the smallest lots. Just would make it flow better from -- like Mr. Badger said, the apartments on the west side, maybe move the density closer to the other side, to just protect us and the other property owners and Iguess -- I guess there is -- the Comprehensive Plan calls for these in-fill projects. Like I said, I think it's a good idea, I just -- if the City of Meridian is advancing from this size of lots and this size homes, you know, and it's hurting the surrounding property owners, I don't understand, you know, why you wouldn't want to send it back to the drawing board. Centers: Let me address that. Anderson: Okay. Centers: The 110 or 120 is -- you could say it's a figure of speech, but with an in-fill like this and sewer and water and everything else there and fire protection and police protection, I would have to back up and, honestly, say that it probably will generate more than it's share of tax revenue and I think staff would agree with me on that. My Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 37 of 100 comment was reference to maybe a property that is being annexed that is barely touching the city and you have to run sewer to it, you have to run water to it, and provide services. Anderson: That project was more remote out in -- Centers: Right. There is there and it's ready. Anderson: Correct. Centers: But let me do a count for you. There is seven lots right there and there is nine down to there. I just counted them. Anderson: Okay Centers: Okay? And your seven in Fothergill here includes this large cul-de-sac lot, The one individual that was up here earlier was talking about this large -- unusually large cul-de-sac lot where there are three lots back up to it. That's the only s~tuahon ~,~rr~~-=~.~ you have that. Anderson: Right. Centers: And I can understand that, but, you know, as I said, we can have the applicant talk about widening a couple and losing a couple, but you don't have a lot of extra density, you have nine lots, compared to seven. These seven includes a very large cul- de-sac lot. You know, if you really do your count, it isn't that drastic. Anderson; It looks like to me if these lots were facing east -- west, you could probably fit two of them in -- Centers: But you're in an R-8 zone subdivision and the minimum square footage for a lot in an R-8 zone subdivision is, what, 65? Borup: Eight thousand. Centers: Eight thousand. Borup: What did you say? R-8? Centers: R-8. Borup: Sixty-five. Centers: Sixty-five. They are asking for 6,000 along your border. Anderson: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 38 of 100 Centers: So, they are 500 feet less -- Anderson: Right than a minimum. Centers: --than what's required in an R-8 zone. Anderson: And my objection is the size of houses that are going to be built on those lots. Borup: But I agree with you that the houses probably will be smaller, but we have had another project come before us that's being built now that had 50 foot lots with -- or 40 foot lots with 180,000 dollar homes on it. The size of the lot doesn't necessarily mean the lot -- or the homes are going to be the lower price. Anderson: Right. I'm just assuming that this going to turn out to be a starter home subdivision, which I'm fine with, is -- you know, as long as, you know, the homes are at least in the same range as the ones that surround them, as far as the price and quality. The only other comment I would make is that the neighborhood school, which is Chief Joseph, which is just a few houses down from mine, as far as I understand, doesn't have the capacity to service the elementary school children that will be living in this subdivision. I just have a question and I don't even know if that comes under your consideration when you're approving, but I don't know where these kids are going to go to school. It's not going to be at Chief Joseph, as far as I understand. Borup: That would be my understanding, too. Anderson: So, anyway, I would like for you to take that into consideration whin deciding whether to approve or amend the proposed plat. Centers: Thank you. Kirkpatrick: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I just wanted to make a brief comment. That while it's appropriate for us to talk about density and lot sizes and home sizes, it's not appropriate for us to address housing costs during this discussion, so we need to be careful about that. Thanks. Borup: That is true. Okay. Does that conclude the public testimony? Ms. McKay, do you have final -- Powell: Chairman Borup, before Ms. McKay gets back up -- Borup: Yes. Powell: -- can I interject a little bit. Regarding the sewage lagoon -- I was hoping the owner of that use would testify a little bit more about perhaps what was going on there. but as planners in the state of Idaho, we don't get an environmental impact report mac says all of what's going on, on this property. Most of the time, quite frankly, we don't Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 39 of 100 need one. This is one case where there is a big unknown at the edge of this subdivision. Maybe it's harmless. Frankly, I don't know. Establishing that minimum buffer of 35 feet would at least address potentially some concerns as to what's going on there. When she says that bleach might be going into those ponds, along with blood and other things, it makes me very nervous. When that property comes to us for annexation, I would certainly want to see some documentation about how that would be reclaimed for use for some other use, since it has been a sewage lagoon for so long. I wanted to let Ms. McKay address that if she wanted to in her rebuttal. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Becky. McKay: Becky McKay. I'll just kind of touch on some of the issues that were brought forth. There was discussion about Willowbrook being utilized. Ada County Highway District did evaluate the access through this parcel and all the interconnections. It was determined by the traffic engineer at ACHD that there probably would be more- cut- through traffic through this development than what you would find in the existing developments, just because of its central location and linkage to all these other developments and the outlets through James Court and Blue Heron. Their estimate was approximately 200 vehicle trips a day would be probably coming down Willowbrook, you know, to and fro, into and out of this development. There will be some impact on Willowbrook and I'm not going to stand here and tell them that there won't. However, with these stub street connections, we don't have any choices, as the Commission well knows. We are mandated to make these connections. The second issue was the pipe along the northern boundary. That's the Stokesberry Lateral that's piped and it's piped on -- north of our boundary. It does feed water to that pump station that services Fothergill. That pump station is owned and operated and maintained by Nampa- Meridian Irrigation District. It is their desire for us to go in and upgrade that station and make improvements and upgrades in that station and make it a regional station, so that it would serve not only Fothergill, but this development. The irrigation that's in the rear yard, the box, I don't want to comment on something that I, obviously, haven't seen, nor have I have had my engineer take a look at and evaluate as to how it functions. I would not even -- even begin to say we would take it out or modify it or -- I just don't know what that facility looks like. Mr. Fothergill that lives on part of this parcel that is included in our request this evening, I guess will be retaining that home there for a period of time. If he does utilize that to irrigate his yard, I would, obviously, be hesitant to say, oh, yes, we will just tear it out, because I guess he is going to live in that house for a period nr time. As far as fencing the rest of that gentleman's yard, we are required under ~! ~~ ordinance fence our perimeter, so if there are gaps in the fence, then, that would be our responsibility. There was a discussion concerning signage and directing traffic towards our site. The applicant's indicated that they don't go out into these other subdivisions and put big signs trying to bring people through their developments. You would have to give them a road map if they were to wind their way through these local streets. Obviously, the quickest connection to this site would be James Court or Blue Heron. They typically use those little directional signs that are temporary that the little realtors put out, then, they also rely upon their realtors or advertising to put maps in the paper and so forth of the real estate section of the Statesman. We won't be going out and doing what he was concerned about. As far as construction traffic, obviously, James Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 40 of 100 Court is going to be the obvious, easy, convenient construction connection to this site while it's under construction. There was a discussion on lot sizes. You know, that's always a tough one and we are always -- we are always arguing how many lots are backing up to the existing development, but from a planning perspective we look at compatibility, we have single family, we have single family. We don't discriminate, obviously, between smaller lots where they are 500 square feet smaller or whatever, but we look at compatibility being there are two uses, single family, single family, and they are the same. We are not -- I think it's wrong to always say we have to make them identical and match up every lot line in order to make them compatible, because that's just not correct. Concerning the school, Mrs. Anderson testified that Chief Joseph is at capacity. That is correct. There is an elementary school that's under construction off of Locust Grove just short of Ustick. I'm working with the school district on another school site where we are getting improvements to that site within the next year, so that they can begin construction in 2004. The development community -- we are doing what we can to bring additional elementaries on line and working with the school district to identify sites. I worked with the district just yesterday on trying to identify a new middle school site up in the north Meridian area and get that void filled as soon as possible. We are doing what we can. Your Planning Director has indicated her concern about those ponds. If it is a concern of hers that there be some type of analysis with the application for annexation and Rezone, I think that should be dealt with at that time. As you can see from the photographs and based on the comments made by the property owner to your planning staff to myself, there are no toxic or hazardous things being discharged into these ponds, that they are primarily ground water. They were dug deep, it's mounded up around the side, and as you can see -- and from my observations they don't look like something I would mandate a 35 foot buffer from and I think 35 feet that I can't connect, you know, really anywhere else and make usable. When these ponds go away --and that is the plan for that property owner to the west of us, then, we have a 35 feet buffer that will be the burden of these residents from now until eternity and the ponds won't even be there. I mean just I don't see -- I think it's a stretch to say that that is the processing plat. That is not the processing plant. It's one parcel over. These are just ponds that were dug there for doing some flushing. They want to connect to the city sewer. I just don't see that this is -- that that's applicable. I still think it is a stretch. Centers: I totally agree. It's got a separate owner of that property? McKay: The two parcels are owned by the same owner, sir. Centers: Are they the same -- McKay: But they are two separate parcel numbers, yes. Two separate zones. Centers: Where does Fothergill presently live, while I think of it? McKay: Right there. Centers: Down in here? That's fine. He just indicated where Mr. Fothergill lives, next door to himself, so for the record. Thanks. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 41 of 100 McKay: We have got a good project here and I think it's worth approving, because it will benefit this area. I need to submit these into the record. Zaremba: Let me throw an idea at you and ask whether you want to discuss it, if you don't like it or what. Next to whatever those ponds are, if there were a restriction on let's say the six closest lots -- one, two, three, four, five, six. McKay: It adjoins five, sir. Zaremba: Five. McKay: There are five lots that adjoin it and those are the duplex lots. Zaremba: If we said that conceptually or eventually that part of the plan was okay, but that those five lots could not actually be built on until those ponds were gone. Could you accept that as a phasing -- as opposed to having to put the 35-foot buffer now, just that you don't build on those until the ponds are gone? McKay: We would be required to fence the perimeter. Zaremba: That would have to be fenced now anyhow. McKay: Right. Borup: Becky, you said there has not been any kind of chemical analysis of the ponds or anything? McKay: No. Not to my knowledge. That's going to be my recommendation to that -- the property owner, obviously, since I'm preparing his application for submittal and that that's going to be a concern. Borup: Which property owner? McKay: The property owner to the west. Borup: Okay. McKay: That's retained me to submit application for annexation and rezoning to the city, so he can connect to city services. Borup: Okay. Right-away? McKay: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. We are preparing the application. We have just been working on it and I have had a meeting with your planning staff to try to determine what zoning designation would be appropriate, because there are three uses on the property. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 42 of 100 There is asingle-family dwelling, there is the beef and jerky facility and, then, there 5 like a shop in the back, like a -- Borup: Small engine repair. McKay: Yes. Zaremba: Well, I think Mrs. Powell makes a valid point, that there is going to have to be some environmental study done by this neighbor, who everybody's fortunate you're working for both parties in this. I agree with her, I don't think the city will approve something like houses going over an unknown -- maybe it's clean water and maybe ii's not. There is going to have to be some proof that it's not dangerous before they let anything be .built on it and it's like a place where an old gas station was, there has to be -- Centers: Well, let me interject. Zaremba: -- a study done there, too, so -- Centers: How is 35 feet going to help? Ten yards. Zaremba: I'm more in favor of not building on those five lots -- Centers: How is 35 feet going to help? Zaremba: -- until that, other problem has been solved. I'm only making it a suggestion, but I like my own suggestion. Borup: And, obviously, that pond is going to look different at different times of the year, but right now in those photographs, it's a very pleasing area. McKay: Those were taken last week. Borup: That's what I mean. Right now they are. In September they may not be quite the same, I don't know, but -- Centers: Your adjoining property owner that wants to be annexed, primarily to be hooked onto the sewer? McKay: Yes, sir. That's what he indicated to me. To hook onto city services. Centers: Then, there would be nothing dumped in those ponds correct? McKay: That's correct. That's -- Centers: So, in tying in with Mr. Zaremba's comments, when he's hooked up to the sewer, you can build on those six lots. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 43 of 100 Zaremba: Unless there is residual toxic. We are only taking it by looking at it that there is nothing toxic in it. You can stop adding toxin if there is a -- that's the unknown quantity, if it's already toxic. Borup: The ducks don't seem to mind. McKay: They are nesting there. Zaremba: That's true. McKay: I guess, Commissioner Borup and -- I mean Chairman Borup and Commissioner Zaremba, what about the existing apartments and existing single family dwellings that adjoin it now? I mean -- I guess, I don't know, did anybody testify that those are -- those are a nuisance, a hazard, that they have odors, that they -- Zaremba: And the point is we never heard of any those Borup: Well, the apartments are -- Zaremba: I wasn't here when they were approved, so -- McKay: I think they have been there a long time. Centers: These houses up here, too. McKay: Yes. You have apartments just next to it. Do you see the -- that's the boundary right there, that slanted line, there is -- you can see the contouring at fhe e<_!qe ,.f ih~~ pond and those are Aspen Hills Apartments. In fact, if you look at the photographs that we took, you can see how close those apartments are to them. They are separated by a fence and setbacks, which we would have a rear yard setback of 15 feet also. We would have at least a 15-foot setback minimum. Borup: Ms. McKay, I think you addressed the idea of increased lot sizes on the north, but you kind of passed over that quickly, I think. Would there be -- would that be a possibility to eliminate one of those lots and maybe spread that out? McKay: T hat would have to be a decision made by the applicant. I don't have the authority to make that call or, obviously -- Borup: Okay. Or the Commission. McKay: Or the Commission. Yes, sir if they deem that necessary. Borup: Was there anything else you wanted to cover? McKay: No, sir. Thank you. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 44 of 100 Borup: Any other questions from the Commission for Becky? Okay. Final comments from staff? Kirkpatrick: Okay. There are a couple points I want to address. We didn't really get through and talk about the gravel pathway, which will be going through the open space. I wanted to bring it up. We were going to have the applicant speak about that. Borup: Through the park? Kirkpatrick: Through the park. Borup: Gravel or -- Kirkpatrick: Correct. I wanted to check with the applicant if that was still a part of their proposal. When I talked to them last it was. Borup: Oh, you mean over the drain? Kirkpatrick: Over the drain. Correct. Becky, will that still be a part of the proposed project? McKay: Mr. Chairman, Wendy, it's -- we are going to have to provide Nampa-Meridian some type of access to -- like the manholes for future maintenance where we have piped the drain. Our intent is to take our pathway close enough to where ever we pipe the drain, so that doubles. We do not want to put gravel through -- diagonally through that, that would just ruin the esthetics of it. No, I mean it's -- the drawing didn't do justice. I'm sorry. Kirkpatrick: Okay. The plat -- it's depicted there will be -- McKay: Yes. I think what they were looking at is showing that. there would be access next to the pipe, but, no, we are going to use the pathway for that. That's why we are going to 14 width. Borup: So, you're going to either move the drain or move the pathway? McKay: Yes, sir. Borup: One or the other. McKay: Yes, sir, because we will be piping it through that pocket park area and so we -- the pathway as shown is just kind of -- it was taken to the west to maximize that park area, but if we have to kind of meander it through there, it wouldn't be problematic or would deter from the usability of the park. Borup: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 45 of 100 Centers: One final question, Becky. Is it either/or on the pathway, if you don't get the pathway as presented, you're going to have the homeowners take care of it? McKay: Yes, sir. Centers: So, is it either/or? I mean are you okay with that? McKay: Yes. I think they indicated that they -- if -- Centers: That would be my preference. Why should the city take care of it? McKay: If the city doesn't want it because we can't meet the standard that Mr. Strong came up with, then, we will maintain privately, yes, sir. The pathway, either way, will be there. Centers: Yes. McKay: Yes, sir. Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, I wanted to point out that if the homeowners do maintain that pathway, we will need an access agreement, so the public can use that pathway. That will need to be a condition of approval. McKay: Oh, one other thing Idid -- I forgot to mention. I will need the city's cooperation with Nampa-Meridian in the past, like on Five Mile Creek, I believe, the city was party to one of the -- to the agreement. If we are going to bring in the public in and using the pathway and so it's like -- I don't know, I think it -- correct me, but indemnify the district or something -- they come to some mutual agreed upon language. I may need the city to help me with Nampa-Meridian, because they may insist that the city be part of whatever agreement we have to sign also, Borup: That same thing was worked out on the Jackson Drain to the west of here already, wasn't it? I think -- McKay: It may cover the whole thing, sir, that -- you may be correct. Borup: Oh, well, I don't know if it covers the whole thing, but -- McKay: I don't know. I'm just -- Borup: But the existing pathway is maintained by -- McKay: Yes, sir. Borup: Do you have some other items? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 46 of 100 Kirkpatrick: And we could have legal counsel address that through the plat. Borup: On the pathway? Kirkpatrick: Correct. Borup: Okay. Kirkpatrick: Just to kind of re-address the pond issue, I want to go ahead and state that when I talked to -- I talked to Bill Nichols, who is our -- he was our counsel today. His determination was that these ponds are, indeed, a part of the meatpacking processing facility and because they are a part of that facility, we are required to have a 35-foot buffer. He doesn't think that there was any wiggle room on that. That was hard and fast that if it's a part of that processing facility, we need a 35-foot buffer. I, myself, toured the site and was, you know, impressed with the meat packing facility. It was, you know, much nicer than we anticipated, but I -- the owner did make the comment to me when we were talking about the ponds, like in the summer -- this was actually a phone call about a week ago, that they were pretty rank in the summer. I was concerned about that impact on those property owners. That could be a part of -- it's a pond, it's not being circulated, there is moss, algae, so it could be attributed to that, but it's definitely a concern I have for potential property owners in the subdivision. Just wanted you to know that. Zaremba: Well, then, I would address my question to you that I addressed to Becky before. If we could make a good assumption that at point in the near future those ponds are going to go away and, therefore, not be part of the meat processing plant, would just stipulating that those five or six lots not be built on until that pond is gone, is that a satisfactory solution? Kirkpatrick: It would be. If the applicant comes in with another commercial use, they would still be required to do at least a 20 foot buffer separating that residential use from a commercial use. They will need to take that into consideration. I think phasing the development would be, potentially, a good solution to this problem. Borup: Which property owner would need to do the 20-foot buffer? The new application coming in? Kirkpatrick: Generally, it's the new application that's required to provide the buffer. Borup: Right. Okay. That's what I thought. I wasn't sure if I understood what you had said there. Zaremba: Let's see. Maybe Ms. McKay can answer this or somebody else can. The current Jackson Drain as it leaves this property that we are talking about at its northwest end, is it piped beyond that or is it open beyond that? Borup: It's open. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 47 of 100 McKay: Commissioner Borup is correct, Commissioner Zaremba, it is open. It exits into our northwest boundary. You can see it run parallel with Blue Heron, crosses Blue Heron, and, then, it goes in a northwesterly direction and you can see in the other section a pathway over on that north side of Blue Heron that's existing. Zaremba: So, we are not talking about piping a great length of this? Several hundred feet? McKay: Yes, sir. Just through that mid section and, then, relocating it open, adjoining right there. We'd pipe -- we'd pipe right through there where you're going to encourage people to gather and play. Then, it would -- we are going to realign it and it will be open along our west boundary and, then, go up and link into where it historically is along south of James Court, that's its historic location, and that's where it stays. Zaremba: I see that. Thank you. Borup: Any other questions from the Commissioners? Okay. Do we have -- would we like some discussion first before we close the hearing or -- Centers: I think we could close the Public Hearing and I would move that we do so Zaremba: I'll second it. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Zaremba: Just to clarify that, that's closing the Public Hearings on all three? Borup: Yes. That motion was for all three? Centers: Correct. Correct. For all three items. Borup: Well, do we want to take them one at a time and -- Zaremba: Ican just express some opinions and maybe -- Borup: On the annexation and zoning or do you want to handle everything or do you want to hit them one at a time? Zaremba: Well, I would say this is an in-fill and annexation and zoning is a very good idea. I don't have any problems with the zoning that is being requested. As to having the Jackson Drain piped or tiled through that short distance, more than half of it through this property is being left open and I personally don't have too much -- I'm very much in favor of having it open, but I don't have any problem with piping it through the park. As for the drainage ponds next door, I would like to satisfy that by just saying that specified Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 48 of 100 Lots 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, of Block 9, I guess it was, can't be built on until those neighboring ponds are gone and, then, it would be up to the neighbor, if they do a commercial use, to do the 20 foot buffer and not this applicant. As for traffic through it -- and I think the stub streets are a given and they have been very creative in working themselves around not only the stub streets, but the drain that they have to work around. I tend to think that the benefit to the neighboring subdivisions and the pain to the neighboring subdivisions are going to be a wash. They will use this passage and they will be used. What other issues? The tot lot. I would -- I'm not so certain it needs to be a tot lot, but I would like to see some amenity, a gazebo or -- Borup: Something in the park other than just grass. Zaremba: Other than just grass. I'm not sure that's what's meant by amenity. The park is open space. An amenity is a thing that you put into the open space, tc me. Personal definition. We hit most of the subjects. Borup: I think so. Comments from other Commissioners on that? Centers: I had just a couple. Of course, the annexation and zoning, that's a given. We want this in the city. It's an in-fill. I'm looking at the notes here. Now, the one restrict building on those lots next to the pond, do we have some report or a DEQ report that it's not suitable to live by? We don't have anything like that. All we have is conjecture that it might not be livable next to it. That's all we have. There is apartments south and north. If the staff feels that it's not suitable to build next to, a 35-foot buffer is not going to help. You'd have to get a lot further away than that. I totally agree with the applicant. Then, you enter into the marketability of those six lots. If they build on them and are able to sell them, God bless them. If they are liable because the built next to a pond, then, that's their problem, not mine because the pond may have been infected with whatever. There has been no report from anyone that that pond is not suitable to live next to. The people living in the manufacturing plant or the meat packing plant have survived for many years, I think. You know, I haven't heard of any deaths of the packing plant. No one's provided that evidence. Borup: It sounds like it may have some odors in the summer. Center: And that ties into the marketability of those lots. Borup: Right. Exactly. Centers: Totally. If they can't sell them because the odor is there, then, they have got a problem. The pathway, I think that's solved. Let the developer, within the homeowners association, and provide an access agreement for the general public. I think the parks department, with their five foot gravel pathway on each side, just so they can spray the weeds is -- well, whatever. Yes. Anyway, I think it's a good development. I can certainly understand where the homeowners are coming from on the north side in Fothergill and - - but I think it was Mrs. Anderson mentioned she knew for many years that this land was going to be built and here we go. Referring to sales prices, we didn't tie any sales Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 49 of 700 prices to anything. We were speaking in conjecture. We never require sales prices, minimum, on any project. We know that. We were speaking in general terms and we speak in general terms as we did on the project before this. End of speech. Borup: Did you -- I don't know if you completely elaborated on lot sizes or -- Centers: Idon't have a problem. Borup: With the existing --okay. Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I guess my only comment would be, then, if we are going to allow the development of the lots adjacent to the pond, should we not, then, have the 35 foot setback as requested by staff? Center: Well, my come back to that, Commissioner Rohm, that I look at the pond as a setback. You know, legal counsel has determined that that's part of the manufacturing plant and that we can require a 35-foot setback. I have seen many times, where Council and this Commission have backed away from a requirement by the city. I have seen one recently by the City Council. This is no exception. If we are going to make exception for one, then, we have to make them for the other. They started it we continue it down the road. Rohm: Well, it almost becomes a moot point when once they vacate the pond anyway, so we may be arguing over -- Centers: I'm not arguing. Borup: We are discussing. Rohm: Discussing. Mathes: How far is the pond from the property line? The edge of the pond. Borup: Pretty close. Centers: It depends on whether it's high water or -- Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, the property line is about eight feet from the ponds, scaled off of the plat that was submitted by the applicant. Centers: And with a 15 foot rear setback. Borup: Do you have any comments, Commissioner Mathes? Mathes: I think it all goes to the marketability of those lots. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 50 of 100 Borup: Any concerns or discussions on staff comments that we may need to address? You know, this is a minor thing, but there are not 25-foot cul-de-sac frontages. That could change to 30 foot and not affect the project. Those are still pretty tight. Other than they have a good taper to them, so that does allow homes to be built in there with not being restricted too much. Well, are we ready to move on? Centers: Yes. I'd like to make a motion, Mr. Chairman, recommending approval of Item Number 7 on our Agenda AZ 03-010, request for annexation and zoning of 39.15 acres from RUT to R-8 PD for proposed Trailway Park Subdivision by Hillview Development, Corp. East of North Meridian Road and south of East Blue Heron Lane, including all staff comments from their memo dated June 2"d Zaremba: Second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Centers: Continuing on, I would like to recommend approval for Item 8 on our agenda, which his PP 03-011, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 161 building lots and 25 other lots on 39.15 acres in a proposed R-8 PD zone for proposed Trailway Park Subdivision by Hillview Development Corporation. East of the North Meridian Road and south of East Blue Heron Lane, including all staff comments from their memo dated June 2"d, starting on Page 8, all of staff comments on Page 8 are included, one through four, site-specific comments. Item Number 5 to be deleted, which requires a 35-foot landscape buffer. Item Number 6, the pathway to be the ownership of the developer and the homeowner association and shall provide an access agreement for general public. Item Number 9 on Page 9 is fine. No. Excuse me. Eliminate Item Number 9, the requirement for the micropath. Borup: -There are two of them they are talking about. One of them is about -- on number nine is the connectivity, I think. Centers: Good catch. The one that we are talking about would be the last sentence, the micropath through Lots 11 and 19. The remaining part of paragraph Number 9 would remain. You would strike the last sentence in paragraph Number 9. End of motion. Rohm: I'll second that. Centers: I'd like to amend that briefly, that the applicant will work with Mr. Fothergill and the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation Association to remove the headgate on Mr. Fothergill's property when deemed necessary by Mr. Fothergill and Mr. Brylet. I hope I pronounced that name right. Close enough? Thank you. Rohm: I'll second that as well. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 51 of 100 Borup: Okay. Good. Motion and second. All in favor? Any discussion or -- MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Centers: Continuing on, I would like to recommend approval for CUP 03-012, that's a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for single family residential use with reduced setbacks, lot sizes, lot frontages, and house sizes in a proposed R-8 PD zone for proposed Trailway Park Subdivision by Hillview Development Corporation. East of North Meridian Road and south of East Blue Heron Lane, including all staff comments on Page 13, Item Number 4, applicant shall provide some park amenities, whether it be a jungle gym, at least -- Borup: Some physical -- Centers: Yes. Can we specify two? A jungle gym, a slide, and a swing. Borup: Well, I think their earlier testimony is they may want to provide a picnic area, rather than a playground or a gazebo or something like -- could we say some physical amenity? Centers: Yes. That's fine. Accept Chairman Borup's definition in the motion. Borup: A physical amenity, I think, is what -- Centers: Right. Zaremba: I'll second that. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? Rohm: I like the idea of the tot's playground, myself. That's just as a -- Centers: I think they were going to do it anyway. Borup: Well, but if they are planning on -- Kirkpatrick: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, could you go ahead and clarify that for staff, so it's more specific when we go to Council with your recommendation. Borup: On the amenity? Kirkpatrick: Correct. Centers: A jungle gym and a slide. Borup: Well -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 52 of 100 Kirkpatrick: Okay. Centers: Minimum of. Jungle gym and a slide. Then, the applicant is nodding their head and accept that. Rohm: I'll second that. Borup: So, what we are saying is item four, the tot lot is -- Centers: Well, I couldn't say tot lot. Borup: Is that a little tiny lot? Okay. Let's see. We have not voted. We have a motion. All in favor? Any opposed. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Thank you. Centers: May we -- Mr. Chairman. Borup: Would it be appropriate for a break, is that what you're -- Centers: Please. Borup: -- indicating? Okay. We will take a break at this time. (Recess.) Item 10. Public Hearing: AZ 03-008 Request for annexation and zoning of 34.52 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Birthstone Creek Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC -northwest corner of West Ustick Road and North Black Cat Road: Item 11. Public Hearing: PP 03-008 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 89 building lots and 7 other lots on 34.52 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Birthstone Creek Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC -northwest corner of West Ustick Road and North Black Cat Road: Borup: Okay. We'd like to reconvene our meeting this evening. Next item is Birthstone Creek Subdivision. Public Hearing AZ 03-008, request for annexation and zoning of 34.52 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Birthstone Creek Subdivision by Centennial Development, at the northwest corner of West Ustick and North Black Cat. Accompanying that is PP 03-008, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 89 building lots and seven other lots on 34.52 acres on the same property. We'd like to open both Public Hearings at this time and I will start with the staff report.