Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecember 4, 2003 P&Z MinutesMeridian Planning 8 Zoning Decernber 4, 2003 Page 3 of 83 Saguaro Canyon Estates Subdivision by Farwest, LLC -north side of East McMillan Road and east of North Meridian Road: Borup: Okay. Then, we'd like to open Public Hearing AZ 03-027 and Public Hearing PP 03-032 and Public Hearing CUP 03-58. All three of those are for the Saguaro Canyon Estates Subdivision by Farwest, LLC, on the north side of McMillan Road and east of Meridian Road. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: For reasons stated earlier, both at the request of staff and the applicant and, apparently, the agreement of any neighbors who wish to testify, I move that we continue all three of those items to our meeting of January 8th. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Okay. So, that meeting has been -- I mean that hearing has been continued to our January 8th meeting. There would not be any other notification to the neighbors. Tonight would serve as the notification of the time change -- or the meeting date change. Zaremba: And did I say 2004? I want to make sure I didn't say 2003. If I did, I'm correcting it to 2004. January 8th, 2004. Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from October 16, 2003, 2003: AZ 03-021 Request for annexation a nd zoning of 1 14. 52 acres from RUT to R-8 (PD) and C-G zones for proposed Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 2 by Packard Estates Development, LLC -south of East Ustick Road and east of North Eagle Road: Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from October 16, 2003: PP 03-024 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 302 building lots and 28 other lots on 90. 29 acres in a proposed R-8(PD) zone for proposed Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 2 by Packard Estates Development, LLC -south of East Ustick Road and east of North Eagle Road: Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from October 16, 2003: CUP 03-041 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for single-family residential use with reduced setbacks, lot sizes, lot frontages. house sizes and increased block lengths for proposed Redfeather Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 4 of 83 Estates Subdivision No. 2 by Packard Estates Development, LLC - south of East Ustick Road and east of North Eagle Road: Borup: Okay. Our next Item is continued Public Hearing from October 16th and -- Items 4, 5, and 6. So, we'd like to open AZ 03-021 and PP 03-024 and CUP 03-41. All three of those are related to the Red Feather Estates Subdivision. I think we had some partial testimony, but it was continued mainly waiting for the ACHD commission to meet and for their report, but I think there is probably several other staff items also, so at this point -- at this time we'd like to start with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. There are a number of items on these three applications. Did I hear correctly, you did open all three hearings on this? Borup: Yes. Hawkins-Clark: Okay. So, I will do my best to kind of summarize the project here and, then, hit some of the highlights that I think are outstanding for the Commission to decide tonight. Item No. 4 is the annexation and zoning request for the property. All of the property that is within the legal description of the annexation is shown in bold on the outline here on the screen. Ustick Road is on the north. Eagle Road, Highway 55, here on the west. Cloverdale Road is a quarter mile to the east, just off the screen. There are a number of subdivisions, six of them, I believe that, actually abut the property. I think one important thing to point out for the annexation request is that two of the parcels that are shown here, which are under different ownership than the rest, are not a part of Items 5 and 6 on your agenda. The preliminary plat and conditional use permit do not include the Bryson parcel, which is the larger one here with the South Slough along its south boundary and, then, the parcel that is under the ownership of Shamrick Trust is the smaller one here. Both of those do front on Eagle Road. Those two parcels have been requested for a C-G, Commercial General Zone, and the remainder of the property -- there are four other property owners on the balance and they have requested R-8 zoning for those four parcels. So, approximately, 24 acres is proposed as C-G and a little over 90 is -- or a little under 90, I'm sorry, is -- remain for R- 8. As far as some of the adjacent property is Perkins-Brown Subdivision, which is in Ada County, is here adjacent to the west. It has an access off of Ustick Road. Duane Drive is the sole street that serves Perkins-Brown and it does come and currently d Bad a nds a t t he s outh b oundary o f t heir s ubdivision. H Bather M eadows Subdivision is in Boise City. That's on the north side of Ustick. Clover Meadows Subdivision, which is also an Ada County subdivision, is here on the south. Briarwood Subdivision just off the screen, you can see the cul-de-sac that comes in off of Cloverdale Road and then, Briarwood does cul-de-sac right here at this point. Dawson Meadows, currently under construction, is also in Boise City, shown here on the east. And, then, Red Feather No. 1 is shown just below Dawson that has received approval through on Boise City, I think those are the six subdivisions, Perkins-Brown, Heather Meadows, Clover Meadows, Briarwood and Dawson and Red Feather that all abut the property. In terms of the recommended conditions that staff has on the annexation, we Meritlian Planning & Zoning December 4. 2003 Page 5 of 83 have five recommended conditions. We have received written response back and the applicant is in agreement with those five recommended conditions. I think the only one to really maybe -- well, yeah. The one item worthy of being pointed out is number five, condition number five on the annexation and zoning, and that is in reference to the South Slough, which does cross the property down here in the southwest corner of this parcel currently owned by Dirkmeier and we will discuss that in the next couple of items. But the development agreement that we have recommended be entered into between the City of Meridian and the applicant is -- I think the only unique thing to that is that we have recommended these two commercial parcels. Any future uses would have a Conditional Use Permit requirement and that even before they submit for a conditional use they would have a master concept plan and if you recall the Kissler annexation that you have already reviewed and recommended approval on to the City Council is just to the north of this and we had the same development agreement condition on the Kissler as we have recommended for the Bryson and other parcel here. The other development agreement conditions would be taken care of with any preliminary plat approval that might take place. This aerial photo shows, generally, that you can see the Milks lateral crosses the property coming out of Dawson and then the South Slough is in the southwest corner of the Dirkmeier parcel here and then continues over to Eagle Road and crosses under Eagle Road. Here are a few site photos that were taken a few months ago. Duane Drive here up in the upper left, approximately 24, 25-foot rural street with no curb, gutter, or sidewalk. Most of the drainage takes place in the swales that are adjacent to the street and as I mentioned before, this is taken from the very south end of the Duane Drive looking up towards Ustick Road. Here is the site from Ustick, currently agricultural uses. The stub street from Dawson on the eastern boundary is shown on the bottom right and then Granger Street, as you can see, has been improved as a part of the Dawson Meadows Subdivision up to the point where it abuts Red Feather Estates No. 2 and then it turns into agravel -- a gravel road. And continues all the way through to the east. On the preliminary'plat -- this will be, actually, split into two different slides here. The first slide is the majority of the project and then down here in the bottom left is the next -- where the next screen connects and this is proposed Granger right here. So, I'll just go back and briefly summarize. They have ingress-egress. The sole point for the project at this point is off of Ustick Road. They have a residential collector street that does extend all the way through the project and then connects to Granger. They have proposed all single-family detached houses for the subdivision. The two amenities that they have proposed -- well, actually, three, but the largest one is a subdivision private park that is located here in the center. The residential collector does front that. They have proposed a small parking lot that would allow people to actually drive to the amenity and a clubhouse and a pool. They have also shown a tot lot there. Their storm drainage is here on the north end of the common lot. They have several micro paths that they have proposed throughout the subdivision. Briarwood cul-de-sac is shown here and with staff support they have just shown a pedestrian connection there instead of carrying that through. There is quite a nice mature tree that's at the end of this cul-de-sac that they would provide a pathway stub connection there just to save -- preserve that tree. There is an existing house that was built a couple of years ago on this Lot 1, Block 12, this large lot here that's a little over three acres in size. That existing house does take access off of Granger today. We Meridian Planning B Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 6 of 83 have asked for a re-subdivision plan and we have received that tonight that shows a couple of different options on how this three acres might re-subdivide in the future. It does have a stub street coming out of Dawson that we have asked to, in the future, connect all the way through to the residential collector should the project be approved and this become a lot. Then, moving further south, they are showing to utilize a stub street that's in Red Feather No. 1. Again, that was approved in Boise City, but not developed yet. They would utilize that stub street, so they would have in the future two stubs on their east boundary. There is no existing stub on the south, so they have not shown anything at least on this portion that's east of Georgianna Milks' subdivision. Granger, as shown here, would then extend across -- cut across this corner here and then the other -- one of the latter phases of their preliminary plat is here south of Perkins-Brown Subdivision. Here is the Duane Drive connection that I mentioned earlier. Here is the second common lot, private park that they are proposing. They are showing a basketball court as another amenity for the project. ACHD, as you mentioned, Chairman Borup, one of the main reasons they continued this was so that the highway district could have their hearing on it. As you will no doubt hear from some of the public here tonight, the decision was made by ACHD to require a swinging gate be constructed across the south terminus of Duane Drive; but they were asked to provide a pedestrian connection. As I mentioned in the memo that I submitted a couple of weeks ago, the original plat did show Duane Drive being connected, but ACHD placed that condition on there. They said that the swinging gate could be removed at the request of the developer, City of Meridian, residents and other interested parties, basically. Avery broad condition that if the highway district receives a formal request from any of those parties, then, they would remove that swinging gate. But until that happens that would be connected. Now, bear in mind that this is shown right now as a latter phase in the development and maybe we can ask the applicant to address when they anticipate that. The fire department also made some -- made some comments regarding this in terms of a secondary access, because if Duane is closed, of course, they would only have Granger to access this area, which would -- they would need a secondary -- permanent secondary point of access to serve it. They are showing another stub in the future out to the Bryson parcel, which I showed earlier that has -- that goes out to Eagle Road and has a frontage there. I think there is only about four or five items that probably are worthy of specific discussion. Maybe I will start -- Bruce, you want to talk about the -- okay. I guess on the first item we are going to -- it deals with the extension of a water main and that was addressed in both the staff report and the applicant's response dated November 26th and we will request the applicant Becky McKay to address that. I guess the first item to point out -- and I will go back to the larger plat view here -- is there is a one-acre parcel that is not a part of this plat that is under the ownership of Smitchger and that has not been included, by the request of the owner. That one-acre parcel was a part of the over all lot that you -- the parcel that you see here. It was split off in 1997 through Ada County, but it was not approved under Ada County subdivision ordinance per se. We have requested that the applicant provide us evidence that that split was done legally in Ada County. We have not received that and have been told that it was, indeed, done illegally through Ada County. So, we have -- the City of Meridian's ordinance says that asubdivision -- the way that it defines a subdivision is that it must include any parcels that have been split off from the Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 7 of 83 parent parcel, if you will, since 1984, which was the adoption of the City of Meridian's subdivision code in 1984. So, it essentially ties the two together and says if you -- unless that parcel was split off in a legal manner, either through the City of Meridian or through Ada County then the whole original parcel needs to be incorporated into the legal description of the plat. So, that's the reason that staff is asking for that piece to be included, as well as this Commission and the City of Meridian City Council have made it pretty clear that Ada County enclaves are something that we want to address at the front end, so that we can avoid having these enclaves in the area of impact where at all possible. So, those are the two main reasons that we are asking for that -- that the City of Meridian ordinance requires it be included and direction from the Commission and the Council that these enclaves be avoided at the front end of the process. Looking at the staff report, the original staff report, which was submitted September 15th, there is four other -- I think four or five other items here to point out. Starting on page 10, there are some special considerations that we pointed out for the plat. They have requested reduced -- excuse me -- reduced lot frontages as a part of the planned development, the Conditional Use Permit. They have requested that they have at least 37 feet of frontage on the street -- straight street sections and 33 on cul-de-sacs. This is a deviation that would be allowed under the planned development, as long as they provide the amenities, which they have. The reduced lot sizes that they are asking for, standard is 6,500 square feet, they are asking for 5,250. It's about a 20 percent reduction. Block length. They have asked for a couple of the blocks to exceed the maximum and a couple of the blocks to be below the minimum. The minimum blocks, there is two of them, they are both right up here at the north end of the project and those are just, I think, a little over 250 feet long. Largely, they need to go below the minimum 500 in order to maximize the connections on the north end of the project here. Let's see. The Ustick Road right of way is a pretty standard comment, so I won't deal with that. The street buffers, landscape street buffers, are required to be 25 feet on Ustick and they are showing the 25 feet of street landscape buffer there. They have -- the plat that's on the screen here is a revised plat from what was originally shown and one of the changes is Arch Street -- what they have proposed as Arch Street and that is a slight change in alignment from the first plat to make this a straight connection, instead of having a jog. So, that was done at the request of staff. I think in terms of the stub street issues, I think that was really the only one to point out. The out parcel on page 12, I have mentioned that, that's the Smitchger parcel. The driveways for the lots that -- the lot here, Lot 1 Block 12, that has the existing house on it, since Granger is a residential c ollector, i n t he future w e h ave a sked t hem t o d emonstrate h ow t hat would take access internally, so that is something we have asked for much later in the process, though. I don't know how much of that is really up for discussion tonight. On page 14, Item number ten -- or, I'm sorry, Item number eleven, there -- we would ask that the applicant address how -- just to clarify, if the street -- if the sidewalks in the project are attached or detached. There is a conflict between the landscape plan that they submitted and the preliminary plat as to whether or not they are attached or detached, so we'd just like that clarified for the record tonight. And, then finally, I think on the South Slough pathway -- and I'll go to the second sheet here of their plat, the South Slough, which is also called the Finch Lateral, comes from the south and then just bisects this corner of the property. They are showing this entire drain as a Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 8 of 83 separate common lot in the project, which is kind of blended with this common lot on Tahiti Drive and those --the City's Comprehensive Plan does show amulti-use pathway along the South Slough. This will be the first project that we have seen that abuts that South Slough, so we have recommended, since the Comp Plan shows it, that they include it. However, Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District did submit a letter back in July that s toted t hat t hat i s n of a cceptable. They a re c ailing i t a lateral. T ypically, t he irrigation district says no -- no pathways along laterals, only along drains. Ithink it's a question of definition of this facility, is it a drain, is it a lateral. It has an 80-foot wide easement on it. So, I guess since this is a later phase, I think staff would still like to see at least the easements provided there so that it can be reserved. If necessary, that could be vacated in the future. The parks department, when it comes to the point of connecting those, at least preserve that connection. So, if it's not shown, I have just tonight talked with the applicant and they are possibly open to just extending this Lot 13 up t o the north, e xtend t he boundary a l ittle b it u p t o t he n orth t o o ccommodate t he pathway outside of Nampa-Meridian's easement. So, that is an option that -- the parks department did not comment on that pathway. We would like also for the applicant to comment on this connection on Granger. It d oes -- there has been some dispute between the owners of this lot and Georgianne Milks, which is a five acre out parcel that shows better here on this first sheet, as to the property line and whether or not Granger is encroaching into this parcel or not. Ithink there have been two different surveys done, hired by both parties, so I think -- I have not had an update on that, but would ask the applicant to clarify where that issue is As well as that it does appear the right of way for Granger encroaches into this lot in Perkins-Brown a little bit, but Perkins-Brown is not shown as an owner in this project, they haven't given consent for this application. So, if that right of way does encroach into that lot, then, we, obviously, need to get that consent. And, then, on item number six, the planned development, really not going to go over anything on this project -- I mean on this application, other than to point out the required amenities. Here is the -- one of the open space lots on the south end of the project. It doesn't reflect it, but they have shown a basketball court there and, then, here is the park that is further north, shows some of the landscaping, some of the micro path connections there. We have asked for a site plan to be shown on how a reduced house size can be -- how a plot plan can fit on a couple of these lots that are here where the Milks Lateral -- that's this straight-line coming across the middle here, has a pretty wide easement on it and it does restrict the frontage to around 50 feet. We have certainly s een p lot p tans i n Woodbridge i n p articular w here we h ave -- a nd H eritage Commons where they have shown houses on 50 foot of frontage, but we would like to see where that's going to -- demonstrate how that lot's going to be buildable with that easement coming so far into the lot. So, I guess just to summarize, I think the main points for you to -- in terms of disagreement between staff and the applicant is on the annexation a nd z oning i s o n t he o ut p arcel a nd on t he p reliminary p lat. T he w ater extension from Eagle, which I didn't talk about, but Becky will, and Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District encroachment agreement, Ithink -- I didn't mention that, but there is just --Ithink they would like to submit an encroachment agreement later than what we would prefer. We'd like to see it earlier in the process, so I think we just have a little disagreement there. And then that South Slough pathway. So, I think there is four items that -- that there are some differences of opinion on between staff and the Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 9 of H3 applicant. We have -- we have recommended approval. We think that their -- this project was submitted over a year ago to -- they were requesting a Comp Plan amendment change to remove this entire acreage from Boise -- from Meridian's area of impact and put it into Boise's area of impact and they were denied that request, in part, because they were told at that point that the City of Meridian was going to serve this area soon and if they could find a path of annexation, then, it would be brought in and that was one of the reasons. It is a fairly developed area: If you go further down Ustick, the majority of that is urbanized for the most part. There are certainly pockets, but it is an area that while on the fringe of our area of impact is very much built out in the larger area. So, as long as some of these issues can be worked out with services, we are supportive of the project being annexed and so I think -- do you have anything else? I guess at this point staff will stand for any questions. Borup: Okay. Any questions from any of the Commissioners? I might have a couple. And I don't know -- one was on the water extension. Did -- Bruce, did you have any comment on that at this time or did you want to wait until on? My assumption was that you'd like to see a loop system. Was that the reasoning there? Freckleton: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, some of you might remember back to when we had the Comp Plan amendment coming through last winter. It was something that I brought up then that we needed to have. We were out on the ragged edge as far as being able to provide water to the subdivision with just a single feed. Our comfort level is not real good and, like I said, that was last -- last winter when the Comp Plan amendment came through. We have had slot -- a lot of development in the area over the summer and when we reevaluate the model, which we have done recently, the need to have the loop is even greater now. We are working on trying to acquire a site for a new well up in the area. However, well sites are taking longer to get and longer to license and get drilled and on line and so by having a tighter network with loops and -- you know, you just get a lot better hydraulic distribution of your water in your system and can be able to provide the level of service that we -- we strive for. So, the City has -- in our new budget year we have identified some weak areas in the system and we have got some projects that the City is going to be taking on and the applicant and I talked before the m eeting that some of our projects may benefit this area. We have got some projects that we are going to be doing in Eagle Road, so I know some of their concern was the bore under Eagle Road and, you know, like I said, some of our projects may benefit them to where that huge expense wouldn't land on them. So, I think that between them and the timing of their phrases and the timing of our projects and just the demand on the system, what I think we can do is just work with them of as each phase comes in. We will evaluate them to the system. It may be possible to serve their first phase from Ustick Road off of a dead end line and, then, deeper into the subdivision the loop would have to be completed, but it's just a huge timing issue at this point and, like I said, with all the development that's going on, it's hard to pin down and say, yes, you could do your first phase, because, you know, somebody else may build before them and I can't guarantee capacity in the system for this development when we have others that are coming in, so -- Meritlian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 10 of 83 Borup: So, you do have --you do have some concern just in the first phase you're saying, then? Freckleton: We do. We d o. But, like I s aid, we have to -- the timing of the city projects, the timing of other projects in the area, and the timing of their project, we are just going to have to work with them and -- Borup: Okay. Freckleton: -- see what we can do. Borup: Another question for Brad and that was on -- I think I maybe answered it, but on the reduced -- you had mentioned on the reduced frontages, 37 feet. I only found one lot that -- were there more than one lot that even needed that stipulation? I saw Lot 8, Block 10. Hawkins-Clark: Right. Borup: I didn't see any others that even -- Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. Craig Hood, the other planner who was also working on this project, just told me that he believes that's correct, that it is just one lat. That's 37. Borup: One lot. So, that whole request for reduction is just for that one lot? Hawkins-Clark: You know, they have to request the minimum -- Borup: Right. No. I understand. Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. Borup: Okay. And I did note that the others -- the reduction on the cul-de-sac ones were -- I think on that south cul-de-sac and those lots range from 84 to over 11,000 feet. So, the lots were good size, even though the frontages were reduced. Okay. That's all I had. Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Unless -- any other Commissioners have anything else that -- McKay: Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, business address 150 East Akins, Suite B, Eagle. I'm representing the applicant in this matter. I will kind of give you a brief overview of the project. What we have here is the particular property that you guys, as Brad indicated, looked at a few months ago and considered removing it from the Meridian area of impact and allowing it to go to the City of Boise. Our project, as I indicated before, was split by the Boise area of impact line right here. The Council believed that it was in the best interest of the City of Meridian that this remain -- this property remain in Meridian's impact area, due to the fact that the Public Works Department has went to a great expense to extend that South Slough trunk out to this Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 11 of 83 area. So, what we did is the Boise portion, we processed through the City of Boise. Granger is a residential collector that comes off of Cloverdale Road. The -- I extended that collector up through the center of this. There is no front-on housing, with the exception of this existing dwelling and, then, it comes up across from Providence Place Subdivision, so it is in alignment with the street on the north side of Ustick. So, we do have a continuous collector, which, as you well know, adds capacity to our transportation system by minimizing the amount of traffic that's on the arterial, due to the fact that traffic can cut through a particular section in this fashion. On your Comprehensive Plan this property that you see in the preliminary plat is designated medium density residential, that's three to eight dwelling units per acre, and the portion that is -- adjoins Eagle Road is mixed use regional. Now, that -- we included that in our annexation, because that is the point that we are contiguous with the city limits and so those property owners were kind enough to enter into this application, so that we could annex them, zone them, yet they have no particular plans for development of those two parcels at this time. I think staff has indicated that they are comfortable with those parcels being annexed and zoned C-G, with a development agreement that would require conditional use permits for those particular uses. Those properties are along that Eagle Road corridor. That mixed regional does allow for, you know, like arterial type commercial, big box users, also office and I think it talks about minimizing the amount of curb cuts out on Eagle Road, within interior connection and roadways that go kind of parallel to Eagle Road. So, when those properties have a purchaser, I believe they will have to come forth and then present that plan to you guys and the Council. So, I don't see that as problematic. We have requested R-8 designation, which is a medium density zone. Our density that we are requesting is 3. Thirty-three dwelling units per acre. That's our gross density. Our net is 4.23. So, as you can well see, we are on the low end of that density scale when we are looking at the medium density designation of three to eight. We have got about 90. Twenty-nine acres in the residential a nd as B rod indicated, about 24. Twenty-three a cres i n the C-G portion. We went with a planned unit development on this particular property due to the fact that, one, it is large in size and we needed the flexibility in order to provide differing product lines. We have got product lines as you can see by the size of these lots, about 5,250 square feet up here in this area adjoining Ustick Road, so up at the arterial our higher density exists. As we come closer into the interior of the project, the lots go up to about 6,820 and they range from about 7,500 in this area and, then, they go to 87 and 9,100 range in through here. So, we do have four different product lines that will accommodate four different types of homes in size and price to, obviously, make this available to a larger portion of the population and different socioeconomic groups. We have a centrally located amenity here that's 2. Thirty-seven acres in size. As Brad indicated, we are proposing a clubhouse and swimming pool. Also, a parking area, in the event that some of the residents would want to drive. There is no parking along the collector roadway. Therefore, we want to be able to accommodate some type of parking in here. Also, that would allow handicapped people to drive a van there and access this facility also. We have pathways that meander and micro paths that extend out to make this as accessible as possible. We also show a volleyball court. As we come down here, we have got pedestrian pathways that will link up in this area and, then, we have another pocket park down here. As Brad indicated, we propose a Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 12 of 83 basketball court. This is the South Slough right here. Nampa-Meridian calls it the Finch Lateral. They have indicated due to the fact that it is a live water ditch, they are opposed to your multi-use pathway that is shown on your parks comprehensive plan. So, our only alternative is -- either, one, as Brad indicated, to provide some type of an easement to the City, so that in the future if negotiations with Nampa-Meridian are successful, that that pathway could be constructed or, two, to try to slide the pathway and have it just adjoin that easement. They cannot prohibit us from building a pathway if we are outside the easement. This South Slough is a very nice water feature. We are proposing to leave it open. It appears that there had been a lot of cattle out there over the past few years, therefore, the banks are beat down. It's a real nice gentle slope, it kind of looks like a nice little creek and doesn't resemble a standard lateral that we typically see. This area here is about 2-3 acres. We have varying areas throughout the project to accommodate storm drainage. We have the Milks Lateral that traverses right through here. This is the historical location and that's where we are piping that facility. I believe staffs concern was -- on our drawing we show the existing facility, we show the existing easements, then, we indicate that that will be placed in pipe. So, when the pipe is located adjoining the roadway and, then, running like this, then these lots are considerably larger than they appear on the preliminary plat, but I will make sure that they have adequate area to build on. Concerning access, we have Briarwood that adjoins us here. We only have 20 feet of right of way. Therefore, our only connection can be pedestrian. We also have a very large tree right at the end, which we moved our pathway to miss, but maintain that interconnection. We are connecting h ere o n the G ranger c ollector. We have a l ocal s treet c onnection h ere. Clover Meadows adjoins us on the south boundary so there are no connections there. We have a stub street here and then a stub street here to the west, so some future interconnection to Eagle Road. The contention at the highway district was over this Duane Drive connection. This subdivision, the Perkins-Brown was developed in 1971. This is a straight shot, substandard, kind of rural road with no curb, gutter, or sidewalk. I think there is approximately between 21 and 24 feet of pavement. Therefore, no matter what we do in our planning, you're going to find traffic going out that way from this area here. So, the highway district struggled. We had two meetings and they struggled with how to -- how to keep that traffic from going through the subdivision, even though it kept them -- our traffic did not exceed the threshold of 1,000 vehicle trips per day, they still were concerned about the integrity of the neighborhood, and I agreed with them. So, thereafter, what they have asked us to do is we will dedicate that right of way, we will build the roadway, but we will chokers here at this intersection and then this will be gated off, but yet, the gate would allow emergency vehicle access and then it would also allow pedestrian bicycle. So we would still get that interconnection, but we wouldn't get the cut-through traffic. So, that will farce the traffic out to the collector roadway, where w e i ntend i t to g o, b ecause w e d on't have front-on h ousing a nd t he conflict that we typically have with a local street. Brad wanted me to address this issue right through here. We had dealt with the Mittleiders, they are an out parcel here. I'm stubbing to them. Their property is a perfect width for redevelopment. This stub street will come in, go up and be just perfect. Obviously, the city will require that we stub services to that parcel, so it will be prime for development. The contention was -- it's like a 1901 plat, in the early 1900s. The dimensions on the plat do not scale correctly Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 13 of 83 and so there have been different interpretations from the surveyors on what is the true dimensions of this particular parcel. Granger --there is an old granger right of way that exists that comes across here and stops and then there is 20 feet of right of way that comes up to about there and stops. There is 30 on this side, 20 on that side. So, what I did with Mittleiders, since we could not come to an agreement or compromise -- and we did work diligently to do so. We have made the dimensions of the parcel the dimensions that the Mittleiders believe they own. So, we were very conservative and not to be a bad neighbor, we went -- and this is 660 -- I believe 660. 2. The previous dimension 642, I believe. Now, the problem we have is we have got to come down into this Derkheimer parcel here -- that's the previous owner. There is existing right of way 30 feet here, 20 feet here. On that particular plat -- and I can submit that into the public record. It's clearly shown. It's called county road right of way. There are two types of line work on that plat. There is a solid dark line shown for Duane Drive and then there are two dashes in a Icng line showing the 30-foot easement here and a 30-foot easement across here. When that plat was recorded, the way state law read at the time it was recorded that right of way is dedicated and we have had a lot of controversy over the, what, 13 years I have been doing this on when they call it an easement, is it really right of way. According to the highway district, yes, it is right of way. It's an unopened, unimproved right of way that they have the ability to open at any such time they believe it necessary. So, I have been working with the Altmans, because I don't want t o b e a b ad n eighbor a nd w e h ave b een t alking t o t hem, we h ave t his s taked, because they said, well, we'd like to see where that right of way is, how much area it takes up. W e did that. W e also offered them some compensation because they believe that they have paid taxes on that right of way easement over the past few years, so we have been working with them to make that happen. .The highway district was comfortable w ith t he s ituation. I believe what w as s tated for t he p ublic r ecord, y ou know, it's our responsibility to work with them to get that accomplished and they didn't have a problem with it. So, they were satisfied, they were comfortable, they approved us. We have got a really good project here, I believe. We have got a couple of minor issues. One being the issue of the enclave. If this parcel -- I guess, in my personal opinion, if this parcel had been split out recently, if this person had owned this property and had split it out and we excluded him from our plat, then, I could see that the city would say, no, that needs to be included and we have had that happen in other instances. But this was split out six years ago. Split out by the previous owner of that property. And Mr. Smitchger, if you recall, was at our area of impact hearing. He was the gentleman -- the elderly gentleman that indicated he didn't want to be anybody's area of impact, he didn't want to be in Boise's, he didn't want to be in Meridian's, he didn't want to be annexed by anybody. Borup: So, that was -- in '98 that was split? McKay: '97. Borup: '97. Meritlian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 14 of 83 McKay: So, I guess how Can I force an individual to consent to have his property annexed? He wants to just remain the way he is, in the county. He knows his taxes will go up if he's annexed and that's why I believe he testified that he -- his preference was he not be annexed by anyone. He be left alone. When I worked at the county we had instances like this continuously. We would find that if someone wanted to build a house -- like years ago on this property, they wouldn't loan on the 40 or the 37 acres, they'd only -- the bank would only loan on the one acre. So, they'd go in and do a segregation request and give that another parcel number, build their house on it, and, then, over time they sell the house off with the acre, then, they sell the rest of the property. So, I mean it's just something -- we can't solve all the problems on the illegal divisions that have taken place. But one thing, when a property is illegally divided, the only way to clean that up is to subdivide it. When you subdivide a piece of property, you, therefore, make it legal. Mr. Smitchger does have an option -- this is an R-1 zone, which adjoins him. He could rezone his property, if he wanted to, to an R-1, which, then, he would be in conformance with the dimensional standards. But I'm just powerless to f orce h im t o b e i ncluded i n t his a nnexation. I f h e w as t he s eller, you know, we could say, well, you know, this is what you have to do in order to do make this project happen, but he is not the seller. Borup: I think that's understood. The staff question was clarification whether that was a legal split or an illegal. It sounds like you're saying that was an illegal split. McKay: We went down and we researched it and we confirmed -- we got a copy of the deed that -- the deed is dated 1997 and it was an RUT zone -- or an R-2 zone at the time. which is a five acre minimum lot size and he's one acre. Borup: And who was -- who was the owner of the entire parcel at that time when it was split? McKay: Smitchger. Borup: So, he's the one that did the illegal split? McKay: Yes, sir. Borup: And, then, he sold -- McKay: To Victory 37. Borup: How -- in -- McKay: '97. Borup: In '97? McKay: Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 15 of 83 Borup: Okay. And Victory 37 didn't check in to make sure they were buying a legally split property, then. McKay: I guess not. I wasn't involved in that division. Borup: Okay. McKay: So, in my comments back to the staffs report, I guess I stated under item five, the annexation and zoning, that it is our preference to leave that South Slough open, to not pipe it. And, then, the third issue of contention is the issue of water on Ustick. At the City Council it was discussed -- if you recall it was discussed here -- the fact that United Water has a 12-inch mainline in Ustick and in Cloverdale. Boise City has a sewer line here. Boise City has a sewer line located right there. And both the City of Boise and United Water indicated that they could service this property. The question arose -- the City of Meridian's ability to service the property and it was staffs contention that with the extension of the South Slough, the boring of Eagle Road, that it was just a matter of time before that sewer line was available, which is correct. We are bringing the sewer from Eagle Road -- from the east side of Eagle Road along that slough and into the development. The issue of water was discussed and Mr. Watson at the City Council indicated that he believed that the 12-inch Ustick water main could supply service to the property, because one of our arguments was we may not be able to get that water eastward over to the site. In my client's negotiations with those property owners for the sewer easement, the issue of water has been discussed. So, the ability may be there to bring that water on eastward. But I guess I am a little bit disappointed when we were told that the 12-inch was adequate to serve this project and the Council made their decision to keep this parcel within the city area of impact based on that information. Borup: And what year was that? McKay: That was last year. Wasn't it last year? Borup: But -- okay. McKay: Now, the other issue -- Borup: Was that accurate what Bruce had said, though? Other projects have come on line since then? McKay: That's true. That's true. Now, the other thing I want to bring up is we do have an eight-inch main -- United Water eight-inch main here at Granger. They stubbed it right here at the end of the pavement. They also -- where this Red Feather No. 1 is under construction, they are requiring that we stub an eight inch water main right there. So, Bruce said he doesn't believe it's possible for the two entities to connect their systems, but, nonetheless, that water is there. So, I just wanted to kind of throw that Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 16 of 83 out for discussion. In the original staff report there was a discussion about the applicant extension of Granger, Palm, and Duane. We are, obviously, going to need the D uane D rive e xtension s truck, b ecause i t i s a restricted e mergency a ccess o nly. On the encroachment agreements, we have always in the past submitted those agreements prior to signature on the final plat. The reason being that Nampa-Meridian will not consider preparation of an encroachment agreement until you submit plans. So, if it's required that we submit the agreement with the final plat, it usually takes us anywhere from two to three months to obtain that agreement from Nampa-Meridian, because they send the plans out to their consultant for his review and that's -- well, I have had plans in there now for two months. So, it causes a real time crunch and obviously, your plat doesn't get signed if you don't have an encroachment agreement. So, I don't understand why they are jumping that up to that earlier step. On Item 18 is the Smitchger issue and I guess, like I stated before, we can't be held responsible for something that we had no part of that was done six years ago and that Mr. Smitchger is not going to consent to the annexation. I'm convinced of that. Item 19 is the vacation. There was a discussion in the staff report about vacating that 20 feet of right of way, we got a short 20 feet of right of way. We will also be exchanging right of way, so I wanted that just clarified with the Granger right of way here, so instead of the collector roadway going straight, the collector is going to this way. So, ACHD discussed that we would do what they call an exchange. So, they are still getting their right of way, they are getting their collector, it's just in a different location and I have done that before out off of Shamrock Street. Sample floor plans. The staff had a few concerns about the 50-foot lots. You guys have seen 50-foot lots in projects such as Woodbridge. Here are some examples of some elevations and floor plans for some of the homes that have been constructed on those 50-foot lots. We wouldn't propose the 50-foot lots if we didn't believe that they were buildable. They are detached. We have no attached dwellings. There is a market for those. A lot of elderly people like the smaller Idts. They have less lawn to maintain and they are popular and we want to provide a wide spectrum of homes and lot sizes. Do you have any questions? Borup: Questions from the Commissioners? You had mentioned the lot sizes on the 50-foot lots and, you're correct, we have seen a lot of that. I don't -- the lots that I have the concern on was the same ones that staff had mentioned, maybe those along the Milks Lateral where you have got, you know, a 20-foot building area at the front or so. Have any -- McKay: Like I told you -- Borup: Well -- and Idon't -- it's going to be a problem, but any lot can have a house designed for it, so something can be done. McKay: Right. And, like I said, it looks odd because of that --. Borup: Well, no, I understand, but it's still -- it's still an easement through there, isn't it? McKay: No, because I'm going to relocate the easement. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 17 of 83 Borup: Okay. Okay. I'm sorry. I misunderstood. McKay: Yeah. I guess I wasn't very clear on that. That was my point. The easement -- I have to show it in its historical location, the waterway. Borup: So, the easement will move over to the property line? McKay: The easement -- I'm going to -- that's why I have these separate lots all along here to accommodate that -- that irrigation line and move the easement north, which, then, those lots will be enlarged. So, my response to the staff is those lots will be enlarged when we pipe that and move the easement north. It just looks -- Borup: It will move north to the property line? McKay: Yes, sir. Borup: Okay. McKay: Out on this common lot here. Borup: Okay. McKay: Yes, sir. Borup: Okay. N o o ther q uestions, C ommissioners? I s t here anything s tall m gybe wanted to bring up while Becky is up here? Hawkins-Clark: We are fine with waiting until after all the comments have been made. Borup: Okay. Okay. Thank you. McKay: Thank you. Borup: Okay. This is the time -- portion for any public questions, input, or testimony. So, we'd like to invite anyone up that would like to testify at this time. Do we have anyone? Belcher: Chairman Borup, Commissioners, my name is Fitzroy Belcher. I reside at 2920 Duane Drive and I'm also the president of the Perkins-Brown Homeowners Association. So, be it for 24 houses. I have some concerns. I think you folks received correspondence from us expressing our concerns and we have a few more that have come up this evening. One is Eagle Road access, when that will come about. The question of the enclave-- will be a 60-acre enclave of county completely surrounded by Meridian and Boise to the north. Does that present a problem? You Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 18 of 83 expressed earlier that you didn't like to see enclaves if you could get away with it at the planning time. Borup: And I think part of that was the size of the enclave also. Belcher: On the size. Okay. Borup: And it doesn't flow as well. Historically, in the past the City has not -- I'm not familiar that the City's ever forced an annexation, especially of a developed area of that size, but -- Belcher: I have a concern with the statement I think by staff on the Duane Drive opening. I think if you read the motion by Ada County Highway District, it does not say anything in there about being -- any party being able to open it in the future. The only thing that I recall them saying in the discussion was that it would be up to the people in the Perkins-Brown to open it, if they felt that they needed additional access. I have a concern with our lots are all two and a half and five acres, most everyone has livestock of some sort, horses, some people raise some steers, some people have coats, sheep, and we are going to be putting -- the back of my property -- I'll have three houses abutting my property and we now have a barbed wire fence. What are we going to have back there when we get a subdivision back there? Borup: As far as a fence? The subdivision will be putting in a six inch -- a six-foot fence. Belcher: Wood, probably. And who is going to maintain our side of the fence, which is going to turn gray and ugly within two years. Another question I have is on -- that Becky stated that they are going to move the easement on the Milks Lateral. Will the pipe stay in the same place or will it be moved and, if so, where are we -- how will that affect our head gate for our irrigation. That's my concerns. Thank you. Borup: Okay. We will get answers to those questions. Zaremba: I can comment on one of them. The ACHD report on page eleven -- I will quote what ACRD says to us: The gate will be removed when a formal request, parenthesis, by anyone, i.e., the City of Meridian, a citizen, the developer, a resident of Perkins-Brown Subdivision, et cetera, closed parenthesis, is received by the district to open Duane Drive public right of way. So, that's what ACHD provided to us. Borup: And I question whether that's -- if that was what they meant or that it means they may look at it at that time and still have another hearing and -- Zaremba: And there is no time attached to it either Borup: No. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 19 of 83 Zaremba: I mean that could -- Borup: Twenty years from now. Zaremba: It's making it sound like I could walk over there and ask for it to be opened and that could happen tomorrow and that doesn't sound like that's what the intent was, I'm certain. We must have some authority modify that or clarify it, anyhow. But, anyhow, that's where that statement came from. Borup: Yeah. That was all from ACRD. Zaremba: We don't necessarily agree with it. Borup: Do we have anyone else that would like to come forward? Tyvand: Hi. My name is Diana Tyvand and I live at 4240 East Green Meadow Drive. That's in the Clover Meadows Subdivision that abuts the southern boundary of the Red Feather No. 2 Subdivision. My neighbor Gary Peva was going to come here tonight, but he had a death in the family and couldn't come, so I believe you have his letter up there to read and I just kind of want to speak to that, too, and say that we are concerned on that we keep -- have access to our irrigation ditch. You know, we have lived there since 1979 and we use the irrigation for our one acre lots in that subdivision and it looks like when they surveyed, they -- the boundary has changed. Our ditch was -- you know, our boundary line was north of the ditch and it looks like it's bumping to the south of the ditch now and so I guess we spoke with Becky McKay and I believe the developers and I guess they have come to an agreement of some sort and we just want to make sure that we still have access to that ditch and that the property line remain where it is, you know, with the fence now. So, I just wanted to kind of concur with what Gary had said in his letter. Borup: Okay. And we will get some comment on that, but the irrigation water will be still delivered at his historical -- Tyvand: And we want it to be an open access still like it is. Borup: But depending on where the ditch is located may affect that and I'm not sure on what the situation is on your boundary line. Tyvand: Okay. And, see, that's what I wanted to clarify. Borup: If it was improperly surveyed in the past and -- Tyvand: And I don't know. That's what I want clarification -- Borup: Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 20 of 83 Tyvand: -- if I could, please. Freckleton: Mr. Chair? Borup: Yes. Freckleton: I just wanted to, for the record, indicate that we did get a letter from Gary Peva, dated 12/4. Borup: Yes. We have that in our packet. Freckleton: You should. Zaremba: Actually, from Gary and Sue Peva. Freckleton: Correct. Zaremba: Along with several others. Not to totally answer all of the irrigation questions, but -- along with the previous speaker, even if the applicant reroutes -- pipes and reroutes an irrigation through their own property, I believe the rule is they -- by the time they get to the edge of their property, they have to have brought it back to where you historically got it. I believe that's the correct interpretation. 50, even they did loop- de-loops within their own property, the end of it has to be where it comes into your property, the same as it always has been. Now, whether that's a legal property line, as the next lady suggested, that's something else that needs to be clarified. Borup: Was there anyone else? Come forward. M. Tyvand: My name is Mike Tyvand. I live with Diana Tyvand on the south side of this proposed subdivision and I submitted a letter and what I'm mostly concerned about is we are going to have increased traffic on Ustick and Cloverdale and -- and what we kind of not discussed is there is no pedestrian route out of our subdivision across all of this to get to Ustick school there. I think that would probably be a good idea if we could have some pedestriah route there. We talked about Briarwood and some of the other pedestrian walkways, but there is none coming from the south, so that's mostly what I'm concerned about. Borup: Question on that. Do you have someone in your subdivision that would be willing to do a pedestrian pathway to this subdivision? M. Tyvand: Well, we will find out on our side. We also have a street ending right there where the Georgia Milks Subdivision is and that's kind of unclear of what's going to happen in there. And I think the indication was that there is going to be a road going north from that existing butt there. Well, that won't provide any pedestrian route either. So, I think -- Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 21 of 83 Borup: Which location are you referring to? There is a light --should be a laser -- M. Tyvand: This lot right here. We are right here. Well, we are actually about right here. But our subdivision ends right here. And so talking about this six-foot fence, it's going to be encompassing the whole subdivision here. Zaremba: Sir, can you pull the microphone that's behind you closer to you, if you're going to be over at the map. M. Tyvand: So, this is going to block off any pedestrian access from the south here up toward Ustick school there up in the corner and I'm not sure whether the subdivision -- proposed subdivision abuts Ustick school or not, but it comes mighty close. And, also, for any of these individuals that may want to go south with bicycle or pedestrian, they can't do that either, if there is no -- if there is no pedestrian route here. So, our subdivision ends right there and, you know, any of these routes could be a possible walkway, I think. Borup: And I think the developer would probably be glad to do that, but there has to be a pedestrian walkway in your subdivision for them to tie into. T. Tyvand: Okay. Borup: You can understand that. T. Tyvand: Sure. Sure. But it would be -- you know, we have been living there for 25 years and we have never had this opportunity before, so -- Borup: Right. T. Tyvand: So, you know, we are not the ones that have come up with this plan, but, you know, it -- Borup: Does your property abut against this subdivision? T. Tyvand: Yes, but it's one of the smaller -- the narrower lots right in here. Borup: Well, I was just asking -- would you like that pathway to come from your property, then, to get into that? T. Tyvand: I might do that. Unless we can find -- you know, unless we can find a better route. Borup: Yeah. T. Tyvand: But I think it's something that should be considered. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 22 of 83 Borup: Yeah. And the interconnectivity is always something we look at and that's an important aspect. T. Tyvand: Okay. Borup: Okay. Yes. Brown: For the record, Kent Brown, 3161 Springwood, Meridian. Just the issue of requiring the developer to annex property that has been previously divided, is a poor precedent, as far as I'm concerned. I agree with the argument that Becky provided, if it was b eing s ubdivided c urrently i t would m ake m ore s ense. The e ntity t hat has t he power to do that is the City of Meridian and if they want it to be annexed, it's less than five acres and they can do it and I know that they choose not to do that, but they have that authority and power and it's not greater than five acres and I would hope that that would be the condition far all developments in the valley. Zaremba: I agree with that philosophy, but I'd actually like to ask the question the other way around, perhaps of legal counsel. Can we annex a portion of a property that has not been legally split? Holinka: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'm actually not sure about that part of it, whether you can annex the -- if it has not been legally split. It is correct that you can -- the City can annex a parcel that's less than five acres. But I would have to get back to you, actually, on the question of whether -- Zaremba: Well, I guess my question is if it's not been legally split, is this still part of the same property? I think that's the point that staff is making. Brown: And when you look at the state code with regards to annexation, it makes no provision there for the division, other than the five acres that I'm aware of. And -- I mean cities can choose to annex or not annex the properties, but the provisions that require -- Zaremba: I guess what I'm not understanding is I feel whatever the property was, if it's not legally split, we have to consider the whole piece of property, which, if staff is right, still contains this other acre that's not a separate parcel legally. Borup: Well, normally, the time when that issue comes up is when there is any type of development, someone is trying to get a building permit. I would assume, in this case, if someone applied for a building permit that would be researched and they would not be granted a building permit. Brown: And that would be true of what Ada County would do to that person to make that happen. When -- the nine years I worked for the City of Boise and there was an illegal division, we required the person to go through a subdivision, even for one lot, if Meridian Planning 8 Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 23 of 83 they were illegally divided. i mean, so the city in the future can have the ability to do something. Borup: You mean after the fact you did that. Brown: After the fact. Borup: And how did you enforce that? Brown: Well, we wouldn't give them a building permit. Borup: Right. But if they weren't -- in this case, the parcel we are talking about, there is a way to force that, isn't there? Brown: And it seems unreasonable to take a third party and try to make them responsible to -- Borup: Well -- but that third party is not a third party, he's the one that did the illegal split. Brown: Well, the developer is a third party, though. Borup: Right. Brown: I mean he didn't even buy it from the person that did the illegal division. Borup: Well -- and I can see the problem in hindsight there, but maybe he should have looked into what they were buying a little better. But, you know -- Zaremba: And I agree with both sides. If it's legally split, I can't see any reason to force the acre parcel out into it. I guess my question is if it's not legally split, we can't do anything else. Borup: Well, I -- and I can't cite a case, but I feel pretty comfortable to say that we have probably done it a lot already on other projects. Brown: I mean that's why you go through a subdivision, as Mrs. McKay talked about, that -- that corrects their portion that they have some ability to control. They don't have ability to control the other person. You can notify the county and with computers and technology that we have you can make sure that he doesn't .ever get a building permit until he rectifies it one way or another. Borup: Well, one acre they are probably not planning on doing anything else with that parcel. Okay. Thank you. Come up, sir. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2D03 Page 24 of 83 Reeves: Commissioners, I'm Gerald Reeves and I live at 2990 Duane Drive, and I just wanted to emphasize what Mr. Belcher said earlier. I attended the ACHD meeting also and I heard what Mr. Belcher had said, that Duane Drive was to be closed with a swing gate until the residents of Duane Drive decided otherwise and by the amount of applause that I heard in the audience, I think everybody else heard that also. That's all I wanted to say. Borup: Okay. Yeah. So, that -- that was what the commissioners had stated, too, that -- is what you are remembering? Reeves: Yeah. Borup: And assuming everyone -- or pretty much everyone there liked the idea of the gate. Reeves: Yes. And I think that's why there aren't as many people here tonight. Borup: Because they were assuming there is going to be agate. Reeves: Yeah. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Becky. McKay: Just to answer some of Mr. Belcher's questions, as far as the access to Eagle Road, I mentioned that at some point in time there will be access to Eagle Road through stub -- via this stub street on our western boundary right here, but, obviously, there are no plans for that at this time, so I don't think he should be concerned. Any development of those properties to the west will go back for a Public Hearing and they will be looking, obviously, for a circuitous route of that public street to make sure that if Duane is ever opened u p, t hat they don't g et a c ut-through e ffect from E ogle Road. S econdly, t he Duane Drive opening -- my recollection of the discussion from the Ada County Highway District commissioners was that if the residents of Duane Drive wanted to petition the commission in the future to open up Duane Drive for vehicular access, if at some point in time it was extremely difficult for them to access Ustick Road and it would benefit them to have access via Granger going out to Cloverdale, then, it would be entertained, but I believe they did make some reference to the City of Meridian or the Meridian fire department having the ability in the future, if they saw a need, for it to be open. But they talked about they would want it to be like a Public Hearing. So, it wouldn't be a behind-closed-door decision. It would be opened up for discussion and notification. That was my impression. Concern the fencing -- Borup: So, if -- as Commissioner Zaremba said, if we clarified that, it sounds like that would be okay with the applicant and -- McKay: I believe so. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 25 of 83 Borup: Because that was your understanding from ACRD. McKay: Yes. I guess to be accurate, one would need to get a copy of the minutes from the ACHD commissioners meeting to be accurate. Borup: Because all we have is a summary of minutes. McKay: That's correct. And I haven't seen the detailed minutes from that meeting, but we can, obviously, access them, get them to staff, and have staff write asummary -- Borup: But that's still your understanding, it would be a petition by the Duane Drive residents or the city. McKay: Yes. Borup: And I think that makes sense to have the city included in there. McKay: That was my understanding. Zaremba: But I also think it makes sense not to have anybody -- any citizen from anywhere be able to -- McKay: No. That was not their intent. Zaremba: And, then, the second question is should there be some kind of a timing. This can't be asked for until X or should we just leave that? McKay: Well, this is our last phase, this phase six, so you have got five phases that will take place before this ever develops. I mean we can do a phase a year, I mean that could be five, six years away. So, to put a time frame, I don't know if that would be appropriate. Zaremba: Okay. McKay: The issue of fencing along Perkins-Brown eastern boundary. Yes, wood fences do discolor. My client has indicated that he would be willing to install avinyl -- one of those new vinyl type fences. They don't discolor. If they have animals, the vinyl typically doesn't hold up well to the animals. It probably would be in our best interest and theirs that the vinyl go on the outside of the ag fence, so have the two fences abut each other. Borup: I found that cedar fences don't hold up well with horses either. I have got posts that have been chewed through by my neighbor. McKay: Concerning the Milks Lateral. As Commissioner Zaremba indicated, the historical exit point of that facility will be matched. We are keeping it pretty darn close Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 26 of 83 within our interior of its historical location, it's just sliding over a little bit as we pipe it through our development. As far as the head gates are concerned, I did meet with John Anderson at Nampa-Meridian, I did discuss with him retaining some of those boxes and head gates that are on our perimeters, because. when you get i nto those facilities and start messing with them, sometimes you have problems and he said he was not opposed to that, that we could -- as long as we fenced around them or covered them in some fashion to meet the ditch safety regulations. Borup: So, that's your intention to leave the ones on your perimeter -- McKay: Yeah. If at all possible we try to leave those, if they are in good condition and we can, obviously, work with the facility. Sometimes they can't be salvaged and, then, we work with the adjoining downstream users, in addition to Nampa-Meridian, to come up with a different solution. Borup: But, either way, they would be entering and exiting your property at the present location? McKay: Yes, sir. Concerning the Clover Meadows Subdivision, I did forget to talk about that. I have been discussing that issue with Gary Peva, who is kind of their ditch master for Clover Meadows Subdivision and the issue is -- for clarification, there is a ditch that runs along this south boundary. In Red Feather No. 1, we have piped that ditch. When it gets to this point, then, the property boundary is falling approximately the center of that ditch. It is these residents' concern that they don't want that ditch put in pipe and they want to make sure that they have access to the ditch, since they are the ones that utilize it. Our pump station is up here off the Milks Lateral, a regional pump station in conjunction with Dawson Meadows. So, we have no use for that facility. So, it was my recommendation -- I said, well, so do you want the ditch open and you want it on your site. They said, yes, we want to make sure that it gets properly cleaned, we have access, so I said let's put the fence up on the north bank, so the ditch is on your side. Those lots are about 115 to 117 feet in depth, they have adequate depth, they will never miss the two feet. Your ordinance, I believe, states that if a ditch adjoins or is adjacent to, that you will pipe it, unless it exceeds a 48-inch or someone grants you a waiver. So, I believe the Council has to grant that waiver. So, we will have to bring that issue up with the Council. But I think that's a good solution. We always -- when the gravity irrigate out of the ditch and that is the case, we have a problem when we try to put it in pipe. Borup: So, at this point you're anticipating the fence would move two or three feet? McKay: The fence would move two feet to get it to the north boundary of that ditch. Borup: That was my other question. Are you going to discuss the boundary line also? McKay: They believed that that ditch was on their side, because the fences reflect that, but that - in actuality that was not the case. So, that's where they became concerned, Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 27 of 83 because the felt they were going to lose control and access to that ditch. So, I can't do a property boundary adjustment from unplatted property into platted property. So, the only solution that I can think we -- we also can't leave a strip two feet wide. So, we find a lot of times that our fences are inset a foot or two, depending on conditions. I means that's -- as you well know, the fences don't always reflect the actual boundaries. Zaremba: You feel comfortable with atwo-foot easement or something like that? McKay: Yes. Yes. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: You feel competent that the present survey is accurate? McKay: Yes. That's my understanding that it is accurate and I recommended to Mr. Peva that he provide the clerk and Bruce a copy of his letter requesting that, so there is something in writing in the record. The pedestrian pathway. I think that's an excellent idea, because we do have the Ustick elementary located right up in this area here. The only thing is, somebody in the Clover Meadows Subdivision would have to grant an easement on their side and provide some type of access on their side. Zaremba: You can put it in, but it has to go somewhere. It has to connect to something. McKay: Yeah. If that's possible, then, we -- and we can line up, I mean we are not opposed to making a pedestrian connection. In fact, I'm always a proponent of interconnection between the neighborhoods. Borup: So, you would need that -- but this would be in about phase five? McKay: That's phase two. Borup: Phase two. Mathes: So, what do you do with the ditch? You pipe it where they are going to cross? McKay: You would have to put a little piece of pipe through there to have them cross it. Borup: But I'm also assuming you would need to know where that access would be sooner than later, so you can design accordingly. McKay: Yes. And I'd hate to put a pedestrian pathway and, then, have them not find a resident willing to -- Borup: And that was my point earlier. That has to be existing before you design it. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 28 of 83 McKay: Yes. But I will work with them to try to come up with that, because I think it is a good idea. Lastly, the issue of the Smitchger parcel. Probably about 40 to 50 percent of the time a particular property at some point in time has been illegally divided. I think you're getting hung up on the issue of that fact, when -- I mean like as Commissioner Borup indicated, this body has been annexing parcels for years that their creation was not researched. Borup: Just that we were never aware of it. McKay: True. It wasn't an issue at the time. I guess my contention is I know of no state law and there is nothing in your ordinance that I have ever come across that would prohibit or inhibit you from annexing this property and leaving that outside, especially where it's a separate entity, has been a separate entity for multiple years. The problem is Mr. Smitchger's. If he -- I worked at the county, so I'm very aware of this. If he comes in for a building permit to add onto his home, for example, an addition, obviously, it's very obvious that he's zoned RUT, but he's only one acre in size. Immediately that sends up a red flag. So, the county planners, who have to issue a zoning certificate in order for that building permit for the addition to be issued, will take a look at it and they will tell him that he needs to legalize his property, bring it into compliance with a particular zone, like he could rezone to R-1 and possibly bring it into compliance that way, if that was acceptable to the county or, as Kent indicated, he could plat it. And I have had multiple one lot plats in the city of Boise to legalize a parcel. And a lot of times they were out in industrial areas where they have been illegally divided in the '80s and I had a client buy the property and Boise wouldn't issue a permit until we legalized it, so we platted it, and not once did I -- was I ever mandated to include the other parcel that had been illegally subdivided also. That was their problem, their owners -- the responsibility is on that owner to rectify the problem. Powell: Chairman Borup? Borup: Yes. Powell: Is this your last point, Becky? Could I chime in, so--okay. Becky and I both have the advantage of having worked at the county, but I have the further advantage of having worked more recently and they have changed interpretation and the prosecuting attorney staff has said that if you have an illegal sub, the remedy is not for just one portion of that illegal sub to go through the subdivision process, but that you recombine, such that you have the parent property, the original property, and that has to go through the subdivision procedure. So, there is -- Borup: What's the definition of the parent property? Powell: Well, in this case it would have been the whole -- whatever existed as of --what is it, January 1st, 1985, is their amnesty date. So, that's what they consider a lot of legal record was one that existed in the county recorder's office as of January 1st, 1985, so -- Meridian Planning 8 Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 29 of 83 Borup: But in this case you say the parent property has to comply. Powell: It would be the ones -- the property we are looking at today, plus the one-acre. They would make that property go in. Borup: Well, I thought you said the parent property had to comply? Powell: Well, that's the parent property. Borup: Which one? Powell: The whole thing. The parent property is one that --the original parcel of record. Borup: So, the definition of parent property is both parcels? Powell: Yeah. Borup: Okay. Powell: So, that is what they would require. Now, if the city were to annex the remainder of the property and just leave the one-acre, they wouldn't take retribution on that one-acre. They deem it that if the city annexes it, then, that's their fault and so -- because the rest of it is out of their jurisdiction, they'd legalize that one-acre. And I'd also like to say Becky is right, as far as we know, there is nothing that prevents us from annexing. The question is can we submit a subdivision on it and the subdivision regulations say it has to be an original parcel of record, our subdivision ordinance, since 1984. And so what we are saying is that it does not meet that definition of being eligible for a subdivision as it stands. That one-acre property needs to be included with the subdivision to make that. Not to say that we haven't done it in the past, we know we have. but -- Borup: That was my next question. Powell: That doesn't mean we should continue to make that mistake in the future. The other thing I'd like to say -- it's not -- you know, annexing it -- the reason we don't -- the reason staff, in particular, is interested in this -- and I think the city in general, is that it's not just the tax roll or having that person on the tax roll, it's more a question of getting those services and providing -- or getting the street improvements along Ustick and being able to provide services. If that one acre parcel, if that septic were to fail, right now they'd have to bring it in from the entrance road and they'd have to take sewer and water -- sewer services all the way over there. There is -- that's a long way for one property owner to take that length of sewer just to provide that service. So, we are not -- we are not getting the services, we are not getting the street improvements. Those are the things from -- at least from the planning standpoint that we are concerned about, not necessarily that he's on the city's tax roll or not. Particularly with the school nearby, Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 30 of 83 those sidewalks become very important and ACHD doesn't always have funds for those. So, those are some of the reasons that -- you know, that we are interested in this being part of the subdivision. It's not -- you know, for one, it needs to be by our code and, for two, there are those improvements that we are looking at. Borup: The question I would have, then, what option does the.applicant have? I mean in the past the ones that we have addressed -- you know, this past year, the same -- one individual owned both parcels and by making that a requirement, the owner would have the option of an annexing or not, but, obviously, in that case, if they didn't, I'm assuming they would lose their sale on their property, so they had some incentive to do that. In this case there is no incentive at all. Powell: Well, other than possible litigation, I suppose. But, hopefully, we won't get to that. I agree -- Borup: Are you saying for the applicant to litigate? Powell:. Yeah. Not us. Borup: Right. Powell: There is private remedies for an illegal property. But the county is faced with the same things since they have enacted this interpretation and there is -- you know, there is more incentive there when you can withhold permits or withhold annexation or withhold approval of a subdivision than later. The reason I brought up the improvements is perhaps to say that maybe there is a compromise situation there, if the developer is willing to look at things that -- to address some of those issues, knowing that it is not really eligible by our standards, but recognizing that we have done it in the past and that there are extenuating circumstances in this case. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: I would ask an additional question, I guess, again, of legal counsel. If there was a sale seven or eight years ago, I guess it was, and, then, a new sale again now, those have had to go through some sort of a title process and has this split thereby been legitimized by the fact that a sale has been recorded twice? Borup: I don't think -- I don't there is a.relationship between the two Zaremba: Okay. Borup: You can buy something that you can't do anything with. Not very smart, maybe, but a person can still do it. And that's something that the buyer is taking the chance on. You know, it's -- they are taking that risk if they don't research what they are buying. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 31 of 83 Zaremba: But that's what you pay title insurance for, at least on a private residence. Borup: Well, maybe someone can answer that. I'm not sure a title insurance guarantees that it's -- Zaremba: That it's a legal lot? Borup: -- a l egal I of o r t hat y ou c an g et a building p ermit or a nything e Ise. Maybe someone can clarify that. It would guarantee that the property you're buying is what you actually got. And, then, any other conditions. Zaremba: Free of liens and other stuff. Borup: Right. Becky. McKay: I guess, Commissioner Borup, I'd like to just say a couple things. Anna talks about including this in the annexation that will facilitate the construction of sidewalks. ACHD puts no condition on an annexation, they can't, for extension of sidewalks. That's on a subdivision. Powell: And we were saying it should be included in the subdivision. McKay: So, you're saying it should be included in the subdivision? Powell: Yeah. McKay: Okay. The other issue, too, is when I worked at Ada County we got a legal opinion and it was determined that we could not force another property owner to participate in a plat or a rezone if his property was illegally divided if he chose not to. So, I guess my point is it depends on the legal whims of the time. When I was there it was different director. When Anna -- you know, then, when Anna was there. Now, they are going to have a new director, so -- they have got new commissioners. Interpretations change. I think they are going to have a hard time demanding that a property has to include an unrelated parcel in its application if at some point in time, ten, 15 years ago, it was illegally divided. I just -- we use the subdivision process to legalize parcels and that's -- and create parcels. When we technically subdivide a portion of a parcel, you are splitting it. What about the remainder? There have been discussions about that. If you take an 80 and you plat 20, what about the 60? What is the status of the 60 if the rest of the development is never developed? I m can there a re a lot of questions. But we always have that platting process to legalize and that opportunity is available to Mr. Smitchger and the City of Meridian has the ability to annex that property if they see fit. There is United Water right in front of it and Boise city sewer. If he gets into some type of a situation where his septic system fails, I'm sure he could appeal to the city or Boise or Meridian to allow him to connect to, obviously, the most available, cost-effective services that are out there. I just -- I just think it's wrong to take a project of this size when the city has spent so much money to extend that South Slough trunk Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 32 of 83 and say just because what someone did six years ago, gee, we can't approve this guess it just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Thank you. Groves: Do I have to state who I am? Borup: Yes, you do, Mr. Groves Groves: I'm Craig Groves. 3920 East Shady Glen Court, Boise. Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, you know, I'm sitting here kind of feeling, I guess, stupid, but, on the other hand, I don't really think I should feel that way, because in the last 25 years of experience in the real estate brokerage development business, I have never seen this happen or come to this point ever before. And, believe me, if I would have khown this was an issue, I wouldn't have gone out and closed on over four million dollars worth of real estate and you have got an issue up here -- there is, really, two properties up there. The one acre parcel Mr. Smitchger doesn't own anymore, someone else does, and there is a little battle between Smitchger and him, and you're asking me to go solve it, because of something that's never enforced before and I would really like to encourage you to, you know, use the other powers you have, if you really feel it needs to be annexed, and you guys take that battle on. Borup: Well, we haven't asked anything yet. We are discussing. Grove: All right. Thank you. Borup: Any other questions of Mr. Grove? You know, I forgot to ask Becky when she was up on where the school boundary is. Do you know where that is on here? Grove: The school boundary for -- Borup: The grade school. Grove: --the grade school? Borup: It goes right up to that corner of the property? Grove: Yes, it does. As you know, Keith, the school boundaries for the grade schools change all the time, so we anticipate -- Borup: No. No. I meant the property itself, not the attendance lines. I meant the property itself. Grove: No, I don't think the school is at that corner. Borup: It's not at the Boise city line, then? Grove: No. It's over -- it's over another quarter Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 33 of 83 Borup: Okay. Grove: I stand corrected. Borup: Okay. It is right there. Thank you. Commissioners, questions? How about some discussion, then? Zaremba: I don't necessarily have a problem going with precedent, you know, and particularly since this property, apparently, has been sold a couple times, independent of what was another piece of the parent property. Borup: I think the other aspect along that line is there has kind of been some commitments made a year ago on this -- on this property, back when they were looking at annexation into Boise and -- I mean so the city was aware of it at that time. Is that what you were leading to? I mean that was -- Zaremba: Well, it's been talked about and I don't think anybody told him he would have to be annexed as part of this at that time either. I don't remember that part of it being a topic of discussion. Borup: No. The time when that should have come up was in '97, but at that time there was no development discussed, because there was no services available. Zaremba: Okay. Let's talk about -- was it water and sewer that needed to be looped and have -- Borup: Just the water. Zaremba: Just the water. To have two ways in. Borup: Sewer only goes one direction. Zaremba: That's true. Downhill. Gravity. Yeah. The pressurized incoming water. I know Bruce already stated that he thought there was some question about having enough water even for phase one of this, but what I'm thinking is there will be -- the same way with a roadway and -- we don't have any application for the C-G portion of this yet, but there will be a road through there at some time and could be the rest of the loop of a water system there? Is that a possibility if we were to say that had to be part of it? Borup: Well -- Zaremba: My question is can we prepare this for a looping connection, but not require it today? Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 34 of 83 Borup: And maybe beyond that -- and I was thinking maybe over here on phase six that maybe by that point it would be necessary and say that before that could be -- you don't even want to go that far. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, no, our recent remodels indicate that -- like I said, we are on the ragged edge. Borup: What's changed from two years ago or even a year ago? Freckleton: A year ago? There has been a lot of development in the north end. Borup: On the same water line that's using it now? I mean where did that water go from the last year? Because nothing else has developed in the last year, other than the one subdivision that's -- I forgot the name of it -- Champion there on Ustick. Is that on the same -- is that the same line? Freckleton: The lines in the city are totally interconnected to each other, so it's not like we serve this area and it's not interconnected with -- development in the entire city has an impact on -- on this area. Zaremba: Well, so you're saying it's not just the pipe, it's -- you mentioned that we are trying to get another well in that area -- Freckleton: Exactly. Zaremba: -- so you can have a supply for it. Borup: The distribution could be empty. Freckleton: We don't want to get to that point. Rohm: Well, isn't that something -- a decision the city made at such time that they said they did not want to turn this property over to the city of Boise? I mean isn't that kind of a commitment to serve it with water by taking that position a year ago? Freckleton: Commissioner Rohm, I don't believe that there was a commitment to serve this development off of a single feed from Ustick Road. Rohm: I don't know -- Freckleton: The discussion that I brought up at Planning and Zoning level when the -- when the application came through last winter that we felt that we were weak in the system in this area. Borup: So, if there is not enough water, what difference does it make if there is a loop? Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 35 of 83 Freckleton: The distribution network -- you will be able to bring water in from Eagle Road, you will also be able to have it come in from Ustick Road. By having the loop, it creates redundancy in the system and you can balance your hydraulics in the system better with a loop than you can by having a single 12-inch feed trying to feed all of these lots. And when we -- hopefully, it won't be too long and we will be drilling another well up here to provide more water. Borup: How many years is this, hopefully? Freckleton: Well -- Borup: Are you saying two years? One year? Freckleton: No. No. Hopefully this year. Borup: Oh. Freckleton: Or not yet this year. It will be in -- Borup: This fiscal year. Freckleton: Yeah. Borup: In this fiscal year. Freckleton: In the budget year, yes. We hope to be underway drilling a well. Borup: That would solve -- that would solve everything, then? Freckleton: With the loop. Borup: With the loop Freckleton: The loop and the supply Borup: Well, in the short term would that--would that solveforthe firsthalfofthe phases or something? Freckleton: As I mentioned previously, we are going to have to just kind of work with the applicant with our project that we have got in Eagle Road and the timing of development in the area, we are going to have to be able to model the phases and see if we can provide the flow that is required to the first phase off of a single feed. Zaremba: Let me ask a dumb question Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 36 of 83 Freckleton: We don't want to get pinned down right now to say, yes, we can serve the first phase or the second phase or the third phase, because of the timing issue. Zaremba: So, let me ask a dumb question about, actually, the process. They can get building permits without water. Can they get occupancy permits without water? Borup: You can't get building permits without water, because of the fire hazard. Zaremba: So, in other words, the water has to be there before you even allow them to build. Freckleton: Commissioner Zaremba, the water has to be there before, hopefully, the city approves the final plat. Zaremba: Okay. Freckleton: We have to be able to provide the flow and the pressure. There is fire protection, life safety issues -- it's got to be there. Mathes: How long does it take to get through to final plat? Borup: Four or five months. Freckleton: From what point? I mean from when they submit the final plat application to the time it gets approved? Borup: Well, she's saying from today. Mathes: From today. Borup: Fourorfive months. Freckleton: A lot of that time line depends on the applicant. Borup: Right. Zaremba: I think what -- I would ask a question of both the applicant and Bruce. I'm inclined to require the loop somehow. I understand the purpose of it and the necessity of it. On another application it's even mentioned that junk collects at the end of a dead end and you have to have a loop in order not to get junk collecting in your line. But I guess my -- staff is offering to work it out with the applicant how the time line is going to go. My question of the applicant is if we say at some point it does have to have a loop connection and at some point the city is talking about a new well out in that area, is the applicant comfortable knowing that there may be some delays, but you just need to work with the city on -- I'm seeing nods yes. Is that good enough for the record? Both Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 37 of 83 the applicant and the applicant's representative have nodded yes in answer to that question, for the record. McKay: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, I guess are you asking time line? September of '04 would be the earliest we anticipate any building permits being issues. That is our target date. As far as the -- cooperating with the staff, we really don't have a choice. We have to have that 1,500 gpm to meet the fire flow requirements. The staff has indicated they have some public works projects in this area that they may tag on the bore of Eagle Road, because that is a very expensive endeavor and assist us kind of as a cooperative nature getting that water line eastward over to our boundary. So, I guess the answer is, yes, we will work with the staff to obtain easements and get that loop at some point in time, 1 guess, when it is needed. Borup: So, you understand when you say you need to have the gpm -- McKay: Yes, sir. Borup: -- and that would be determined prior to final plat. McKay: Yes. When we submit construction plans and a final plat, the staff -- I would assume at that point in time Bruce's group will run a water model based on availability of water, any developments or houses that have come on line between now and then to determine if we have got adequate flow. And if we don't, then, obviously, they are not going to approve those construction plans, the Council is not going to approve that final plat. We would, obviously, have to go pull that other main line eastward get that loop at that point. Borup: And to bring that one from the -- McKay: It's at Leslie Drive. Borup: To bring it in from Eagle Road, are you going to need some type of conceptual layout design, I'm assuming? McKay: Commissioner Borup, it would follow the same alignment as the sewer, running parallel with the South Slough. Borup: Okay. So, you go in that easement, that existing easement. McKay: Right. And the water main is in Leslie Drive right now o n the west side of Eagle Road. Borup: Okay. And I wouldn't anticipate any problem with the property owners. I mean that's a benefit to them. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 38 of 83 McKay: Yes, it is. So, I guess have the staff come up with some conditions that they are comfortable with. Borup: Bruce, as long as that gallons per minute is necessary, then, before final approval, is there any other restrictions that needs to be stated at this point, as long as it can meet that criteria? Again, understanding that it will be looped eventually. I'm just wondering if a phase or two couldn't go in if it meets the criteria. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I think we would be comfortable with basically stating that, you know, prior to the first phase it's going to have to be evaluated for the -- or the criteria of the system has to be met and if it can't be met, then, they are going to have to do the loop. Borup: Well -- or something to meet it. Freckleton: Right. Right. I mean we just can't go out on a limb. Borup: No. Well, Ithink -- I think Becky stated that. They understand that it needs to meet that criteria. Freckleton: Right. Borup: But do we have to -- but is it necessary to state how it will, whether it's a loop or the other well or -- there is probably no other choices besides those two, but -- Freckleton: That's about it. That's about it. The developer is not involved in the well, that's something that we are moving forward with. About the only thing that the developer could be involved in would be that loop, so that was the reason I wrote it up the way I did. Borup: Okay. Okay. Thank you. Does that clarify somewhat? Zaremba: Okay. So, we have the issues of alignments have been satisfied or agreed to. I'm thinking of the -- Borup: The property line. Zaremba: -- sloughs and drains and property lines and piping and not piping, those -- fencing, those things have been satisfied. Are we satisfied with the answer of how Granger Road cuts through the corner of -- or goes off property? Are we satisfied with this roadway? Yes. Thank you. Right there. With the roadway easements and stuff there? Borup: I am If Becky's statement is correct, if that's an existing roadway easement. Zaremba: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 39 of 83 Borup: If it's in existence, that's kind of not much to say about that. Zaremba: We are thinking the closure of Duane should be something that allows emergency and pedestrian access only and the only people that can request that that be removed are the homeowners association of -- was it Perkins-Brown? Was that right? And the City of Meridian. Limit it to those possibilities. Borup: And by city you mean a city entity, like the fire department, but -- Zaremba: Yes. I would you say it should be initiated by the fire department. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, Commissioner Zaremba, I -- you know, I think it might be wise for us to just get clarification, you know, I think on that from ACHD. It sounds like there is clear agreement from those that were at the ACHD meeting, but, you know, I don't think we have the authority to change ACHD commissions -- Borup: We can restate what -- Zaremba: We can have a position of our own. Hawkins-Clark: Right. I'm envisioning you putting the applicant in a conflict between the two agencies and I don't think that's -- we need to -- a condition needs to be worded that you either give ACHD their authority or maybe it could be worked out prior to a City Council hearing. Zaremba: Okay. I'm comfortable with that. And, I agree, the wording that ACHD provided to us and to you is a lot more liberal than the audience apparently heard. Borup: Right. Zaremba: And even the applicant has agreed that they didn't hear it the way that it's -- Hawkins-Clark: I think the most important thing from staffs perspective is that the commission give very clear direction a s to y ou do o r do not want the swinging gate removed. If you don't have a problem with -- Borup: You mean presently? Zaremba: My personal thinking is that it should be removable, but I want to restrict who can ask to remove it. It needs to be usable by emergency services and removable by Perkins-Brown or our fire department. Period. That's my thinking. I don't know if I'm the only one that's thinking that way. Borup: No. And I agree. And I questioned that right when I read that. I mean it said any interested party, I believe, which was how they put it. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 40 of H3 Zaremba: And if we need to make that recommendation to ACHD, I would, not wanting to step on their toes, but -- Borup: I think we can restate what our understanding of their intention was. Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. I think we are good. If you do that and make it clear -- Zaremba: And, then, have some ACHD clarification before City Council, that's fine with me. Then, the other issue is the looping water main and I think we have got agreement on that, that at some point it is going to loop and that will be worked between the applicant and the city to make that happen. Rohm: You still have that out parcel right up here to deal with and -- Zaremba: Well, I understand the legal question, I guess, but I'm personally willing to go with precedent and ignore the out parcel. Now, not saying that the City Council won't take another tact. They often have taken a different tact than we have, but I think there are enough good things about this project to move it forward. Borup: And in this case --and because of the size of the property, the city can annex it. Rohm: Absolutely. Borup: That can be done at any time. Zaremba: Independent of this application. Borup: Right. Rohm: And probably should Zaremba: I personally feel the lot split, whether legal or not, has been legitimized by the fact that the separate property has been sold a couple times: You know, it hard to go backwards w ith t hat a nd l u nderstand t he point t he s tall i s m aking a nd g enerally, A, support staff, and, B, support legality, but I think there has been some legitimization, so I would be acceptable to go with precedent and ignoring the out parcel. Borup: I think there may be an assumption of some legitimization, but it hasn't been legalized. It probably wasn't unreasonable to assume that it was a developable property either. Especially with all the history that's already taken place on this. Zaremba: The only thing that makes it a shame, it would be nice if it, actually, could be included in this, so that they don't continue to have access onto Ustick, so their access would be part of this property. I don't see that happening by force. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 41 of 83 Borup: How about the other -- you know, what -- well, okay. I was going to say about the other two parcels, the other two out parcels. And they were probably divided off prior to '85. Rohm: Let's hope so. Borup: But just looking at the configuration, I assume they were one parcel atone time. Zaremba: Well -- okay. The parcel that's identified as Block 12, Lot 1 -- Borup: Well, that's part of -- Zaremba: -- is part of this. Borup: Right. It is part of it. Zaremba: But we haven't resolved the question is staff satisfied that you have seen how that property will take access not using Granger in the future? Borup: Oh. Yeah. That was stated you had a copy of that, but we didn't get a copy in our packet, but that's okay with them. Hawkins-Clark: Yes. And the way that the condition is worded now is that they submit it before the final plat where that Lot 1, Block 12 is in. So, you know, I guess if we could just keep it at that and that they may not have chosen -- you know. I think -- but they have clearly demonstrated that it can be re-subdivided where the existing house can -- Borup: And, then, this street that will -- Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Borup: --tie together, s o -- a nd t hat w as p robably o ne o f t he big q uestions anyway, wasn't it? Hawkins-Clark: Right. Zaremba: Then, the other issue would be working with Clover Meadows Subdivision for the potential of somebody in Clover Meadows designating where a pedestrian path could connect through to East Tahiti Street. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, if I could just make a suggestion on that. That if you -- you could also tie that one to prior to City Council to allow them to work with Clover Meadows Subdivision that if -- if Clover Meadows does not find a property owner willing to put a pathway in, then, you give the flexibility for them to not construct that pathway. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 42 of 83 Borup: Exactly. I don't think we could do otherwise. Zaremba: Yeah. I agree with that. Having a half a path that doesn't go anywhere doesn't help, so there would have to be -- Hawkins-Clark: You would, essentially, be requiring them to provide it -- Zaremba: We could phrase it in a way that a connecting pathway would be acceptable if they work it out. Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. Maybe. Rohm: Well, it's going to be a long motion, Dave. Zaremba: Well, that's why I'm going to let you make it. Rohm: No. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: The hearing is still open. Borup: Yes, it is. Zaremba: Are we resolving the issues and -- Borup: Well -- and, then, we can still get some clarification, but do we want to start putting some things down for our motion? I mean you have gone through it verbally. Do you have it down that you can remember when you're ready to make the motion? Zaremba: I'll try and if I forget one, I can be reminded. Borup: I mean do we want to just -- Zaremba: What I haven't noted is what page of the original memo this would change. I wouldn't mind some prompting on that. Borup: And, then, did staff following going through that list? Is there anything that we have overlooked? Hawkins-Clark: If you -- I guess two things. One, we submitted a memo dated November 24th that had about a dozen changes to the staff notes. So, I don't think you would need to go through each of them, you could just reference the memo. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 43 of 83 Borup: Right. And that's what I was assuming. And I think the applicant agreed with all of those, except for the ones that they have said otherwise on. Hawkins-Clark: Right. That would be special consideration H about the Smitchger out parcel. Borup: Uh-huh. Zaremba: That's an annexation issue. Right. Hawkins-Clark: And, then, the first bullet on the second page of the memo, item number 19, deals with the vacation of the existing right of way and there is existing -- or existing right of way easements between this subdivision and Perkins-Brown and Bruce had just suggested that we -- which is -- I think we are -- staff is in agreement that we need to just clarify that, so that they are required to vacate the right of way, even if an exchange is made, so that would just be a -- Borup: Is that an additional item or is that -- Hawkins-Clark: No. It's existing -- on the first bullet on page two of the new memo. Item number 19. Borup: And you have already done your rewording. Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. But what I'm saying is that the rewording --and we may need to get the applicant's input, but it's, essentially, that that would not be necessary. We would leave it as it was, that the existing right of way adjacent to the west property line must be vacated. Zaremba: And delete the underlined portion? Hawkins-Clark: Yes. That doesn't, obviously, preclude them from working with ACHD and exchange, but even if there is an exchange, a vacation would be necessary, so I think -- Zaremba: Okay. Just to prove that the exchange happened. Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. Borup: Do we feel we got questions answered? Are we ready to close the hearing? Zaremba: I think so. As long as I -- if I put the issues in the right place, we will be okay. Hawkins-Clark: I think there was one other clarification that was not in my November 24 memo and that was on the encroachment agreement with Nampa-Meridian on that Milks Lateral that runs through the middle of the project. Item number 12 on page 14. Meridian Planning8 Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 44 of 83 We'd like to suggest that the -- that the last four words be omitted and replaced with prior to preconstruction -- prior to a preconstruction conference. So, it would read: Submit a copy of the encroachment agreement with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District prior to preconstruction conference. So, it's kind of, I guess, the mid point between what the applicant is asking for and what we originally asked for. Zaremba: Well, the applicant has offered to provide space for a walkway outside of the easement. Do we want to reference that? Hawkins-Clark: I think you're referring to a different -- Zaremba: I'm sorry. Okay. So, number -- on page 14, number 12, should read submit a copy of the encroachment agreement for what -- for what slough or drain or lateral. Borup: Milks. Hawkins-Clark: Milks. Zaremba: Milks Lateral. Borup: And, Becky, is that time frame workable? Hawkins-Clark: And, again, we are referring to this easement right through the middle there. Zaremba: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: Milks Lateral. Zaremba: I was thinking -- for Milks Lateral prior to -- I'm sorry? Hawkins-Clark: A preconstruction conference for the subdivision. Zaremba: Okay. Do we need to say anything about the other lateral, South Slough, or - - or is that -- the one I immediately jumped to thinking you were talking about. Borup: Yeah. I think maybe that was left a little bit up in the air. If Nampa-Meridian is definitely adamant -- staff covered that in talking about leaving -- dedicating a right of way or easement. Which one did you state? I forgot. Wasn'f that what you discussed, about having -- if we are not able to build a pathway, at least have a right of way or an easement there. Hawkins-Clark: Right. Right. And the way that my November memo words it is just that they -- a pedestrian easement must be recorded prior to the first building permit issued for that phase six. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 45 of 83 Borup: So, that's already part of the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Borup: And that would -- are we adequate there? Hawkins-Clark: I think we are. It doesn't specify the location, but I think that that flexibility is necessary at this point. Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move that the Public Hearing on items 4, 5 and 6 be closed. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 4 on our agenda, AZ 03-021, request for annexation and zoning of 114. 52 acres from RUT to R-8 planned development and C-G zones for proposed Red Feather Estates Subdivision No. 2 by Packard Estates Development, LLC, south of East Ustick Road and east of North Eagle Road, to include all staff comments of their memo dated for the hearing of September 18th, 2003, received by the clerk September 15, 2003, as modified by staff memo received by the clerk November 24th, 2003, with one exception. That exception being that we will ignore the out parcel in the upper right corner. Is that everything on annexation? I believe it is. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 5 on our Agenda, PP 03-024, request for preliminary plat approval of 302 building lots and 28 other lots on 90. 29 acres in a proposed R-8 PD zone for proposed Red Feather Estates Subdivision No. 2 by Packard Estates Development, LLC, south of East Ustick Road and east of North Eagle Road and this is referring to the preliminary plat received by the city clerk on December 4th, 2003. To include all staff comments of the staff memo of -- for the hearing date September 18, 2003, received by the clerk September 15, 2003, as modified by the staff memo received by the clerk on November 24, 2003, and, then, with the following changes: On Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 46 of 83 page 14 of the original September 18th memo, Item 12 would be changed to read: Submit a copy of the encroachment agreement with the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District for Milks Lateral prior to the preconstruction conference for the subdivision. And o n t he memo o f November 2 4, 2 003, on p age two, t he first b ullet o n t hat p age refers to item 19 in the quoted paragraph, the existing right of way adjacent of the west property line within Block 9 must either be vacated and the vacation approved by the City of Meridian and ACHD prior to the final plat being submitted for any lots impacted by the right of way easement. End of quote. Deleting the second and currently the underlined sentence there. Borup: And deleting the word either. Is that correct? Isn't that what you stated? Zaremba: Yes. Applicant has agreed that the fence at least along the west property line will be a vinyl fence. Have we covered everything that should be on the plat? Borup: Do you want to mention the pedestrian path to the south? Zaremba: Okay. We will add a paragraph that says that the applicant will work with the subdivision to the south, Clover Meadows Subdivision, and may, if they can provide some place for the pathway to go, include a pedestrian pathway that would access East Tahiti Street and abutting Clover Meadows Subdivision. Then, we would also recommend that the applicant work with ACHD to clarify the requirement on the Duane gate, that it be -- that Duane Street be usable as a pedestrian access and emergency vehicle access and that the only people able to ask for removal of the gate be the Perkins-Brown Homeowners Association and the City of Meridian, specifically, the fire department. Hawkins-Clark: Prior to City Council? Zaremba: That t hat agreement w ith A CHD be i n p lace p rior to t his g oing t o t he C ity Council. Borup: Or at least clarified. Zaremba: That clarification. Yes. I think the other issues are covered. Hawkins-Clark: I think the only other item, Commissioner, is your needing to modify condition eight on page 13, which refers to Duane Drive being extended. That would need to be stricken. That was eight. Zaremba: Yes. I agree. This is page 13 of the September 18 memo. Item paragraph eight, extend Granger Street, Palm Street, into the site as proposed, deleting the words: And Duane Drive. Rohm: Has the irrigation been covered? Meritlian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 47 of 83 Zaremba: Okay. Just to make sure irrigation was covered, do we need to mention the water loop? Borup: No. Zaremba: The staff request was that they work it out together and I believe that's what we agreed on. So, I think that's already -- Borup: And the applicant understands it needs to meet the criteria. Zaremba: Already in the notes. On the Clover Meadows site, applicant has agreed to place the fence line two feet north of the actual property line and to provide an easement to the Clover Meadows property owners to access that ditch. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: I believe that's the end of the motion. Borup: Is there anything that was missed for the staff? Okay. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Thank you. One more. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 6 on our agenda, CUP 03-041, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for single family residential use, with reduced setbacks, lot size, lot frontages, house sizes and increased block lengths for proposed Red Feather Estates Subdivision No. 2 by Packard Estates Development, LLC, south of East Ustick Road and east of North Eagle Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of September 18th, 2003, received by the clerk September 15th, 2003, and modified by the staff memo of November 24th, 2003. I don't believe there are any other CUP changes. I believe that's the end of the motion. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Thank you. Okay. We did get through that. Commissioners, would this be a good time for a break? I think so. We will take a break at this time and reconvene shortly.