Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 15, 2004 P&Z MinutesMeridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January15, 2004 rg. 66 of 124 (Recess.) Item 11: Public Hearing: AZ 03-028 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 7.98 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision No. 2 by Initial Point, LLC - 1295 West McMillan Road: Item 12: Public Hearing: PP 03-033 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 40 single-family building lots and 7 common lots on 7.98 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision No. 2 by Initial Point, LLC - 1295 West McMillan Road: Item 13: Public Hearing: CUP 03-059 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for reduced requirements for frontage, lot size, minimum house size and street side building setback in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision No. 2 by Initial Point, LLC - 1295 West McMillan Road: Borup: Okay. We'd like to reconvene our meeting this evening and start with the Cobblefield project. Items Number 11, 12, and 13, AZ 03-028, request for Annexation and Zoning of 7.98 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for the proposed Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision. PP 03-033, request for Preliminary Plat approval, and Public Hearing CUP 03-059, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development on the same project and open all three hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Kirkpatrick: All right. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is an application for the Annexation and Zoning of 7.98 acres. It's currently zoned RUT in Ada County. They are proposing a Rezone to R-8. There is also an application for a Preliminary Plat for 23 single family detached lots and 16 attached single-family homes. Actually, there will be 16 lots. There is also an application for a CUP planned development to allow reduced lot sizes, reduced frontage, reduced setbacks, and reduced home sizes. I will go through and explain the location of this property. It's located approximately ahalf- mile east of the southeast intersection of McMillan and Linder, and I will. put up the aerial and show you some of the surrounding land uses. McMillan Road is located directly to the north of Cobblefield 2. The phase one of Cobblefield Subdivision is located directly to the south. To the east, we have property, which is still located in the county. It's zoned RUT. To the west, we have property that's still located in the county it's rural residential and zoned RUT. I also want to point that this is an area with a fair amount of development. Baldwin Park was recently approved and it's located to the south and Paramount Subdivision is located to the north of this property. I'll put the plat up. Let's see. Probably the main issue I want to go through -- and the applicant, I know, is gofng to address this, because there is some changes, I think, that came up relatively recently, I just found out about in the hallway. Cobblefield 2 includes a replat of Lot 1, Block 1 of Cobblefield 1. There was a space lot and in Cobblefield 1 there was a proposed -- or, actually, approved micropaths and there was workout stations. The applicant is -- and I will have to see their new version of their plat -- fn,~as proposing to reconfigure this open space lot. Part of this open space lot was going to include the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 67 of 124 backyards of several homes, so they were going to cut into this open space lot. This entire lot was -- from Cobblefield 1 is going to be incorporated into Cobblefield 2 and staff, in my staff report, I recommended that the amenities that were required for Cobblefield 1 include the micropath and the w orkout s tations. That t he a pplicant b e required to keep those amenities when this lot was incorporated i n Cobblefield 2. I know the applicant has another proposal that they are going to explain to you this evening. Staff recommends approval of this project. I don't know if you have any questions and I will probably want to speak after the applicant submits their new proposal for dealing with the open space. Are there any questions of staff? Zaremba: I only have a question on n umbers, actually. All of your materials, a s you stated, 23 single family, 16 single family attached, that adds up to 39, as you said. On our agenda it says 40. This is Item 12. Are we sure it's 39 or 40? Kirkpatrick: The applicant's application stated -- well, actually, the notice that went out to adjoining neighbors says this was 39 single-family lots. Zaremba: Okay. Kirkpatrick: And the applicant's application says 39. I'm not sure where 40 came from. We will ask the applicant about that. Zaremba: Let's say that it's a typo on the agenda. Borup: Okay. Any other questions? Zaremba: Just another typo. Under application -- this is still on the first page of the staff report. Kirkpatrick: Okay. Zaremba: Under application summary, the second paragraph, the last sentence says: The other lots include six, parenthesis, and seven. I would change the parenthesis to six. Kirkpatrick: That would be a typo. Zaremba: All right. Six is correct? Kirkpatrick: Actually, let me -- let me check. Zaremba: Well, now that I notice the agenda says seven common lots. Kirkpatrick: And the notice says seven common lots. Actually, I want to have the applicant clarify that and I will go through the original application: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 68 of 124 Zaremba: There are seven common lots, six of them landscape lots and one of them is the park. Kirkpatrick: I think that it is six landscape lots and one park, but I want to have the applicant verify that. Zaremba: We will make it six for now, unless we hear otherwise. Kirkpatrick: Okay. Zaremba: Those were my only questions. Borup: Okay. Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Ralphs: Members of the Commission, my name is Rod Ralphs, I'm here on behalf of Initial Point, LLC, in regards to the application for the approval of the Preliminary Plat and annexation for Cobblefield Crossing. This is our second phase of this project out here on McMillan Road. I want to just clarify a couple of things. We went through and we counted the lots and we have 40 lots. There are seven, which would be six landscape lots, and, then, the park, as you have described. I'd like to point out that we have had revisions to that plat after we have conferred with ACHD and I would point out that right here where I'm indicating -- so it would be on the far northeast -- that lot no longer exists and that is actually a stub street that ACHD has asked us to put in. We keep the roundabout here and I know in meetings in the past with either the -- the members of the Planning and Zoning or with City Council, a roundabout is a wonderful tool to help slow down traffic and keep that from becoming a drag strip. We did keep the roundabout feature t here, but t here i s a s tub s treet there t o t he n orth. I w anted touch a little bit on the -- Zaremba: I'm sorry. Eliminating that lot, does that put you back to 39 or 40? Ralphs: No. We are at 40. Zaremba: Still at 40. Ralphs: We picked it up. We picked it up. Zaremba: Okay. Ralphs: I wanted to talk a little bit about what we have got here. Close to schools and it ties immediately into Cobblefield 1 there to the south. We are going with the same type of construction design in this subdivision, so we are going with the smaller homes that we approved Cobblefield 1, but we wanted kind of a neo-classical type of look with what we would find typically in a Boise north end and I have got a layout of the architecture here that I would show the Commission. The same types of color schemes. You see we have a little bit of a higher pitched roof and more of a front porch neighborhood type Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 69 of 124 feel and this is exactly what we have got over here in Cobblefield 1 and we are just going to continue that on. I wanted to talk a little bit about -- staff had indicated some questions about our amenities. When we came in originally and proposed Cobblefield 1, we were going to use that large flag lot to put in a meandering path and workout stations and we are going to continue to keep the meandering path, but when we started looking at the marketability of this project and, as staff pointed out this evening, they haven't seen workout stations since the '70s, we dropped the workout stations and we put in a pool, more of a neighborhood feel for that. We have put the neighborhood pool in Cobblefield 1. Let me give you a context. I know we are here for Cobblefield 2, but Cobblefield 1's pool is in this area right here. We have a green area here, catch basin, the pool lies here where I'm indicating to the very southeast portion here of the drawing you have got. As far as the amenities with the amount of green area that we have, we actually have ten percent of our property or our project is in green space and we are only required to have one amenity, but we have got the two. We have got the pool and, plus, we have the green space, or the meandering pathways. Now, going now to Cobblefield 1, the amenities that we have to offer there. We are adding some additional walking paths to access the same meandering pathway from this subdivision. We have got it here and it widens up, so people are able to take advantage of this space. The access to the pool is going to be available to Cobblefield 1 well. One of the things that we have really liked -- and we were discussing this today in our preparation meetings. This space right down here ties into the common park space of Cobblefield 1, but this space right here that I'm indicating is a very large, rectangular piece of green space and what we are proposing to put in there for our other amenity is to put in a soccer field. It's a mini soccer field it's 200 feet long by about 85 feet wide. It's certainly not regulation, but certainly big, enough to keep the young ones entertained and whoever else might want to enjoy that space. Then, we would have the meandering paths that would tie in from that park over to the pool and they would wonder on out to McMillan. Keeping in mind that with Cobblefield 2 we have also exceeded the green space that's required and we would really only be required to go with one, but that and the walking paths that are a transition from this subdivision over to the flag lot, with the meandering path on it, along with the soccer field, we think we would have that covered. I wanted to point out a few other things that we had -- let's see. I have covered the amenities. I want to talk about the agriculture concerns. We did have a neighborhood meeting and we have got the English's and the Converse family here this evening and one of the concerns that we have got with this particular project is for years they had a system of irrigation that enabled everyone to really be able to make full use of the different properties. They worked in rotation with Settler's Irrigation so that they were actually able to have a delivery that exceeded the recorded water right. Now, as developers we pride ourselves on making sure that we work well with the neighbors and that is our intent here as well. We have spoken with Settler's Irrigation about the means of preserving that and Mr. English and Mr. Converse and -- as Mrs. English will comment on this, but the delivery system to these two properties -- and, Wendy, could we go back to that one that shows the -- just to kind of get some context. That's fine. Right now these are the two properties. We have this property under option right now and t his p asture i s i n s eed a Ifalfa. T hese a re t he t wo p roperties. T his i s t he E nglish property and they have a horse arena here and, then, back here in the back is where Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Mee[ing ~ January 15,2004 Pg. 70 of 124 they have an alfalfa crop. Pasture. I'm sorry. Over here we have the Converse property and there is kind of a ditch that ran right along the back here and supplied -- this is where the water delivery system was for all of these. Of course, we are not going to deal or alter in any way with the delivery point, but the biggest concern that we will have here tonight is the delivery rate. Now, speaking with Settler's, they have indicated to me that nothing would change with what they had historically. Now, historically means different things to different people and so I will be very candid with you tonight, my take on historic is exactly what these neighbors have worked out for years and the letter that I received from Settler's also indicates historic flows, but, unfortunately, to our disappointment, as well as to the neighbors, the letter wasn't more precise and so we do intend on going back to Settler's and nailing that down to make sure. Right now that's flood irrigation. We have had discussions with the neighbors this evening about different things as far as going with a pressurized system as well. We are very anxious and we are very willing, as always, to work with the neighbors to make sure that they have adequate for the different needs that they have always had. We don't want to interfere with that in any way and Settler's has indicated the same thing to me. I wanted to address a couple other things in the staff report. I wanted to address the setbacks. Let's go to the plat if we would, Wendy. We have got some townhomes in here. I'm going to hold up this illustration again one more time to give you an idea. The townhomes that we are putting into this project are not the standard typical townhomes. Again, keeping with the theme that we want to have in Cobblefield, and so the types of townhomes that we are going to be putting on these lots right in here and, then, also in here from the front are not going to strike you that these are duplexes or townhomes. These are going to be twin units' adjacent properties attached single-family residences and they will have a common lot line. The setbacks that we are running into -- and you will see this in the report, that we have asked for an eight foot, instead of a 15 here on the back, and because we have got this piece here under option in the back, we can address some of that as far as mitigating it when we come back to you here in a few months with that other phase of Cobblefield 3. Other than that, I'm open to any questions or comments from staff for any kind of points you might have. Powell: C hairman Borup, M embers of t he Commission, I think we h ave a number of issues here that may require you to re -- or to close the Public Hearing for now. One is that i t w as o my n oticed t o t he s urrounding property o wners a s 3 9 b uildable I ots. For them to add a buildable lot at this stage would -- Ralphs: We had 39? Oh. Okay. Let me strike the 40. We would be at 39. Powell: Okay. That's the one issue. The second issue would be that the removal of an amenity from a previously approved Preliminary Plat may require that we go back and reconsider that plat. I'm not sure that you can do it just under the guise of this one. I think we need some time to workout whether that needs to be done and it would also give staff just the opportunity to evaluate your new road design. With the stub street going through it has even more impact on the first Preliminary Plat, which concerns me. We may need to at least table it for those issues. The primary one was the 39 versus 40 lots. I guess if that one is resolved, maybe we can workout some of the other ones, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 71 of 124 i but until staff gets the time to get some answer on the question about how it affects Cobblefield, we can't probably move on it just yet, I don't think. Chris might have something to say over there. Excuse me. The attorney might have some words of wisdom us. Gabbert: And this regarding -- were we talking about the pool amenity? I'm sorry? Zaremba: Clarify again what amenity is being lost from Cobblefield 1. It's the workout stations? Ralphs: The workout stations. Borup: Originally -- Zaremba: I thought those were a good idea. Borup: But the pool was not an original amenity, was it? Ralphs: No. The pool was added. Borup: So, you're saying that you have -- rather than eliminating an amenity, you changed from a workout station to a swimming pool? Ralphs: Exactly. Zaremba: But the legal question is that's not part of this development. Powell: Application. Zaremba: O n the p revious application they want to substitute a p ool f or the workout stations. Borup: But now they are eliminating the workout station with this project. Zaremba: Well, the workout stations are on the flag of the old -- Borup: But part of that flag is becoming building lots in this; is that correct? Some of them? Ralphs: They are going to have dual access to that, but I would just point out where we are with the green space, we need one, and that's what we have done with the soccer field. Then, we keep the -- Borup: You mean one additional, because you have got ten percent -- Ralphs: Right. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004- Pg. 72 of 124 Borup: Which is one there. Ralphs: Correct. Borup: All right. Zaremba: Well, the question --the open question isn't whether we would like the change of the swimming pool -- Ralphs: Sure. Zaremba: -- better than the other, the question is it isn't this application that required the workout stations, it was another application, and can we change that? Is that the right question? Borup: So, you're saying it should have been an amended application on the first -- Powell: Or a miscellaneous app. It gets so messy, because they are re-plotting -- or replatting the open space lot associated with that first one, but it's tied to the Preliminary Plat. Ralphs: Chairman? Borup: More of a legal question. Ralphs: What I would suggest, as opposed to just -- if I may, just -- we can visit with staff about that, as far as their feelings on what we do with Cobblefield 1. For all intents and purposes tonight, we keep it a Cobblefield 2 and just point out that we are taking about a soccer field with amenities and with wandering paths that access another wandering path system. Borup: But still, your design tonight eliminates one of the amenities for Cobblefield 1 Ralphs: We can address that in another -- for another meeting with it. The design tonight is for Cobblefield 2. Borup: Right. That design encroaches on the approved amenity for Cobblefield 1. Ralphs: The -- actually, the plat -- and maybe I'm misunderstanding, but the -- we still keep the flag lot that remains with Cobblefield 1. Borup: Right. It's just smaller. Ralphs: It's -- I think it was always 25 feet. Was it 25 feet? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 73 of 124 Borup: Oh, it's not smaller? Then, I misunderstood. I don't know if there is any -- I mean I think a swimming pool is a much better amenity than a workout station for the neighborhood. Zaremba: I could be happy with that change, but the legal -- Ralphs: I understand that. Zaremba: --question hanging. Hood: Commissioners, I'm not aware of what the preliminary -- I'm sorry, the previous approval was for. I would have a problem with the noticing requirements needed to change a previous decision if they weren't noticed upon this hearing and you were affecting another -- well, even though they are linked, but it is a separate development. Then, I would reserve changing those amenities without proper notice. I don't know if that helps. Powell: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, I suppose you could leave the requirement as written, that they amend -- that they provide the amenities as required in Cobblefield No. 1, unless modified through a miscellaneous application as approved by the City Council. That gives you a little wiggle room and, then, we can renotice the miscellaneous app. Zaremba: Well, there isn't anything to stop them from putting in a swimming pool, because that's an additional amenity. What we are saying is for the time being you also still need to put in the workout stations, unless you make a separate application to the City Council to be relieved of that. Powell: Correct. That would get him on his way. I need to correct myself. Apparently, the project was renoticed when they added a lot. That's why we have some that say 39 and some that say 40. If you only want 39 lots, that's fine, but we are back to 40. Yes. Zaremba: We don't care whether it's 39 or 40. Well -- and even so, might that fall under the not a significant change? Powell: Not if you're adding lots. If you add lots, it's my understanding -- I'm not the attorney, but my understanding is that if you add lots it is a significant change. If you're not adding lots, then, you're okay. Rohm: But it was noticed at 40. Powell: It was -- yes. It was noticed a second time. It was 30 -- it was actually noticed at 39 and at 40, but the 40 was the last one, so we are okay there. i Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 75, 2004 Pg. 74 of 124 Zaremba: Let's see. Are we -- I think one of the questions I had is are the two subdivisions -- and maybe even the third one, are all going to be one homeowners association or are they going to have separate homeowners associations? Ralphs: As they come on line, they will initially be separate, but what we anticipate being is they would be under one subdivision homeowners association. The CC&Rs will all be the same, as far as the similar type of architecture. The application on Cobblefield 3 we haven't finalized yet, but to the extent that it's single family residential, then, the CC&Rs will be the same and it would -- Zaremba: The reason I'm asking that is that you're talking about the common lots and Ralphs: Correct. Zaremba: -- usage and cross-access and all that sort of stuff. Ralphs: It would be certainly more simply to have it as one. Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: Any other issues? Zaremba: I think that's all I had. Borup: Okay. Was there anything else that Ralphs: No. Thank you, Mr. Chairman? Borup: Okay. Do we have anyone else that would like to testify on this application? Come up if you do. English: Hi. I'm Margi English. I reside at 4650 North Linder Road. Would it be possible to get that aerial photo back? And I think one thing you can notice from the aerial photograph is the dark color of that back third -- two-thirds portion of our property, pasture. That's because that property is maintained to be used as pasture and to harvest crop off of. I'm going to submit some photographs of our land to you today and I understand that you will want to keep them for records, but we are very very concerned about the impact that the subdivision will have on our ability to continue using our property as we have been. Now, I did submit -- my husband and I submitted a letter to you, which I understand you have. Do you? Borup: Yes. English: Do you have our letter? In there, I tried to outline our concerns and I appreciate what Rod said and we were just presented tonight with this short letter from the irrigation district. I don't think we are all talking on the same page. We did not ever Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 75 of 124 receive more than our irrigation right. What we had was a shared system, shared rotation on the ditch. Our property's irrigation right is five miner inches per year. Some of the larger properties on the irrigation right had larger head miner inches, but everybody's ditch was sized to 39 miner inches in the flow and you can see the size of our ditches in those photographs. When this letter says that an option would be to continue to use the existing irrigation system based on a rotation system of other properties within Settler's Irrigation District at the same historic flows, that doesn't give me a lot of comfort, because we have talked to the irrigation district people and they have said that, yeah, your historic flow, your five miner inches, continues. However, the properties that have already been approved, their flow has already been taken off your ditch. They have created a new headgate, so this year there won't be -- if you didn't approve this phase two -- phase one is already approved -- just subtracting out phase one subtracts that miner -- their miner inches from our flow, so there is the 15 miner inch, 37 percent reduction in the flow, the best that we could get when our ditch would start flowing this year. Now, several years ago in the middle of our big -- our worst drought, we had 19 miner inches in our ditch. We couldn't get water all the way across our property within our one and a half day irrigation cycle, you had to irrigate one half of the' property one cycle, the next cycle 12, and a half days later you would irrigate the other part. We can't irrigate by flood irrigation with five miner inches. It won't make it out of the ditch. 24/7 is what the irrigation district said. You have -- you know, you won't have to rotate you can five miner inches 24/7. That won't help. We won't be able to maintain our use. I tried to lay all this out in a letter to you. I haven't heard a solution. Just in the hall today for the first time Rod and C&D folks were talking about, well, maybe we could put you on a pressurized system. That could work -- could work, but I'm worried, because I don't have ay guarantee -- I don't have anything in here that says it will happen. Tonight's the first that we have heard -- that we have entered into that discussion. I guess what I'm asking you to do is to insure that our existing -- our two properties can continue to maintain our use. That's why we moved here and I don't want to have a dry lot, because the properties around us are developing. I know that engineering wise it's possible, but we are not there yet and I would not like to see this go through, get approved, and kind of leave us in a lurch. I want to be able to maintain my land and have my animals out there on pasture and be able to continue harvesting hay. We already had some impact, if you notice in photograph seven there, as you're passing it around. We didn't know -- first go around on Cobblefield 1 we didn't realize that they were going to be taking -- putting in a new headgate and taking water off our ditch, else we would have been more on the ball with comments the first time around. What you will see in the Number 7 is our ditch always has water in it now, because Cobblefield 1 terminated the end. It doesn't drain. Already right now last summer we had a real hard time getting rid of the weeds, because normally what you do when the ditch drains and it's dry and the other portion -- the back portion of the property -- of the other two properties were irrigating, you could go out there and you could spray Roundup. I can't spray Roundup like that. It's always wet. It doesn't make it out of the ditch. They terminate at the end. There are some issues here that really do need to be addressed and just going forward with the next phrase without these, I think is really unduly impacting our property and the Converses'. I guess that's -- other than what I have already written, I don't know what else to say here. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 76 of 124 Borup: Thank you, Mrs. English. Any questions from the Commission? I do have a question. It sounds like you're saying the irrigation district really has not giving you a satisfactory answer on what they feel the solution should be? B. English: Excuse me, Commissioner Borup. Can I answer that instead of -- Borup: Go ahead. B. English: My name is Brian English, 4650 North Linder Road. I have been -- I was the water master on the headgate 28, which comes off about halfway down that green field there to the east of the 40 acres that's irrigated. When I called Nathan Draper down at Settler's Irrigation, his response was, well, you're changing the way you irrigate. You're going to have to put in sprinklers if you're going to irrigate. For me, our power is on the road, it would cost us 19,000 -- on the order of 19,000 dollars to put in sprinkler irrigation for our property. Allen Converse would have to do the same. The alfalfa field, which, you know, they now have under contract, would have had to do the same. My understanding is that under the zoning rules one of the reasons why they put the mitigation clause in the CUP is for this circumstance. We have talked to Nathan he was the one that told me our historical flow was five inches. The 15 inches that were going to the land that was Cobblefield 1 are now off the headgate 28 on a headgate between 28 and 29, the new one that was installed that has the pressure pump in there. It's at the end of their walkway -- or if it's going to be a walkway. Borup: So, that was their answer is you're going to have -- B. English: That was Settler's Irrigation's answer. As a result, we had contacted Cobblefield as early as last fall, tried to workout a resolution to this, and tonight was the longest discussion. We heard in December that they had an agreement with Nathan that was different than ours, but we saw the letter for the first time tonight and we'd like to just make sure that we are protected and if it comes to pressurized irrigation, we are willing to work with them. We have willing and ready to talk since October. Borup: And that's what I was going to ask, how does that solution sound to you? B. English: I would like an engineer on my side to look at it and -- what they are proposing and make sure. I have done a little bit of talking to engineers. Our water right when you convert it from miner inches to gallons per minute is 45 gallons a minute. Standard -- a lot of these farm irrigations run about 50 gallons per minute for the standard hand line pipes, but we don't know whether we would want to go with hand lines -- with the way they want to set up the properties for future and for what works -- what works for me might not work for Mr. Converse and so we -- and we are willing to make concessions where I wouldn't irrigate if Allen was irrigating or Allen wouldn't irrigate at the same time I was, so that we wouldn't overdraw pressure on the system, because we know there is homeowners there, too. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 77 of 124 Borup: That would be the two of you to coordinate that. rt B. English: Tonight's the first discussions happened, so it hasn't been coordinated, it's not a done deal, and so we are asking that that be a condition to get approval, that this issue be resolved. Borup: Okay. B. English: And whether -- you know, when that happens. I think that's all I have, other than I reiterate that we did not exceed water rights. As a matter of fact, in the sharing rotation that we had, the five-acre properties actually took less than their water right. We took about -- each time we irrigated we got about 18,000 gallons less than what we were supposed to on our -- off the right. It meant we had 36 hours, rather 37 hours and 20 minutes, which, when you set up a schedule -- and I have one from last year where we -- I take a calendar. We started on May 1st last year, so many days on this property, so many days and just rotate through and it worked. The reason why it was a 12 day cycle, that was long enough to flood irrigate and work it worked even in number of days and hours, so that you either started at 7:00 in the morning before you went to work or started at 7:00 at night after were home. Those were the two start times for everybody, so it worked out. Borup: Thank you. That makes sense. Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? Okay. Response from the applicant? Ralphs: I would agree with the English's. We have been in discussion with Settler's for some time and thought we had a level of confidence that was acceptable to everybody, but the letter that we got back just indicated historic flows. We, obviously, need to have that clarified and we do, we want to make surethattheyhavethewatertheyneed, whether it's via pressurized or some other means. What I would suggest, then, is that you make it as one of the conditions that we work this out with Settler's and the Converse family and the English's to make sure that the water is not interrupted. We certainly can't do that by law, but the issue isn't so much the water right, as the delivery rate and being able to do, you know, what they have historically done and we want to make sure that they can keep doing that as long as they are there, so if you want to make that as one of your conditions, that would be perfectly all right with us. Borup: How would we determine when the condition is met? Ralphs: We would have -- I guess we would be looking for something that's signed by everybody. You would have the two property owners, the Converses and English's, that -- and, then, maybe a letter from 5ettler's explaining the wherewithals to make sure the water is there. If we come into an agreement with a pressurized system, that we get fairly specific -- I mean specific is what's going to make everyone comfortable here, making sure that the water is provided, so that they can take care of it. If we come with a letter that was signed by everybody that says that this is the proposal and this is what Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 78 of 724 works for everybody, then, I would say that that would satisfy that condition and we can move on. Borup: Yeah. If the English's sign the letter, then, that should answer that. Ralphs: Make no mistake, we have got a lot of ground to cover, we understand that, but we will do that and, then, we will have everyone's autograph on it and we will be able to go forward. Borup: So, do you feel -- well, at this point are you leaning one-way or the other? Does it look like the pressurized irrigation is feasible? Ralph: You know, it is feasible and, actually, that's one of the suggestions that Settler's had made, but, really, it is going to take some discussions with some engineers to make sure that everyone is comfortable with the engineering that is available and moving forward, but pressurized would certainly be a good way to go. Borup: Okay. Rohm: Sounds good. Ralph: Thank you. Borup: Does that really -- any other issues we think we need to cover? That mainly was it, isn't it? Freckleton: Mr. Chair? Borup: Yes. Mr. Freckleton. Freckleton: If I can maybe weigh in on the pressurized irrigation concept a little bit. Typically -- well, the City of Meridian requires a backup source of irrigation water for a pressurized irrigation system. If they do not have an alternative surface source or a well source, i t l eaves v ery I ittle c hoice, o ther t han h ooking i nto t he c ity s ystem. We w ant people to exhaust all other options before they come to us wanting to hook into the city system. Where I am headed with this is that if that is their backup source, the city system, we can't be watering someone's alfalfa field with city water, so, please, take that into consideration when we are talking about this. Borup: That makes sense. Ralphs: Certainly. I think if we -- Borup: I'm assuming there could be a valve that you could shut off after the irrigation water is out of the ditch. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 79 of 124 Ralphs: Yes. Borup: Does that sound reasonable? Is that -- something like would work or does someone need to monitor that? I assume shut the valve off and lack it or something like that. Freckleton: I guess, theoretically, that could work. I don't think it was clear in the application whether this system is being proposed as a private homeowners association system or whether it's going to owned and maintained by Settler's. Ralphs: Settler's. Freckleton: It will be Settler's? Okay. Okay. Certainly we could work with -- work through the details of that. Mr. and Mrs. English need to understand that what that means and what the implications are and that is that in these drought years when water goes out early, basically, you wouldn't have a backup source. They would just shut it off -- Rohm: That's where they are now B. English: So you understand, in the letter we ask that we have the discussion and you be involved, because we understand some of this stuff. We also in the discussions out in the hall were saying that if it made the system work right, we are worried about taking too much pressure off the system. We would be willing to work that bath of us weren't trying to irrigate five acres at the same -- while everybody else was trying to do a rotation. I mean these are things we can work out and we are willing to be reasonable. What we are not willing to be is dry lotted. I can't afford to go out and put 19,000 dollars in to put a sprinkler system in from my lot and Allen have to go out and do the same thing there and he's being helpful, he's sitting in the back and saying go, you comment. We are willing to work and we -- you know, I got news for you, Bruce. October comes around, I'm glad the water is out of the ditch. It's work. You know, we are not looking to go longer. Usually, a pasture that gets irrigation the first of October is fine until the following spring. Freckleton: Two years ago it was August when the water went out. B. English: September 11th. I happen to remember that date. That was the day they turned the water off. Freckleton: That's right. They did extend it to September. That's right. It was early. Very early. B. English: Yes. They shut us down to 50 percent water on June 30th and that was when we went to the half, because -- Rohm: Same water I got. Meritlian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting { January 15, 2004 Pg. 80 of 124 Borup: Any other questions from the Commission? Ralphs: Thank you very much. Borup: All right. Thank you. Rohm: That changes it all. Borup: Well, other than this resolution of the irrigation. Zaremba: Other than requiring the water issue to be resolved and I don't think there were any other changes. Borup: Other than -- Powell: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, I want to want to you remind that staff has not seen the site plan that you're being asked to approve tonight. We have had no chance to review it. Borup: Yeah. That's what I -- I was thinking that earlier. I'm not counting 39 or 40 lots on the plat we have either, so -- Kirkpatrick: And Chairman, Members of the Commission -- Zaremba: And the flag piece changing Cobblefield 1 is an issue, too Kirkpatrick: I mean I just want to point out that part of the staff is I go through and I make sure all the lots have adequate frontage, meet all dimensional requirements. I haven't had the chance at all to even look at it, let along thoroughly g o through and make sure everything meets standards or meets the PD request that they have tonight. I don't feel comfortable recommending approval without having a chance to thoroughly go through the plat and look at everything. I'm also concerned about the loss of open space in Cobblefield 1 and I wanted to make sure that that's compensated for in Cobblefield 2. I definitely -- I have some strong reservations with recommending approval without having thoroughly gone through the revised plat. Ralphs: My understanding that the packet's actually been here for about six weeks and so we can go with the review, but that's what I'm hearing, is that the packet, in the prepared or ready form, has been here for quite a period of time. Borup: But the new revision showing the stub street has been here? Were they delivered at separate times? How many plans have been submitted? Clayborne: My name is Nathan Clayborne I'm an engineer with Leavitt and Associates. The third or fourth week of November, we had a meeting with ACHD, which required us, as a condition of approval from ACHD on Cobblefield 1, to provide a stub street to the Meridian Planning antl Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 81 of 124 east to the 40 acres. We --Brad Hawkins-Clark was -- attended that meeting with us at ACHD, we discussed the changes at that meeting, and we submitted back to city the additional prints the third week of November of the new site plan and the new application. That is where we get the Variance between numbers is the new application was updated and the new Preliminary Plat was submitted. Rohm: So, the Preliminary Plat was submitted in November? Clayborne: November -- I want to say the 20 -- excuse me. I want to say the 15th Zaremba: The letter I'm holding has the engineer's stamp dated 11/12/2003. Clayborne: It was -- that is a current one in your hands right there. That one right there is the current plat. Zaremba: I don't know when it got to the city, but -- Clayborne: It was right around -- Zaremba: It was finished by your engineer on the 12th. Clayborne: And I could see the stub street right there. That is the current plat. Zaremba: And it has the stub street. Clayborne: That's correct. Powell: Chairman Borup, Commissioners, I apologize, we thought the applicant was bringing in a new one today as proposed. Unfortunately, planning staff did not receive a copy of that plat. It is not in our files. The engineering staff, however, did. He's probably checked the dimensional standards. We do need to check the open space calculations, but given that this is not the applicant's fault, we could do that prior to the City Council hearing. Borup: Can you give a summary on the open space calculations? It originally was -- Clayborne: We calculated it this afternoon, just to verify in our -- Borup: You lost where a stub street came through; is that correct? That's the open space that's been lost? Clayborne: That is correct. Borup: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 82 of 124 - Clayborne: That's precisely what's been lost. The lot configuration around the stub street -- around the original cul-de-sac, you can see o n that p revious -- on the n ext slide, changes some of the stub street as well. Borup: But is that --did that still come in at ten percent? Clayborne: We are above ten percent, yes. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Just repeat for me -- I think it's already been said, but the dimensions of the flag lot, with the exception of cutting the street through it, there is no other change in the dimensions of the flag lot. It's not now narrower than it was or shorter than it was? Clayborne: It is on the very north -- the very northeastern property goes into the flag lot. Now, one thing to note is when we laid out this Preliminary Plat -- in Cobblefield 1 ACRD required that we dedicate right of way of that platted lot on McMillan. Now, the original right of way, I believe, is 25 on this property and they required on Cobblefield 1 that we dedicate up to 48 feet of right of way. They have reversed their decision on this, because they do not want the Lemp Canal in their right of way. We have provided the landscaping strip on the northern property line per city requirements, 25 feet, I believe, it is. Plus, the additional 23 feet that we had anticipated for right of way for ACHD, which will be also landscaping. Because of that, our landscaping area has increased. If that makes sense to the Commissioners. Zaremba: The street buffer portion you're talking about? Clayborne: That's correct. Borup: Okay. Is staff comfortable with that now, then? You're saying you still -- you still did not -- you did not get a copy of the one showing the new stub street? Kirkpatrick: That's correct. As Anna said, because this is not the applicant's fault, we are comfortable with going through and especially because Public Works is done with their review with the plat, we are comfortable with going through and doing our analysis between P&Z and Council. The applicant just stated that they have actually increased their open space. That was one of my primary concerns. Zaremba: Thank you. Clayborne: Any other questions? Borup: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that these three hearings be closed. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 83 of 124 Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Zaremba: Okay. The two issues that we have to put someplace are agreement with the two neighbors about -- and Settler's and everybody about the water delivery. The rights have been established, the delivery is the question, I think. The other issue is changing the a menities o f a n a pplication that's not b efore u s, s o -- a nd w e c an s olve b oth b y making a statement that they need to work together and have a resolution before it goes to the City Council on the water issue and that staff will review the legal requirements. If they want a Variance application on the previous issue, that's a separate thing that goes to the City Council, not us anyhow. My question is where do we put those two statements? Is that annexing and zoning or is that the Preliminary Plat? Borup: Well -- and the question I have is on the irrigation issue. Does that need to be resolved before City Council or before approval of plat? Rohm: I think it should be resolved before it goes to City Council. Zaremba: I think before City Council. Borup: Okay. Rohm: But where do you put it? Zaremba: Yeah. Borup: Under the Conditional Use Freckleton: Mr. Chair, if I could maybe try and get just a little bit of clarification on what you're expecting for agreement on the irrigation. As I sit here I kind of believe that the agreement is between the property owner and the irrigation district and the developer and I guess I would anticipate that they would bring to us a signed agreement to whatever the resolution is. Borup: That's what we were -- Freckleton: Okay. Borup: I think that's what our -- Zaremba: I may not have stated it precisely that way, but that's what I was thinking Meritlian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 84 of 124 Borup: My only question is is prior to City Council, is that enough time to accomplish that? Rohm: I think they are all in concurrence, it's just getting it on paper. Zaremba: Is resolving a water right issue an annexation subject or is it a plat subject? Freckleton: Plat subject. Zaremba: Okay. Freckleton: And we would recommend that maybe prior to submittal of the Final Plat that the resolution of that issue was submitted to us. Zaremba: Okay. Rohm: So, that would be condition eleven? Zaremba: Site-Specific number 11. Borup: That can be a condition, so if that was a condition and you did not receive a signed letter, then, you're saying the plat would not be approved? Freckleton: We wouldn't accept their application. Borup: Yeah. Freckleton: So, when their Final Plat application comes in, we are going to want to see the resolution to the irrigation issue as part of their submittal. Borup: So, the sooner they resolve that the better, it sounds like. Zaremba: So, the neighbors are the English's and, I'm sorry, what's the other neighbor's name? Freckleton: Converse. Zaremba: Converse. Thank you. Settler's Irrigation right? All of them need to agree. Rohm: Does Settler's? Borup: Do you have additional comment? Ralphs: I know you closed the meeting, but -- Borup: Well, we either need to open it or you can discuss that with staff and they can -- r Meridian Planning antl Zoning Commission Mee[ing January 15, 2004 Pg. 85 of 124 Rohm: The issue on the amenities does not necessarily have to be made part of this approval process. Is that the conclusion we came to? Zaremba: No. Because if we approve it as is, it seeks to change something that's not part of this application. We do need to address -- Rohm: So, how do you do that? Zaremba: The way I would state it is that unless and until the applicant applies for a Variance, the original exercise stations on the flag are still required. Borup: But isn't that flag lot -- Rohm: That's in one. Borup: The flag lot is part of the -- Rohm: It's not part of this -- Mathes: Doesn't Number 2 stand by itself? Rohm: Yeah. See, that's what I'm saying is sub number two doesn't -- it has its amenity in that soccer lot. Borup: It's showing on this plat, but it's not part of -- but it's not part of the plat Rohm: Right. Yes. I think that the issue would be between the zoning staff and their development of sub one, not anything to do with sub two. Zaremba: Well, as long as their drawing doesn't show the absence of the amenity and by approving it we -- Mathes: But their drawing is for Cobblefield No. 2, not No. t. Zaremba: But it does show that flag lot. It has one lot that -- it does show the flag lot and it has one building lot that extends into that flag lot, as well as the absence of the amenities. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Well, I would just make it a note 12 that says any change to Cobblefield 1 is not a part of this application. Rohm: Okay. I could concur with that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 18, 2004 Pg. 86 of 124 Borup: That works. Our attorney agrees with that? Zaremba: And, again, that's an issue for the plat; right? Those are the only issues as far as I know; right? Borup: Does staff have anymore input or can go with our motion? Powell: The issue of concern is that whether or not Settler's Irrigation needs to be involved with that negotiation and I think that -- they just don't want to have to get specific sign off for the agreement that they get. They understand that Settler's Irrigation will have to be part -- review and approve the solution, but they don't want them listed as having to be on the same letter, perhaps, as one signed by the developer, landowners. Borup: You're saying just maybe eliminate Settler's from that -- Settler's Irrigation doesn't seem to care much either way. Rohm: That was my point. Zaremba: Okay. Rohm: Just between the property owners. Zaremba: Done. Gabbert: Commissioners, Chairman, I would just add that that's probably appropriate, since Settler's is not so concerned with it and it's a matter between the parties and the more parties you bring into it, the more difficulties you will get and the more veto power you will have out there from keeping this project from moving forward. Borup: And you're saying both -- all three parties would rather just do it among themselves without Settler's, is that -- Powell: Ithink Mr. English understands that Settler's would still have approval of the final irrigation system and I think he's okay with that. Yes. Borup: Okay. Yeah. They are going to own the system. Where English's have to sign off, then, he's got control of that. Zaremba: Uh-huh. Borup: Okay. Powell: Would the Commission like suggested wording for that condition of approval or have you already written it out? Meritlian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2004 Pg. 87 of 124 Borup: Commissioner Zaremba did that. Have you got it? Zaremba: If what I say alarms you, then, we will revise it, but I think I have it. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 11 on our agenda. AZ 03-028, request for Annexation and Zoning of 7.98 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision No. 2 by Initial Point, LLC, 1295 West McMillan Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of January 15, 2004, with no Annexation and Zoning changes. End of motion. Rohm: 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 12 on our agenda. PP 03-033, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 40 single family building lots and seven common lots on 7.98 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision No. 2 by Initial Point, LLC. 1295 West McMillan Road and this is in reference to the Preliminary Plat with the engineer's stamp date -- engineer's stamp dated November 12, 2003, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date January 15th, 2004, with the following changes: On page seven, under Site-Specific comments for the Preliminary Plat, we wish to add a paragraph 11 that says the applicant and the neighbors, the English's and Converses, to provide a letter of agreement regarding water delivery prior to signing on the final -- prior to signage of the Final Plat. Add a paragraph 12. Any change to Cobblefield Subdivision No. 1 is not a part of this application. End of motion. Rohm: That's accepting the plat or -- staff accepting the plat, not signing the plat? Zaremba: Signing -- before signature on the Final Plat. Freckleton: Mr. Chair, what we had suggested was that prior to submittal of the Final Plat application. Before the Final Plat is entered into the process, we would like to see the resolution. Zaremba: Oh. Okay. Borup: That would be part of the submittal. Freckleton: Correct. Zaremba: I thought I heard it a different way. Okay. I will amend -- everything else I said is -- still stands, but I will amend the statement for paragraph 11 on page seven to Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Mee[ing January 15, 2004 Pg. 88 of 124 read: Applicant and neighbors, the English's and Converses, shall provide a letter of agreement regarding water delivery prior to submittal of the Final Plat. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: And I already expressed a new paragraph 12. End of motion. Rohm: 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 13 on our agenda. CUP 03-059, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for reduced requirements for frontage, lot size, minimum house size, and street side building setback in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision No. 2 by Initial Point, LLC, 1295 West McMillan Road and, then, again, the CUP would be applied to the Preliminary Plat with the engineering stamp dated November 12, 2003, to include all staff comments of the staff memo for the hearing date of January 15, 2004, with no changes. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 14: Public Hearing: CUP 03-064 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for two buildings on one lot in a L-O zone for Capital Christian Center by Capital Christian Church - 2760 East Fairview Avenue: Borup: Thank you. Before we go to the next one, I might want to just mention pertaining to Salisbury, we are -- the hour is getting late, but people have been here and stuck with us, so we are not going to cancel it. Because of the number of issues, it looks like it will probably be continued. I thought I'd just mention that at this point. We will still open the hearing and I guess maybe we will determine at that time whether to do an abbreviated presentation or what we may want to do, but I just wanted to mention that before we proceeded on. The next item, Public Hearing CUP 03-064, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for two buildings on one lot in an L-O zone for Capital Christian Center. Like to open this hearing and start with the staff report. Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, this is an application for a Conditional Use Permit and a planned development. The applicant is here with a planned development, because they are requesting to construct more than one building