Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 7, 2003 P & Z MinutesMeridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 47 of 104 Zaremba: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 8 on our agenda, PP 03-021, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 40 building lots and six other lots on 13.85 acres in an R-4 our zone for Bear Creek No. 8 by Bear Creek, LLC. North of West Victory Road and east of South Stoddard Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date August 7, 2003, received by the city clerk July 31, 2003, with the following -- not change, but comment noted. On page three, special considerations, referring to open space, that wasn't under site-specific requirements, but the applicant has agreed to comply with that and part of their compliance will be adding some common space out of a portion of Lot 33, Block 12, and perhaps some other spaces up to the applicant. Rohm: I will second that motion. Borup: Motion and second, all in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: I think this would be an appropriate time to take a break. I did want to mention - - Idon't know if we have anyone here for Item Number 17. Okay. Did I do that right? I just received a note here that the applicant has requested this be continued to the next meeting, which is August 22"d -- or 21St, I mean. I assume the applicant is not here? Is that correct? They have left? Okay. They have -- they have left, so that will be on the agenda for August 21St. I apologize for that. Now, if you would like to stay and present some testimony, we would -- so we would be glad to -- you're welcome to stay and do that when we came to that item. Or if you have some written testimony you'd like to present, that would also -- okay. (Recess.) Item 9. Public Hearing: AZ 03-014 Request for annexation and zoning of 33.25 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Tuscany Village by Tuscany Development, Inc. -south of East Victory Road and west of South Locust Grove Road: Item 10. Public Hearing: PP 03-015 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 136 building lots and 10 other lots on 33.25 acres in a proposed -R-8 zone for proposed Tuscany Village by Tuscany Development, Inc. -south of East Victory Road and west of South Locust Grove Road: Item 11. Public Hearing: CUP 03-029 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development with reduced lot widths and setbacks for the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 48 of 104 proposed Tuscany Village by Tuscany Development, Inc. -south of East Victory Road and west of South Locust Grove Road: Borup: Okay. We'd like to reconvene our meeting for this evening. The next project is Tuscany Village, Item Numbers 9, 10 and 11. Like to open all three Public Hearings at this time, AZ 03-014, request for annexation and zoning of 33.25 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for proposed Tuscany Village by Tuscany Development, Inc. PP 03-015, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 136 building lots and ten other lots on the same project, and CUP 03-029, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development with reduced lot widths and setbacks for proposed Tuscany Village. Again, we'd like to open all three Public Hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Powell: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, this is a continuation of the project that you saw of as Tuscany Lakes, which is over in this area around here. This - - I'm sorry. It's in the yellow. This project is located here at the intersection of Victory and Locust Grove. The purple on this map indicates some neighboring properties that were given special notice and I will get into that as we go through the project, an aerial of the site. This is prior to development of any of the final plats associated with Tuscany Lakes. The project -- they are requesting zoning it R-8 and the project provides 136 building lots and ten other lots. Those other lots include a 2.43-acre park in that location, a drainage lot, which is over here, and several micropaths, which don't show up very well on that drawing. They show up a little better on this one. You will see a pathway there, there, and there is a small open space here and, then, that drainage lot, again, is over here and there is the park. They are also proposing a pathway along Ten Mile Creek, which the eventual conclusion of that will be near Overland. The applicant also brought a colored map, as you see on the wall. We have an overhead that we can do with that also and I will bring that up. The gross density to the project is 4.16 dwelling units per acre. The net density is 5.35 dwelling units per acre. It's a little denser than what was, I believe, approved in Tuscany, but it is still within the limits of the zoning. They have asked, as part of the PUD, for reduced setbacks, reduced lot size, reduced frontages, reduced house sizes, and to allow blocks within the subdivision to exceed the maximum lengths of 1,000 feet. The only block that does that is Block 2 along here and there is a substantial break in that width of micropaths or pedestrian paths. Regarding the setbacks, the normal setback would be 15 feet for a living area in the R-8. They are asking for a setback of 12 feet. The normal lot size required 6,500 square feet. They are requesting 5,200 square feet. The normal frontage of 65 feet, they are requesting 50 feet. There are a total 5.3 acres of open space, which equates to about 13 percent of the gross land area, so they do exceed the ten percent, so they could use that as one of their amenities for the Planned Development. The other amenity is playground equipment within the neighborhood park located at the center and I believe the play equipment is right in that area there. They are also providing the ten-foot asphalt pathway along Ten Mile Creek. There are three items listed under special considerations -- four items. Excuse me. One is the stub street of Iona, which is in this location and at the Ada County Highway District meeting last night they did require that to be a stub street, rather than -- there is kind of a snoopy right there. Or a hammerhead, I guess it's called. There was also a question about the park location in Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Mee[ing August 7, 2003 Page 49 of 104 the relative -- the fact that it's relatively closed. There is an opening here, a small opening there, and, then, this opening here. You do kind of get a glimpse of it as you enter the property, but it narrows down. Since writing the staff report, the applicant has agreed to narrow these lots up a little bit to open up that area right there. The other possibility would be to decrease this lot a little bit and open up there. I think from staffs perspective this opening would have a lot more impact, because it's at the entrance to the subdivision. The third item noted is the block length and, as I said, there is a substantial break there with the pedestrian paths to break up that block. Then, the reduced dimensions of the lot, which staff does not object to. The applicant has provided a position statement on the conditions of approval. Regarding the annexation and zoning, general conditions, he's noted that the first of those doesn't apply, because there are no wells and septics on the site, so if the Commission wishes to remove that, then that would be fine. The second one, staff had asked fora Development Agreement regarding the pathway construction and fencing. Because this is a PD, we can move those requirements into the plat requirements and deal with it there, so staff doesn't have any problem not requiring a Development Agreement on this property. I mentioned earlier that several people had been given special notice of this hearing and the question -- the reason they were given notice is in regard to the public sewer construction within the area. When Tuscany Lakes went in, the proposal was to bring sewer down Victory to Locust Grove and, then, head south on Locust Grove and that was consistent with the city's approved sewer master plan and it was presented at that time, as that's where the sewer would go. The people shown in purple were -- are people that would be affected if that -- if that were to be rerouted, so we gave special notice saying that there would be discussion tonight on rerouting that, instead of coming down here and like that, the applicant is proposing to bring sewer through the property here. We did -- this issue -- the Public Works Department brought this question of the sewer rerouting to the City Council, the City Council said because it was discussed in a Public Hearing they wanted to reconsider it in a Public Hearing as well. This was the earliest opportunity to have that discussion, so it will go up to them for their consideration as part of -- as part of this plat, that relocation, and it made sense, because if we did it in regard to a Final Plat for the previously approved Tuscany, then, it's an off-site sewer issue. This is really an on-site sewer issue, so it seemed appropriate to talk about it now. You have people here that are going to testify about the location of the public sewer. There is no question that either location would adequately serve this project, so it's not really a planning issue as far as making your findings. Either will one provide adequate public sewer, but we do ask that you take that testimony, let those people talk. It really doesn't have bearing on the plat as it goes through it's more of a philosophical question that's before the City Council as to whether or not it's appropriate to deviate from the master plan. You're certainly -- I don't want to discourage you from making a recommendation if you feel that's appropriate, but I don't -- I just wanted you to know that ycu don't have to make a decision on it necessarily, that either one will serve from a planning standpoint, it's just the philosophical. If you feel strongly about it, you can certainly include it in your recommendation, but it's not germane to whether or not you want to approve it or not. I'll conclude staffs comments with that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 50 of 104 Borup: Questions from any of the Commission? Just a clarification. The master plan called for sewer to go down to the intersection of Locust Grove and, then, south? Powell: Correct. Borup: Is that correct? Zaremba: I do have a couple of questions if I may. If I understand the surrounding properties correctly, what qualifies this property for annexation is one single point of contact at the southeast corner. Is that -- is that correct and is that acceptable? Powell: I believe that is correct and, yes, it's acceptable Zaremba: Okay. As long as it's contiguous, even in a point, it's okay. All right. That answers that one. On the setbacks --and I'm looking at the staff memo, page two. City requirements in an R-8 are a front setback of 15 feet for living area, 20 feet for garage. Unless I hear otherwise, I wouldn't have any objection with the 12 foot setback for a living area, but if we state it the way that it is here, that the setback is 12 feet for any home with a recessed garage, then, we could have the living area setback 12 feet and as long as the garage was setback at six inches it would be recessed. Do we want to specify that the garage still needs to be 20 feet back? Powell: That would be a good idea. Yes. Borup: Yes, we definitely do want that to -- Zaremba: That alarmed me a little bit. Borup: No. I think that was the intention Zaremba: Okay. Let me see if I had any others. No. My others were just the sewer discussion. Borup: Anything from the other Commissioners? Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Brown: For the record, my name is Kent Brown. My business address 1800 West Overland in Boise, Idaho. Due to the lateness of the hour, I can carryon for quite some time or I can just answer your questions. I can leave that up to you to talk about that project or I can just answer your questions. I would let you know that Dean Briggs is here to answer sewer questions and the applicant's attorney is also here from a legal standpoint to answer questions, too. We are all available to answer questions. Borup: Maybe one thing that might speed it, would you have any concern if the motion was to adopt all the staff comments as written? Any comments on any of those? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 51 of 104 Brown: Just as long as it goes -- I think I was pretty clear in my position statement speaking to the annexation conditions. The one condition that -- I guess the Preliminary Plat condition four, asking for a four foot fence, the applicant asked me if possible if we could have a five fence around the park area. It was something new -- I guess I hadn't heard that Meridian had something -- I knew that you had it on micropaths, but I didn't realize that you wanted to be visible from a park area and that was something kind of new to me and talking with the client he says we could put a five foot fence -- Borup: Have you talked about a -- what am I trying to say? Zaremba: I think in the past we have said you could do the first four feet obscuring, as long as anything above that, up to, but not exceeding six feet, is lattice work or something. Borup: That's what I was going to say. Zaremba: Visible -- Brown: And if that's what we need to do, then, we will do that, too. Borup: Is staff still agreement with that? Imean -- Powell: As far as I know. I think we have been continuing that to some of the parks as well. Borup: Okay. Brown: So, that's apolicy -- I guess I didn't realize there was a policy. Borup: I don't know if that's written or an unwritten policy, but. that has been approved as, yes, the top two feet of lattice work -- you know, lattice -- Brown: I knew you had it on micropaths, I just wasn't aware -- Borup: On a park. Brown: Two and a half acre park area that you were concerned about that, but -- Borup: I'm not sure on that either. Is there -- is that a policy on the parks -- on neighborhood parks? Powell: The fencing requirement? I believe that we have been -- Borup: Case by case? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 52 of 104 Powell: -- trying to get -- it's not codified. We have been trying to get a similar standard that we have adopted for the micropaths, for the same reasons, the visibility and the kind of publicness of that space and trying to keep eyes on it. Borup: So, I guess a little bit, case by case. Zaremba: Well, we have by precedence asked for that in other cases and gotten cooperation at least for it, which that would be acceptable for you, the first four feet can be solid and above that it has to be non-sight-obscuring? Brown: I think we can live with that. I mean we would prefer five -- I mean just from a marketing standpoint, people having privacy in their backyard, but I think that the lattice can do that also. Zaremba: I think the issue that brings it up is visibility the other way, so that there can't be something strange going on outside your fence. Brown: I understand. Zaremba: The theory is that you would be able to see nefarious activities. Brown: That's the only issues that I would raise at this point. I'd stand for any of your questions. Borup: And you're okay with the sewer line going to the intersection? Brown: That's in my position statement, too. Borup: Okay. Brown: As I stated. Do you need clarification on that or -- Borup: Well, this is just saying you agreed to coordinate with the city. Brown: Right. Borup: Okay. Maybe we ought to wait for some public testimony and, then, see where it goes from there, any other questions from any of the Commissioners? Okay. Thank you. Okay. I'd like to open up to public testimony, whoever would like to come forward at this time. Howard: My name is Sue Howard and I live at 3420 South Locust Grave. That's the second acreage south of Victory. I am against the approval of this Preliminary Plat for the Tuscany Village. My concerns are strictly with the water and the sewer lines, not the actual development itself. I believe if this is approved, this plat with the rerouting of the sewer lines, that it blatantly defies a previous ruling by our Public Works Department Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 53 of 104 and it was also supported by our City Council. The city master plan has been in existence for five years showing the water and sewer lines going down to Victory and Locust Grove. The preliminary plan for Tuscany Lakes was approved a little over a year ago and it included this same route, going down to the corner of Victory and Locust Grove. In approximately March of this year the developer asked for -- to substantially change the alignment of the water and sewer lines through this new plat. Public Works was not in agreement with it and sent them a letter stating that they would not approve it. At that time two of the reasons given for wanting to reroute these lines were a cost saving of 70,000 dollars and some restrictions on the road construction placed by the Ada County Highway District. Okay. If they were only saving 70,000 dollars on a development the size of that and the original Tuscany Lakes, that's about 500 lots, that boils down to 140 dollars a lot and I don't think that's a significant cost savings on a per lot basis. I think if they did have restrictions on the road construction for the water and sewer, had they not stopped construction months ago, they may very well be finished putting the lines in by now. There were restrictions that they couldn't tear it up during the week, it can only be on weekends and evenings, I guess. Anyway, I believe that since the Public Works and the developer couldn't come to terms, Brad from Public Works brought the issue to City Council in July. At the City Council meeting they acknowledged -- City Council acknowledged that Public Works had made a ruling against changing the water and sewer line and that they were within their authority to do so and the Council supported that decision. The Council stated that if the developer wanted to change the water and sewer lines, they would need to bring issue to the Council and it would have to go through the Public Hearing process. Okay. I don't believe that has happened and I don't believe that's what's happening tonight. The Public Hearing message that I got tells me nothing about the rerouting of the water and sewer line. If my neighbors hadn't told me you better get in there, because the sewer lines are tucked in this Preliminary Plat, I wouldn't have been here, so -- Borup: Can you clarify --did you say your lot was south of this project? Howard: We are right here. Borup: Okay. Howard: The sewer line was supposed to come right in front of our property. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Howard: Okay. I believe that the developer is trying to skirt around the process that was set forth by Public Works and the City Council. They have tried to tuck this sewer issue into the Preliminary Plat for this new project. I, actually, think this is similar to when my teenage son comes to me with a question and I tell him no and he goes to dad and when dad says no, he goes to grandpa. The Public Works said no and the City Council said no. I am requesting that this Preliminary Plat be denied until it complies with the city's master plan and the approved Preliminary Plat for Tuscany Lakes. Thank you. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 54 of 104 Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Forrey: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Wayne Forrey, 1952 South Wild Creek Way in Boise and I'm an urban planner, a consulting urban planner, and I work with Quasar Development and they are in the process of purchasing property -- it would be the northeast corner of Locust Grove and Victory Road. Yes. Right there. In fact, there is a Preliminary Plat application that's on your next meeting agenda on this property. When Quasar Development -- and, by the way, let me state that Quasar Development is not opposed to the concept here that Kent Brown is presenting, it's a sewer issue that we want to comment on, not the land use or the design of this project. When they evaluated land in this area, they met with the city, the city staff said, well, here is the water and sewer master plan, much like the lady right before mentioned and they made some investment decisions based on that sewer and water master plan and, then, through meetings with neighbors and understanding the development situation out there, we understand that a deviation is now being proposed. There is a letter -- do you have a copy of a letter written by Quasar Development in your packet? Zaremba: Yes. Forrey: Okay. It very succinctly outlines -- Borup: One signed by -- Forrey: It's dated August 4. Zaremba: I have it. Forrey: Signed by Quasar Development to Mayor Corrie and Council Members. Zaremba: Signed by Amanda Alvaros? Is that the one you're -- Forrey: Correct. Yes. Would you like me to read that into the record? Borup: Oh, I think we have got it. We are okay. Forrey: Very succinct -- Borup: Unless there is -- Forrey: -- Quasar Development does not support a deviation from the master plan and, one other thing, as a consultant I have worked on sewer master plans. They require and often are funded by the state, the City of Meridian did receive state money, it was approved by DEQ, and DEQ tells me they have to approve any deviation from the plan. My question to the city is has DEQ been involved in this deviation from your master plan and were they noticed of this Public Hearing? This would take state -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 55 of 104 Zaremba: Yes. Not that I'm aware of. Forrey: -- review and -- Zaremba: I don't see anybody jumping to say, yes, they were. Forrey: Okay. Well, you have got a state agency that needs to get involved, you have got a plan you need to stick by, you have property owners out here that have made investments decisiohs based on meetings with city staff that have presented the plan as public policy. Boy, I hope, in representing my client, we all feel that you will not support a change in the sewer and water master plan for this area. The development is great, it's a good addition to the neighborhood, but make them follow the sewer plan. Be happy to answer questions. Borup: Questions for Mr. Forrey? Mr. Forrey, is there going to be latecomer fees involved in this? Forrey: Yes. Yes. That was also discussed with the Public Works staff as well. The property owners out there -- Borup: So, those property owners tying onto this would be compensating -- Forrey: Yes. Yes. There is late -- Borup: -- the developer for putting the sewer line -- the trunk line -- Forrey: And Ithink -- I haven't read the staff report, but that's probably one of the standard conditions in the staff comments that -- it's usually a standard condition to work with Public Works to establish latecomer agreements. Borup: Yes. Thank you. Come on up. Liddell: Commissioners, my name is Russ Liddell, I own the property or --the southeast corner of Locust Grove and Victory, just right there. I guess my main comment is, just as Mr. Forrey had said, it's in support of the general concept of that growth and that subdivision. The concept looks good. What doesn't look good is the tail waging the dog here. This comes in as a small 40 acre parcel that we have had considerable hearings with the county commissioners and the state and district health over a two year -- almost three year period during the Comprehensive Plan Development, which you certainly were integral in developing. This 30 plus, 40 acre parcel was -- a couple of years ago a sitting for the power -- Idaho Power substation. At that time the same people that are in the room now, plus about 500 or more neighbors that signed a petition, went to hearings, showed up at the Ada County petitions, and worked with Idaho Power, formed a community interest group. It stretched from Cloverdale down Overland, all the way passed Meridian Road and west to Ten Mile or Linder, where now Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 56 of 104 the two alternate sites have been used by Idaho Power economically to provide expansion to accommodate the Meridian plan that you all have developed. These corners for the past -- we have owned it since '76. These corners were always commercial. We developed, much as Mr. Forrey said, on their parcel across the street from us as they come into you in a couple of weeks, we have made substantial plans, investment, equity, we went to the Public Hearings, we learned a lot about community interest, public safety. This was now changed to -- in the plan twice or three times to office buildings, to mixed-use and, then, back to R-4, I think, and it's still by county rural urban transition. If you put the sewer line per this subdivision request, I would only ask you what's the impact on the larger community? We know how the water flows and, you know, we know the restrictions in the whole area about flood plain and subterranean water and irrigation charging and we have got a lot of septics in there now. From Eagle Road there is a hill. Over at Meridian Road there is a hill as you go along Victory. All that area you have planned in the Comprehensive Plan to be developed. There is going to be some schools on a couple of corners, it's a great area for a park, there is wildlife on Ten Mile Creek, there are ducks, there are geese, there are bobcats, there are deer -- we see them all the time and as houses come in it would be nice to keep that that far the quality of life in Meridian. Running the sewer line down here might be economically real neat for this tail end of the whole Tuscany Lakes Subdivision -- as a matter of fact, they have already put it in. You know that. It's been in for several months -- weeks. It's already there, so -- Borup: What's already there, sir? Liddell: The sewer line. Borup: This sewer line right here? Liddell: It appears that they already stubbed that line in. Now, if they didn't lay it in, they at least laid the two entry points on Locust Grove and on Victory Road, so it's kind of a fete comply to come in and ask for your permission on this -- at least on the sewer portion, because, in reality, they have already done it. Borup: Well, I would like to clarify what you're saying here. You're saying there is a stub here and here? Liddell: That's right. Borup: Okay. That's what the master plan calls for, if I read it right. Liddell: Contrary to the plan that was approved and the intent to go down to the Locust Grove Victory intersection, which accommodates schools, parks -- Borup: Are you also saying -- you're saying if they route it that other that would prevent anyone else from running a sewer line down here? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2D03 Page 57 of 104 Liddell: I don't think it prevents it. Borup: Okay. Liddell: It's just in addition to it. They seem to say in lieu of it Borup: Right Liddell: What they were approved for and what the Ada County, DEQ, the state and commercial and private folks in here, the school districts, were all planning on the sewer as it's been talked about for five years, as Sue mentioned. Now, the tail end of this Tuscany larger subdivision seems to be saying, okay, hurry up and approve me this 40 acres. Oh, by the way, there is a little sewer change we want to make. Borup: No. I understand -- I think I understand -- I mean the property owners here, they are -- they'd much rather have someone else pay for it, than you, and I don't blame you. Liddell: We weren't asked. We weren't asked and neither have you been, if I'm -- that's my assertion that it's already in. Borup: Well, I'd like to get a clarification of that before we go on, Mr. Freckleton. Could you clarify the status of that trunk line? Freckleton: Certainly. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the sewer trunk line started up on Ten Mile Creek and progressed out to Victory Road, down Victory Road, and it currently stops approximately right there. The Ada County Highway District, because of the Overland Road project being tore up, limited the time that they could have Victory Road closed for the installation of that sewer and they have through the Memorial weekend to get that completed -- or they had to have it buttoned back up and opened up to traffic. The point that they chose to stop happens to be the point where they would turn to run into this project, but -- I mean that may be convenient if this is approved, but there is no reason that it couldn't continue right on down as planned as well. They chose to stop there, it leaves their options open, but it also leaves our options open for it go down as the master plan shows. Borup: Okay. Does that clarify that? Liddell: That's a good clarification. In driving those roads -- Borup: Would you like a -- there is a microphone right here. Liddell: It appears that a lot of the construction is pretty much at this point. If you take the line of the canal -- it seems like the road asphalting - re-asphalting where the stubs are might be a little closer to the canal on this edge. It might not be either I'd have to look there again. It's a pretty short distance and it's pretty clear the intent is to -- on this Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 58 of 104 request, if it's still arequest -- and I'm in error on it already being in there -- certainly the intent is there, to spend fewer dollars for the small subdivision to accommodate the larger portion of Tuscany Lakes and take an alternate route. I believe that's the request that really is intended here by this sub-development and that's all that we oppose. Borup: Anything else? Any questions from any of the Commissioners? And maybe -- It's my understanding that this parcel was not owned by the developer when Tuscany Lakes was first developed, so this is -- this is property they acquired later, which -- so previously that was not an option, I don't think, or not much of an option, because they didn't own the property. Who else would like to come forward? Jerrems: I'm Cathy Jerrems I'm on 3245 South Locust Grove. I'm actual that triangle right on the corner that butts up against the proposed new sewer line there and I have to say that I am also in disagreement with the new proposal. I would just as soon have them continue on with what they had proposed five years ago as to running the sewer lines down Victory and South Locust Grove. I have made a lot of plans. I have out there 17 years on this piece of property and for the last five years there are some plans that I would like to consider in the future as well. I intend on living there until I die, but there are things that I'd like to do out there, too. Unfortunately, with the sewer line ruhning down the back side here, instead of coming down Victory and Locust Grove as originally planned, I foresee that it's going to be some difficulties for us few out in the neighborhood there to able to hook up to the sewer, which is what we have all been contemplating for the last five years. I believe it will be, you know, a larger expense, which I hadn't planned in my budget for what I'd like to plan to do out there. In addition to what's already been said tonight, I would like them to consider still going down with the original plan of Victory and South Locust Grove. I do also have aconcern -- and I don't know if it's a valid concern, of the sewer line being run down Ten Mile Creek there. I do know that when they just did that little piece down at the lower end here, I was unable to irrigate for over a week, because of the equipment and everything that they had put in there, it held up my being able to irrigate the pasture. I do run cattle and horses out there still and all the gravel and everything that they had done had been moved into my ditch and I had to go out there with a shovel and I'm just thinking, oh, gosh, here we go again with all this mess behind me. Like Russ said, there is still a lot of wildlife in that creek area. I have got all my geese and ducks, what have you down there as well, and I just hate to see all that being disturbed. Again, like I said, it was just that little short piece that they had done there and it was really very disruptive to my being able to farm that land out there. Anyway, I appreciate your consideration to keep it the way it was. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Mr. Brown, have you got any final comment -- you need to come forward. DeChambeau: Sorry. I was waiting for someone else. I'm Mary DeChambeau and I live on 2015 East Victory and live on that large parcel -- the biggest parcel of purple. You forgot my little pie shape there again, that doesn't matter tonight, but, anyway, I guess I was concerned that we were in here again because they had changed the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 59 of 104 sewer line. I'm not going to repeat what -- I agree with most of what my neighbors are saying. I'm here to support them. Also, I have never been really assured where -- if we ever decided to develop our property, where we are going to be able to stub in on sewer lines. I have never gotten an exact answer. Also, it had been pointed out to me out in the front before the meeting started that if they had moved this main line through that subdivision, it would actually save our neighborhood money. If that's the case, I would say that -- I'd like to see some numbers on that, personally, myself, how that would safe us money. Also, I understand that if that's a main trunk line, and, then, they are going to put in a smaller trunk line in, I'd like to see assurances that the master plan -- that the smaller trunk lines would accommodate our large parcel of land, which is about 72 acres, we have not decided yet quit what we are doing with it, so, you know, you're going to have to leave some lee room there and I don't want to be blocked out. I was kind of informed by Bruce tonight that we'd probably have to tap in from behind, but also I have been told through the last three years that we would be tapping in, in the front, you know, and there are two stubs in front of our property. You know, it's kind of like I'm not quite sure -- you know, I'm mean, obviously, when we develop we'd have to go down the line, too. That's all part of the neighborhood, there are just too many questions for me, and I'd like to see -- you know, if this is a matter of dollar and cents, let's see the figures, you know. Personally, I think it should -- if the master plan said the way it was, then, I think that's the way we should continue it, but it should benefit the whole community. That's -- I understand eventually we all pay for the sewer line, whether you buy a house in that subdivision or you bring it down the highway, it is -- I don't believe that it is a public utility and that we all own it, am I correct on that? Is that kind of -- Borup: Eventually you will. The developer will put it in and, then, he gives it to the city. DeChambeau: Right. Eventually, you know, it is owned by the public and by the citizens of Meridian. Borup: As a free gift from the developer, other than -- well, that may be a little strong statement. DeChambeau: Yes. I would think so. Yes. Hawkins-Clark: But that is true on the sewer line within the subdivision. DeChambeau: But, anyway, if that's a problem, then, we need to see some dollar and cents signs here and we need to understand why people would want to change it, because it's really not good for the neighborhood. It really isn't. Borup: You said someone stated to you that it would cost less to sewer your property -- DeChambeau: No. Less for the whole neighborhood if they took it through their subdivision, rather than bringing it down to Locust Grove and down. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 60 of 104 Borup: Which whole neighborhood are you talking about? DeChambeau: Well, the corner of Locust Grove and Victory. Borup: Okay. That's what I'm saying. It would cost less for those neighbors -- DeChambeau: Yes. Borup: Okay. We'll see if we can get some clarification on that. DeChambeau: I think we need to. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Okay. Mr. Brown, do you want to clarify that? Oh. Okay Briggs: My name is Dean Briggs, Briggs Engineering, 1800 West Overland Road. I'm subbing for Kent on this particular issue. Borup: I think that's -- it sounds like that's really the only question, unless the Commissioners have some others, but -- Briggs: Yes. Kent can speak to the other ones. It sounds to me like there is a little bit of misinformation, some confusion as to what a master plan is and what area would be served by what. What we are proposing to do is move the trunk line, which really doesn't relate to how these properties get served ultimately, there would still be a line going down Victory, there still would be a line in the subdivision one way or the other, so we are just swapping where the big line is versus where the small line is. That's really the issue. Rohm: It depends on who you are. If you own this property right there and the trunk goes here and never makes it to that corner, you might have a differing opinion. Briggs: Right. What the 70,000 dollars is that they were talking about -- and that's a number that was given to the staff a few weeks ago -- if you calculate -- and just -- I got to do one other thing here. The ,sewer line was never contemplated to go along the creek it was contemplated to come down this area, down here, down this road, and out this road. It's always in a road it's not in the creek area. I wanted to spell that rumor right now. As part of this development, if we route it through the subdivision here, we would still bring a line up this street here and bring it over to the edge of the property. It -- that part of it would be part of this developer's project. The savings of less pipe here and a crossing at this canal here -- or the Ten Mile here and the Ten Mile here, is where the 70,000 dollars comes from. That savings here means that that's 70,000 dollars less that other people have to pay this developer back, so that's where they get benefit from that, because this -- the pipeline outside of their development gets reimbursed. Borup: That's the latecomer fee. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 61 of 104 Briggs: That's the latecomer fee. Borup: So, is there an accurate figure -- or an approximate figure on that? Because they are still -- so, you're saying it would be a savings of 70,000, less the cost of putting a smaller water or sewer line in. Briggs: Yes. There are a couple of different issues. Once the big line is through here, then, these people that are developing this corner and farther down here would be coming off a smaller line here, so they would not be extending a big line, it would be extending a smaller line. Borup: Right. Briggs: So, that would be less cost to them, plus the savings of the 70,000 dollars is 70,000 dollars they don't have to pay back to the city to pay the developer, because they would end up paying those latecomer fees. That's where the dollars come about. What I -- Borup: And that was the statement Ms. DeChambeau made that it would cost -- it would cost these properties less, because they would be putting in a smaller line. Briggs: Plus they wouldn't have to pay that additional 70,000 dollars in latecomer fees. Borup: Okay. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, just one point I'd like to interject. Somebody's going to be building that and whether it's this developer or somebody else -- let's just say, for instance, the DeChambeau parcel builds that line down Victory Road, as the other parcels connect onto it, I'm sure DeChambeau would like to have some reimbursement on their off-site expense. I don't know that the -- there is still going to be reimbursement. The 70,000 dollar number is going to be reduced because of the size of the pipe, it's not going to be the -- whatever size that is. I can't remember. It's a large diameter trunk line. Briggs: Twenty-seven. Freckleton: So, if it's dropped to say a ten inch or a 12 inch line, you still got the bore, you still got the line coming up Victory Road, so it's a difference in construction cost, material cost, but I'm going to assume that somebody is going to want reimbursement on it, so it might not be totally accurate to say that you're going to safe on the latecomer reimbursement, because somebody is going to want reimbursement. Borup: But you're being reimbursed fora 10 or 12-inch line, rather than a 27. Freckleton: True. True. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 62 of 104 Borup: Which is less money, isn't it? Freckleton: It's less money, but I'm just saying that to throw out the 70,000 dollar figure may not be totally accurate, because there is still going to be some latecomer that's going to nip -- you know, chew away at that. Zaremba: Clarify for me, if you would. Who is the latecomer fee paid to? The original developer who made the expense or is it paid to the city? Freckleton: It is money that is collected by the city and reimbursed to the developer that installed the line, the off-site line. Zaremba: Later when the city collects it or does the city offer it up front? Borup: The city doesn't offer anything upfront. Zaremba: Okay. After the city has collected it, then, it goes and finds the original developer, maybe from ten years ago -- Freckleton: Well, the way that we do these now -- the old way used to be we would collect it with each Building Permit, which was a nightmare, accounting nightmare. The way we do it now is with each phase of the development that goes in, the developer has to pay that portion of the latecomer's fees that covers that entire area. Rohm: Is that cone-to-one ratio? I mean do you do it on a lineal footage or -- Zaremba: How is it calculated? Rohm: Yes. Freckleton: Well, it's based on -- you take the cost of the line -- they can include easement costs -- you take their overall construction cost and you distribute that cost out over the service area for that -- for that main and so -- Rohm: So, on a square footage basis, as in the ratio of the square footage that will be served by that truck line? Freckleton: Yes. Rohm: Okay. Borup: Well, Mr. Briggs, the -- but the line that would go from here to here is going to be the same size no matter where the other trunk line goes, isn't it? Briggs: That's correct. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 63 of 104 Borup: So these construction costs wouldn't change any. Briggs: No. Borup: So, the only real savings is just that 70,000 and, however, that would dilute out among everybody. Briggs: That's correct. Zaremba: And I guess I would ask you to run that by me again. In just attempting to -- okay. Let me say where I'm getting this from. Borup: Well -- okay. Zaremba: Tuscany Development letter of July 1, 2003, addressed to the City Council and the Mayor, has a couple attachments, one of which shows the original alignment as everybody expects it to be and another one that shows the new alignment. By using a string and following the new alignment, because it has a turn and a turn and a turn and a turn and, then, laying that same string along here, you only save 200 feet, roughly. Briggs: Two hundred feet -- Borup: Two hundred feet through undeveloped ground, rather than through a road that you have to dig up and repave. Zaremba: Right. Okay. Rohm: And you have to bore a 27-inch line under Ten Mile Creek, as opposed to a 12 inch. Zaremba: The two creek crossings. Briggs: Right. Exactly. Plus, you would never have to make this crossing down here, I don't believe. You could bring -- you could service these areas off this corner going this direction. Or you could service this property off of this direction. You'd, actually, safe one bore here, which, you know, we haven't really gone through the maintenance aspects of this whole thing, but that would be a risk factor that should be incorporated in there, not having another crossing under Ten Mile Creek. You would have none of your major trunk line under Ten Mile Creek. Those are some of the benefits that we see. Borup: But the developer would be a hundred percent reimbursed for that, eventually? Briggs: Yes. Borup: I assume that's not accounting for interest or anything, is that correct? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 64 of 104 Briggs: Oh, no. What do you get, four percent? Borup: Oh. Okay. There is an inflation factor or something. Freckleton: There is a ten percent administrative fee that comes out for the city and, then, we do adjust it to -- I don't know how Brad's writing them right now. They are either adjusted to the prime -- Borup: Okay. Anyway -- Briggs: There are some inflation factors on those. Borup: But not a lot. Isn't that, really; the main benefit to the developer, he's getting his money now, rather than -- or not spending now, rather than getting it ten years from now? Briggs: Yes. The real issue at the time was trying to get through Victory when ACHD would only allow -- they allowed one -- I think it was like aten-day period and, then, they said, well, gee, you can work weekends. That's not very efficient when you're putting in a 30-foot deep, 27-inch sewer line, working two days. Then, we had a condition where - Borup: And that changes -- that's up until --when are they going to have Overland done that that policy would end? Briggs: I think they were slated for the end of August. Borup: That's this month. Briggs: I don't think they are schedule. Borup: Well, so it's not far off, then. Briggs: Yes. They need to get it done -- they were hoping to get it all done before the school starts. Borup: That's what I had understood. Okay. Well, then, that doesn't sound like that's a big hardship right now. Briggs: No. That's why we are saying, you know, we will work with the city, do whatever is necessary. This is the forum they wanted us to bring this to, so that everybody could have their say, so to speak. We are hoping that we can get to Council next month, we will probably have these same discussions again -- maybe in the meantime we can get the neighborhood together and show them the numbers that we came up with. They can do their own. We can sit down with the staff and maybe have a surfeit on sewer alignment. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 65 of 104 Borup: It sounds like there are quite a few property owners that would like that information. Briggs: Sure. Zaremba: Well, I would just say I agree with the process that this going through, but if the alignment through Victory Road and down Locust Grove was subject of Public Hearings at one time and this is what everybody knows has happened, that can't be changed behind closed doors or privately. It does need to be a Public Hearing. Briggs: Yes. I don't think anybody has a problem with that. It's not like we snuck in the door on this one, because this is the alignment that was shown on the Preliminary Plat for this project. Borup: Was it a -- I don't think there was a Public Hearing on the original plat. That's not the process, is it? Mr. Freckleton? Freckleton: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I was reading when you were talking. Borup: Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Zaremba made a statement that the original sewer plan was subject to Public Hearing, but I said I don't believe that's the way that takes place, isn't it? We don't determine engineering process by public testimony. Freckleton: No, we do not. However, one of the elements with an application for apre- plat is that they do conceptual engineering and that is one of the elements that's turned in and something that the Public Works Department reviews and it's part of the application. Borup: The pre-plat of the original Tuscany. Freckleton: Yes. Borup: Yes. If they had owned this property at that time, it probably would have been different. Freckleton: Yes. Briggs: We had, actually, shown it through this property, but we couldn't obtain the easement from a previous owner at the time. Borup: So, it looks like you solved that. Briggs: We had Plan A and Plan B and at the last minute we had to use Plan B to get into the system, because we just couldn't get the easement. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 66 of 104 Borup: So, the public testimony part, Commissioner Zaremba, would have been the platting of the original Tuscany, would have showed the access at that point. Briggs: Yes. What Iwas -- Borup: It sounds like as far as the sewer layout, both of them accomplished servicing that area, but just the intersection route was the route that was shown when the subdivision was approved, is my understanding. Briggs: That's correct. Borup: Did I state that correctly? Briggs: That is correct. Borup: Any other questions for Mr. Briggs? Thank you. Briggs: Thank you. Borup: Did you have any final comments, Mr. Brown, or did we cover everything? Any questions from the Commission? Really, all the -- I mean from what I could tell, all the public testimony had to do with that sewer alignment location, nothing on the rest of the project. Zaremba: I think my only question would be I don't remember confirming with you that the 20-foot garage setback is acceptable. Brown: That is definitely our intent. Ada county, Boise city, they have these as a standard part of their ordinance, to go to 15 feet, we are asking for 12. I did a project over in Eagle and we went to 10, had private roads -- what it does, from a selling standpoint, to maybe have you look at this in the future, is instead of what my wife calls the snout-nosed house that you see as you drive down the road. It gives the builder an opportunity to -- an incentive, if you will, to change the look of his house, to retool, if you will, what he's doing, because he can use that space and push the house forward and the garage back. I'm doing a couple of projects that are like this in Ada County, because of Ada County's standard rules of operation that if you set the garage back, it's an if statement, if the garage is 20 feet from the street, you can pull the house within 15 feet or ten feet or -- whichever jurisdiction that you're in. That's .our intent. Zaremba: Thank you Butler: Commissioners, Joann Butler, 251 East Front Street.. I just -- I'm not going to add to the expert testimony that was had here, but I just wanted to say -- use the microphone really to speak to our neighbors. Somebody asked in the audience what's in the best public interest and that's how this plan -- the original Plan A was in the best public interest. That particular property owner did not share the easement with the city. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 67 of 104 This property owner is. Again, it's a savings to the city, again, it's a savings to the people that have to do the reimbursements, it's a savings to the city also in long-term maintenance and I know that somebody said, yes, you can pass this cost onto each house and it's that type of thinking that sends all of our house prices up and 70,000 dollars is still 70,000 dollars. I'm using the microphone to say that -- to the neighbors, Mr. Briggs did say maybe we can get together -- you're skeptical, you don't -- you're not -- not knowing the numbers. We would be more than happy, between now and the City Council meeting, to meet with our neighbors and I'll use the microphone to say we will be in the back to just meet with you and take down a time and place -- set a time and place for that. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Commissioners, are we ready to move on? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on Items 9, 10, and 11 Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearings. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Powell: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, with regard to removing the annexation conditions that the applicant has requested, to do that we need to add a new condition to take the place of the one for the fencing and the micropath -- or the pathway construction along Ten Mile Creek and I have written one for you. I can read it into the record now and, then, give you a copy of it or -- I have run it by Mr. Brown a couple different times. I can give it to you and just have you read it in. The second -- this one concerns the pathway along Ten Mile Creek. The second modification you would need to make is to the second Number 5 regarding the Preliminary Plat conditions. Zaremba: Tell me what page you're on, please Powell: Page 8. Zaremba: Okay Powell: Add a note to the face of the plat that restricts fencing adjacent to the pathways within the subdivision and, then, you would add and adjoining Ten Mile Creek to being no greater than four feet in height of solid, sight obscuring material. I believe that addresses both concerns. It gets him taller than four feet if he wants to go taller than four feet, but just sight obscuring. Zaremba: We don't need to specify and overall height restriction of six feet, because that's already in the ordinance; right? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 68 of 104 Powell: Correct. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Okay. That makes sense. Powell: Would you like me to read this one or should I just bring it up to you? Borup: Why don't you go ahead and read it and, then, the public would have the information, too. Powell: Anew condition Number 10 under Preliminary Plat. A permanent pedestrian easement in favor of the City of Meridian shall be recorded on the property adjacent to Ten Mile Creek. Such easement shall be a minimum of 20 feet in width and shall be constructed with aten-foot hard surface pathway prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for any building within the subdivision. The City of Meridian shall be responsible for the maintenance of the pathway within the easement. The homeowners association shall be responsible for landscaping maintenance within the easement. The instrument number of the recorded easemeht shall be noted on the Final Plat of the subdivision. Borup: Okay. I think that's good. Then, we don't have to repeat the whole thing Zaremba: Okay. Discussion. I agree with most of the people that have spoken. The layout looks to me to be an attractive thing and an addition to the city and acceptable with the conditions that have been asked. The only question is whether we care to make a recommendation one way or another to the City Council about the sewer alignment. That's my only question, really. It will go through Public Hearing again at their point. I would be inclined to allow the applicant and the neighbors to have their meeting and, in the meantime, stick with the original plan. Then, the applicant and neighbors go together to the City Council to say what they have come up with. That would be my opinion, which I can make into a recommendation. Mathes: Sounds good to me. Borup: Any comments? Rohm: No. I think that's appropriate. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: So, should I make that part of my motion for the annexation and zoning or make it a separate motion? Maybe I'll ask our city attorney how I should phrase that portion of the recommendation and where should I put it? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 69 of 104 Wollen: I believe that it could be put properly into the recommendation on your annexation and zoning. I believe that that's -- Zaremba: All right. Thank you. Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 9 on our agenda, AZ 03-014, request for annexation and zoning of 33.25 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Tuscany Village by Tuscany Development, Inc. South of East Victory Road and west of South Locust Grove Road, to include all staff comments of their memo dated August 7, 2003, received by the Clerk July 31, 2003, with the following exceptions. On Page 2, under setbacks, for proposed setbacks, single-family, we are accepting a front setback of 12 feet for a living area, retaining 20 feet for garage. On Page 6, annexation and zoning conditions of approval, Item 1 can be deleted, as the applicant stated there are no wells or septic systems. Item 2 can be deleted. It's been satisfied by an application for a Planned Development. I would add to that that this Commission recommends to the City Council that we maintain the alignment of the sewer through Victory Road to the intersection and down Locust Grove, with the notice that the applicant. The neighbors are going to hold a meeting between now and the City Council hearing to discuss that further and may present other options to the City Council. Borup: Do I hear a second? Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: I don't know that -- yes, that probably was -- I guess that covered it, because that was a redundant motion as far as the sewer line, because this next one covers it also. Zaremba: Oh, does it? Okay. All right. Borup: I was checking that while you were talking. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 10 on our agenda PP 03-015, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 136 building lots and ten other lots on 33.25 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Tuscany Village by Tuscany Development, Inc. South of East Victory Road and west of South Locust Grove, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of August 7, 2003, received by the Clerk July 31, 2003, with the following changes. Again on Page 2, the proposed setbacks are front 12 feet for living area and 20 feet for Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 70 of 104 garage, and on Page 8, Paragraph 4, the third sentence shall be changed to read: Fencing adjacent to the proposed park shall be non-sight obscuring above four feet in height and the rest of the sentence continues as is. On Paragraph 5 -- actually, the second Paragraph 5, add or revise the following Preliminary Plat notes. I'll read what it says and, then, add what's added. Add a note to the face of the plat that restricts fencing adjacent to the pathways within the subdivision, add the words: And adjoining Ten Mile Creek to no greater than four feet, et cetera. On Page 9, we are going to add a paragraph ten about a pedestrian easement statement that was previously read into the record by Director Powell. End of motion. Do I need to reread that or -- it's in the record. Borup: It's in the record. I think we are covered there. Zaremba: Okay. As stated by Director Powell. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 11, CUP 03-029, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development with reduced lot widths and setbacks for the proposed Tuscany Village by Tuscany Development, Inc. South of East Victory Road and west of South Locust Grove Road, to include all staff comments of the staff memo for the hearing date August 7, 2003, received by the Clerk July 31, 2003, again, with a change on page two where proposed setbacks are front 12 feet for living area and 20 feet for garage. On Page 12, site-specific comments, paragraph three, is changed to read: The reductions to footage and minimum lot sizes, as well as the request to exceed block length maximums, are approved with one change in that the front setbacks for garages will be 20 feet. End of motion. Mathes: Second: Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Borup: In case there is any question on any of those motions, the -- and Commissioner Zaremba clarified that also. The staff report and staff comment stated that the sewer line was to remain as originally designed, going to the intersection of Locust Grove and Victory and so that was the way the motions are stated. That would be the recommendation that will go to City Council. Thank you, everyone, for being here.