2002 11-07Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting November 7, 2002
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was
called to order at on Thursday, November 7, 2002 at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman Keith
Borup.
Members Present: Chairman Keith Borup, Jerry Centers, Michael Rohm, and Leslie
Mathes.
Members Absent: David Zaremba.
Others Present: Bruce Freckleton, Steve Siddoway, Nicholas Wollen, Sharon Smith,
and Dean Willis.
Item 1. Roll-call Attendance:
O David Zaremba X Jerry Centers
X Leslie Mathes X Michael Rohm
X Chairman Keith Borup
Borup: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We'd like to begin our regularly
scheduled meeting for the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for Thursday,
November 7th
. Like to begin with roll-call attendance of the Commissioners.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda:
Item 3: Consent Agenda:
A. Approve minutes of August 29, 2002 Planning and Zoning
Commission Special Meeting:
B. Approve minutes of October 17, 2002 Planning and Zoning
Commission Regular Meeting:
C. Approve minutes of October 24, 2002 Planning and Zoning
Commission Special Meeting:
Borup: Three items on the Consent Agenda. Did we -- anybody want to pull anything
off the Consent Agenda, which amounts to minutes of August 29th
, October 17th
, and
October 24th
?
Centers: Mr. Chairman, did you have any amendments to those minutes?
Borup: I do not. Does anyone else?
Centers: I would move that we approve Items A, B, C as written.
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 2 of 84
Mathes: I'll second that.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 4. Public Hearing: CUP 02-030 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to
care for one to two additional children after school in an existing family
home daycare in an R-8 zone for Christina Floyd by Christina Floyd –
567 East Brown Bear Street:
Borup: Thank you. I'd like to begin Item Number 4, Public Hearing CUP 02-030, a
request for a Conditional Use Permit to care for one to two additional children in an
existing family home day-care for Christina Floyd at 576 East Brown Bear. I'd like to
open this Public Hearing at this time and start with the staff report.
Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Christina Floyd was before this board earlier this
year. Actually, she currently has an approved Accessory Use Permit for an in-home
family day-care that allows for up to five children. She, then, earlier this year applied for
a Conditional Use Permit, thinking that her own children counted against her, which was
our practice up until then. When she got to Council with that application, it was --
Council made a determination that her own children did not count towards that five, but
she is now wishing to add on some more children. The next step that the city has
allows six to 12 children as a Conditional Use Permit in the R-8 zone. Her home is
located on East Brown Bear Street in an R-8 zone. You can see the location of that on
the -- on the board outlined in black. This is an aerial photo of the property zoomed in.
You can see the surrounding properties, the relatively undeveloped property behind it,
and this is the site plan. Basically a residential lot. The house. The driveway with
parking that they have proposed for their parking on this site and the yard areas. I
believe that's all I have on that one. Yes. You should have a staff report from David
McKinnon and Bruce Freckleton, dated October 17th
. I don't know if there are any
specific issues I need to bring up from that staff report. Staff does recommend approval
of this application. I would note that we have not received any complaints from the
existing day-care and you should just rely on testimony tonight if the addition of more
children will affect any of the neighbors. With that, I will stand for any questions.
Borup: Any questions from the Commissioners? Would the applicant like to come
forward? Anything you'd like to add? State your name and address for the record.
Floyd: Yes. It's Christina Floyd. I live at 567 East Brown Bear Street in Meridian.
Borup: Anything additional in the staff report that you would like to add or clarify?
Floyd: I'm only requesting to watch six children, not including my own. I have two of
my own. They are old enough to where they are in school all day long and I'm going to
be doing this for a long time, so -- I hope to be doing this for a long time. That's why I
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 3 of 84
just wanted this Conditional Use Permit, so I remain within licensing guidelines in
watching the six children. The six children and -- plus my own, would be eight.
Borup: Okay. Yes. The staff report said eight children so that was including your own.
Floyd: Yes.
Borup: So is that -- is that correct, Steve? She's at this point, actually, really only
asking for one more than what's already approved?
Siddoway: That's correct. You know, unless there was a compelling reason to limit the
number, it makes sense just to leave it as six to 12 per the standard ordinance, unless
you see a reason to limit it.
Borup: Okay. All right. Okay. Thank you. Any questions of any Commissioners?
Centers: Yes. Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: I guess -- well, we can see if there is anyone here, but if we did limit it, maybe
a year from now you might have one more of your own, would that be --
Floyd: I have two of my own.
Centers: Okay.
Floyd: I'm not going to watch any more than six kids, other than my own.
Centers: I wouldn't want you to come back if you happen to have a child -- another
child of your own and then you have nine correct? If we limit it at eight -- see what I'm
getting at?
Floyd: Yes. Yes. If I can be approved for the 12 children, that's fine.
Centers: Okay.
Floyd: That would be great. I don't plan on watching 12 children, but that would be
nice.
Centers: Thank you.
Floyd: Thank you.
Borup: Do we have anyone else here to testify on this application? Okay. Seeing none
-- there were no letters that I could see in my packet either.
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 4 of 84
Centers: Mr. Chairman, if I could ask the Assistant City Clerk -- I didn't see the number
of letters and notices that went out to the neighbors. Did we have probably 60 or 50?
Borup: Shouldn't have been quite that many, I don't think.
Centers: Within 300 feet of the subdivision. Do you have them, Mr. Chairman?
Borup: No, I don't but I was just looking at the site plan, because part of it is just a
vacant field. That would eliminate that from what you would normally have.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I just counted the list in my packet. It has 29 that were
mailed.
Centers: Twenty-nine letters and no shows. That's --
Borup: That eliminates half. You were about right on.
Centers: Yes. If it wasn't backed up to a vacant field.
Borup: Yes.
Centers: I'd move that we close the Public Hearing.
Mathes: Second?
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Mathes: I make a motion to approve Public Hearing CUP 02-030, request for
Conditional Use Permit to care for one to two additional children after school in an
existing family home day-care at an R-8 zone for Christina Floyd by Christina Floyd,
567 East Brown Bear Street, including all staff comments, dated October 17, 2002.
Centers: Could I make an amendment there? In the staff comments, they say that 12
children are inappropriate at this location, in the first paragraph on the first page. Could
we strike the word inappropriate?
Borup: No. It says if they do.
Siddoway: It says if the Commission finds that.
Centers: If the Commission -- okay. Okay. Excuse me. Should have read the whole
sentence.
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 5 of 84
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? It may make sense to amend it, nonetheless, because, as
stated, it says for one to two additional children, which would make it up to like seven. I
would just approve it for six to 12, like a standard day-care.
Mathes: Oh. Okay. That's as you said.
Centers: I would second that.
Borup: Okay. Any questions from counsel on that motion?
Wollen: No.
Borup: Okay. It would be -- the motion was as the staff report.
Mathes: Do you want me to restate it?
Borup: No. I think we are okay. Did we vote on that? Okay. All in favor? Any
opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 5. Public Hearing: PP 02-020 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 19
building lots and 2 other lots on 6.503 acres in an R-4 zone for Salmon
Rapids No. 5 by Farwest, LLC – north of East Victory Road and west of
South Locust Grove Road:
Borup: Thank you. Item Number 5 is a Public Hearing, PP 02-020, request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 19 building lots and 2 other lots on 6.5 acres in an R-4
zone for Salmon Rapids No. 5 by Farwest, LLC. I'd like to open this Public Hearing and
start with the staff report at this time.
Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is the final
phase of Salmon Rapids. It's outlined on the screen. It does consist of just over six
and a half acres. They are proposing 19 building lots, 2 other lots. This is a revised
subdivision design. There was one previously approved in 1998. The revisions shown
on this plat include a new open space drainage lot, a new stub street to the south, and
some reorientation of the public streets that were necessary to accommodate the
sewer. Referencing the staff report dated October 21st
, there are some additional
considerations for the Commission on this one on the second page. The first one being
a stub street -- before I get into that, let me walk through the screen a little bit. You can
see here the aerial photo with the existing Salmon Rapids Subdivision around it to the
north and east. There is the existing -- is it Kachina Subdivision to the west and it is a
large lot, County Subdivision. This is the revised plat. You can see the additional stub
street going to the south in this location here. Staff supports the inclusion of the stub
street where it's shown between Lot 10, Block 9, and Lot 64 -- Lot 64, Block 2. The
second issue is the sanitary sewer and Bruce may be better able to speak to this, but I
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 6 of 84
will give you what I know. The existing topography -- you can see the contour lines on
here, but it falls off fairly dramatically downhill as you go towards the southern part of
the property. The current proposal is to raise that southern portion to achieve the
minimum cover that they need over the top of the sewer system. It's got a fairly shallow
sewer depth there. Because of that shallow sewer depth, staff did direct the applicant
to talk to the adjacent neighbors in the Kachina Subdivision and see if they could get an
easement between Mesa Way and the subdivision in this area here to get the sewer
trunk extension that's going down Victory Road to Locust Grove to service this property,
as it would gravity flow much easier. Apparently, they were unsuccessful in their
attempts to get such an easement, so their only option is to fill the property. You know, I
think I will leave it at that and I don't know if Bruce has any other comments right now --
no. Okay. Other than that, you should have a memo dated today from Dave McKinnon
with a correction. It states that we need to strike general comment Number 11 on Page
5. If you go to Page 5. It's the last one. It talks about five foot sidewalks in accordance
with City Ordinance. They are proposing to do detached four-foot sidewalks, which the
Landscape Ordinance does allow for. Therefore, there is in his memo a re -- some new
wording that should be inserted, stating that the applicant shall be required to obtain a
License Agreement from ACHD to place part of the required sidewalk outside of the
proposed right of way. The setbacks within the proposed subdivision shall be measured
from the back of the sidewalk and not from the actual property line. Then Dave asked
me to add tonight verbally the fact that that requirement to -- that the front setbacks will
be measured from the back of sidewalk, to add that note on the face of the plat. With
that, I'll stand for any questions.
Centers: Would you repeat that, Steve?
Siddoway: To add a note to the face of the plat that states that all front setbacks will be
measured from the back of sidewalk, because the sidewalk extends beyond the right of
way.
Borup: The wording is on the memo there also.
Centers: Oh, it is?
Siddoway: Yes. It just is lacking the fact that it needs to be added as a note to the plat
so just add that. With that, I'll stand for any questions.
Borup: Any questions from the Commission to staff?
Centers: Well, I guess I would -- Mr. Chairman, I would have a question for Mr.
Freckleton on the elevation of the sewer and the fill dirt. Is this done often and how do
you feel about it?
Freckleton: Mr. Centers, it is done quite a bit where they have to fill in order to get
minimum cover over sewer. Usually, we try to follow the topography of the land with the
sewer and that's why I pushed to try and get it to go south and west to the new line at
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 7 of 84
Victory Road. In our facility plan that was prepared by JUB Engineers a couple years
ago for our sewer, that area is projected to go north. Back in '98 when this project came
forward the first time, we had big concerns about capacity of the receiving sewers not
being there. We have done a lot of study over the last few years and we do have plenty
of capacity to accept the sewer north. It is physically possible to do it with fill. It's not
my first choice, but it will work.
Centers: Thank you.
Borup: Anyone else? I didn't see anything in there that talked about how much fill.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, the applicant has handed out a response to our comments.
I don't know if you got a copy of that. It talks in there -- it says the proposed plan has
two and a half -- two to two and a half feet of fill. The original plan had about six feet of
fill so they have significantly reduced it by realigning the roads to follow the contours of
the land.
Centers: Over how many lots, Bruce?
Borup: I'm assuming about what the contours show there.
Freckleton: Yes. I would imagine the most significant amount of fill is in the extreme
southwest corner and it gets -- you know, the further you go northwest -- or northeast,
the amount of fill drops off. The applicant has indicated that 10 lots would be filled and
nine lots would be cut.
Borup: Well, that's who we are ready to hear from next. If the applicant would like to
come forward.
Bowcutt: Becky Bowcutt, 1100 East Valli Hi, Eagle. I'm representing the applicant in
this matter. As staff indicated, this southwest corner is a portion of the Salmon Rapids
project that has been in limbo for many years. I did not design this project originally.
When Farwest brought it to us, they brought it to us with phase three and four.
Originally, the Nine Mile Canal -- or the Eight Mile Canal that was north of this was the
boundary for the sewer out in this particular area. Mr. Smith, Gary Smith, was very
generous at the time and allowed a portion of this southern -- southwestern portion
sewer into that Nine Mile Creek Trunk. Since then, as Bruce indicated, the sewer
facilities map has been modified, therefore, showing this going to the north. We
submitted this application once before and then we withdrew it. That application
showed that it would take six feet of fill, approximately, in order to sewer this into the
existing sewer mains within the interior of the subdivision. Gary Smith at the time
indicated he could not support that type of application and we withdrew it. Since then
many of the developments out in this Victory Road, Locust Grove area has been built
out. At that time, Mr. Smith's concern was there is capacity that we reserve for these
particular service areas and to give that capacity to an area that's not within that sewer
service area concerns me, because we may be taking away from properties that are
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 8 of 84
entitled to that capacity. But since then, those properties have developed and capacity
does exist to service this property into the existing mains within the interior of Salmon
Rapids. As Bruce indicated, the facilities plan has been modified. Originally, we had
about 23 lots. The street came straight west and then straight north. It did not run with
the contours and that was one on that original design that -- one problem that we had
that required so much fill. We went in and took a look at the project and determined
that, as with like hillside projects that I have done in the City of Boise, it was best if we
run with the contours, therefore, minimizing the amount of fill that would be required.
We also reduced the number of lots from I believe approximately 23 to 19 so we took
this street, instead running it straight west. We took it and ran it with the contours here
and then intercepted at this point. Lot 56 is a drainage lot where existing storm
drainage from the existing right of ways, in addition to what was planned with this, will
go down here with an overflow out to Ten Mile Creek. This particular drawing here
shows the existing contours in the lighter text and then the darker text shows where the
grading would take place. All through here, we have cuts and those cuts are -- the
maximum cut is 5.5 feet and that is there at the pad and then we would, obviously,
contour. These lots here that are existing homes are higher and would, therefore, slope
this way. We have to, obviously, create some type of a grading and drainage plan. I
would recommend that that be added as a condition, so that it's part of the Building
Department's file and then each builder would have to basically match that grading and
drainage plan, so that we make sure that the slopes are in -- consistent with what the
civil engineers are designing. On this side, we also have cuts for these three lots and,
as Bruce indicated, approximately nine lots would be cut, 10 lots would require fill. The
fill here is one foot six inches 1.3 and then over here we have got 1.6 and 1.7. These
were about two and a half, but I see the technician has shown these as approximately
three. My letter should be corrected to say two to three fill -- three feet of fill. We have
one property owner here, Lot 50. I believe she's here this evening. One of the concerns
that she had -- we did just, for the record, have a neighbor meeting, because we do
have existing residents that will be impacted by this development. We got input from
them and one of the concerns was, obviously, the grading and the sloping of these lots
adjacent to the existing homes, so that it doesn't, one, impact their fence or the
drainage upon their lots so that's very important. Here we have approximately six
inches of fill. Everything would sewer back here into this Pine Bar Way. When we
designed this phase of Salmon Rapids, we stopped the sewer at this point and then a
service line comes down to Lot 50. We will have to come in and cut this street to get
back to the manhole and extend a service line -- or a main line down into this section.
The water line is extended here to the perimeter of the pavement. We will have to
coordinate with that property owner to make sure that we do it quickly. I believe the
conversations we had with the applicant and that property owner is that we would get
that done in a day. We probably couldn't get it paved, but we could get that work done
in a day and then get that trench refilled as soon as possible, so we do not disrupt their
lifestyle or minimize the disruption of their lifestyle, at least a day's worth. This area has
just been kind of a problem area for the neighborhood. We heard from a lot of
neighbors that, you know, they complained about weeds and dust and kids riding
motorcycles and it's kind of been a draw for, you know, activity, because it's just a
vacant piece of property. A lot of people at the meeting were pleased that we were
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 9 of 84
taking action to do something with this corner. We feel that we have got a good plan
now. Our meetings with Brad Watson have been very positive. We are in agreement
with most of staff's conditions. We will be doing detached sidewalks, five-foot
landscaping, and four-foot sidewalks. The setbacks are acceptable as far as from back
of sidewalk and I think everything else seems to be in order. If you have any questions,
I would be glad to answer your questions.
Borup: Questions from any Commissioners?
Centers: No. Very good.
Rohm: I have a question. You say you have some drainage specifications that are
available for those new lots?
Bowcutt: Yes, sir. Yes, we have a grading plan.
Rohm: And is that available to this Commission?
Bowcutt: Yes, sir. I submitted some to the staff, I can submit some to the Commission,
and I gave a copy to the neighbors. Yes, sir, I would be glad to hand those out.
Rohm: Okay.
Borup: So, Becky, you said your recommendation was to add -- your recommendation
was add that in the note in the plat to -- or --
Bowcutt: I would say add that as a condition. You could add it as a note to the plat.
Borup: Condition for whom?
Bowcutt: It would be a condition when they come in for a Building Permit. I think Bruce
would probably agree, the builders -- you know, at sometimes don't necessarily -- you
know, they are not -- they are not necessarily concerned with the overall drainage and
grading. They are more concerned with that particular lot and we do have deviations
that cause problems. Since we do have slopes and we are up against existing homes, I
would recommend that we have an official grading and drainage plan on file at the
Building Department and Public Works, that they could compare as those building
permits come in. Bruce, do you agree?
Freckleton: Absolutely.
Borup: How is the logistics of that handled, then?
Freckleton: Chairman Borup, similar to the old days. They used to have to prepare
FHA Master Grading Drainage Plans in subdivisions. The finish floor elevation would
be set on each lot. The grading and drainage patterns would be established, elevations
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 10 of 84
would be set in each corner, the building official would have the duty to make sure that
the elevations were complied with.
Borup: So it would just be handled at the plan check.
Freckleton: Correct.
Borup: To make sure that --
Freckleton: Correct so I would strongly recommend that you add that as a condition.
That's a great idea.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Bowcutt: Thank you.
Centers: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: I guess I would have a question for the applicant, if you want to -- it was
something I had highlighted, Mrs. Bowcutt. The Preliminary Plat doesn't indicate the
source of the pressurized irrigation system. Has that been resolved? Please revise the
plat to show how the system is going to be served.
Bowcutt: Okay. There is an existing pump station that services Raven Hills, Los
Alamitos, and Salmon Rapids, that our intentions originally were to connect to that main
line that's existing, because that system was originally designed to handle, obviously,
23 additional lots here. After our neighborhood meeting and conversations with
Nampa-Meridian, it is our understanding that they have taken off line a supplemental
well that was part of that system, due to the fact that it started to cave in. Some
concern was that the pressure -- the existing pressure out there, they have had
problems with. They do not rotate, so they are irrigating at will. Nampa-Meridian is
typically reluctant to put people on schedules, which, when you have subdivisions that
reach build out, normally they have to go on a schedule just due to the amount of water
rights that are available to the parcel and the capacity of the pumps. We have kicked
around different ideas and one would be to hook to -- work with Public Works and pay
the necessary fees to hook to domestic water for pressurized irrigation. Two would be
to explore redoing the well that has caved in and Nampa-Meridian pulled the pumps,
coordinating with them, and, obviously, water resources to put down another well, a
substitute well. The third option we kicked around would be to go to the main pump
station at Raven Hills and try to upgrade the pump and it's our understanding, based on
a memo we got from Nampa-Meridian, that some of the electrical panels would have to
be modified. We have three options. We definitely, you know, do not want to adversely
impact the existing pressurized irrigation, even though we are, obviously, a small
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 11 of 84
number of lots compared to the vast number it's serving, we are willing to explore all
options and work with public works to find a solution to this.
Centers: That was on a letter we received. Maybe you have seen a copy of the letter
from the homeowners association.
Bowcutt: Yes, sir.
Centers: Actually, that was the Number 1 item on their letter.
Bowcutt: Yes, sir. They brought it up.
Centers: When are you going to have that resolved? Prior to City Council or --
Bowcutt: That is our intent that we work with Nampa-Meridian and your Public Works
Department to figure out a solution. Obviously, when we go to City Council we are
going to have to have a definite answer. It was our understanding that, you know,
capacity existed with Nampa-Meridian. It was news to us when we had our
neighborhood meeting, that the neighborhoods were saying, hey, we have some
pressure problems, so we've got to solve that problem.
Centers: Just out of curiosity, what will the minimum square footage be for the homes?
Bowcutt: I think 1,500 are what we have requested.
Centers: Do you know what it is in the adjoining phases?
Bowcutt: My understanding was -- we had -- it varied from 1,400 and then to 1,500
along Meridian Greens. Yes. Yes. The original condition, Meridian Greens requested
that the homes be larger adjoining them for about 300 feet.
Centers: So this one is going to be a minimum of 1,500?
Bowcutt: 1,500 square feet. Yes, sir. We'd like that to go onto the record.
Borup: So the homes that this is adjoining have a present requirement of 1,400 the lots
that these would be adjacent to? Okay question, Becky. Are you going to be doing
additional drainage -- preparing a drainage plan? Is that what you said?
Bowcutt: You mean a drainage yes. What you're looking at there is --
Borup: Just fill. Right.
Bowcutt: That's just a grading plan. Yes, we will need to do a Grading and Drainage
Plan. As you can see that, property slopes to the south.
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 12 of 84
Borup: Right.
Bowcutt: So we --
Borup: It does not show any drainage for a builder to prepare a drainage --
Bowcutt: That's just are Preliminary Plan.
Borup: Okay.
Centers: So it would be safe to say that the developer will provide a drainage plan to
each builder adjacent to Phase 4?
Bowcutt: Yes, sir. We will provide a Master Drainage and Grading Plan for each lot.
Centers: They know how to comply with the city requirements if we make it a
requirement.
Bowcutt: Yes, sir.
Centers: Very good.
Bowcutt: Yes. It would have to be given to each builder, so when they do their site
design incorporate that.
Centers: That's it for now.
Bowcutt: Thank you.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Mr. Freckleton.
Freckleton: While it's fresh in everybody's mind, I'd like to maybe add a little bit to the
irrigation issue. Excuse me. Yesterday afternoon I contacted Nampa-Meridian
Irrigation District just to try and get more information on the well situation out there. I
received today a letter from the Assistant Superintendent Bill Henson, which I will give
to Sharon, so she can get you guys each a copy. He does reiterate that the existing
well was pulling a lot of sand and they tried to go in and rehab the well and it collapsed.
His letter says that at this time they have no plans to drill another well. At that point in
time -- this happened sometime this summer, I believe -- they basically started using
more city water for their backup water. The irrigation system that currently is out there
serves Raven Hill, Salmon Rapids, and Los Alamitos Subdivisions. At the time this was
all planned and built, they had this well as a supplement source and so when we came
up with the assessments that we charge for city water connection, we basically
discounted our assessments by the capacity of the well. Now that that well is out of
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 13 of 84
service, we need to be looking at this again, because I think some additional
assessments are going to be due if they don't replace this well. If you'd just keep that in
the back of your minds and maybe --
Borup: So the connection is not metered?
Freckleton: Oh, it's definitely metered. The assessments are a one-time fee that's paid
for the connection and, like I say, they were discounted because of the capacity of the
well.
Borup: The one time connection was discounted?
Freckleton: Correct. Correct.
Borup: Okay. I'm just --
Freckleton: Got a little gray?
Borup: No. I understand what you're saying. I'm not sure why -- how that's a factor if
it's metered and paid for anyway.
Freckleton: Because additional assessments will need to be paid if that well is not
replaced, because additional area is being watered with city water that was watered
with a well previously.
Borup: But they are charged for every gallon they use anyway.
Freckleton: That's correct but the assessment is -- it's like buying stock in the company.
You're paying for facility when you pay for an assessment. It's like when you build a
house you're paying for a sewer and water assessment. That's a one-time fee that you
pay with the Building Permit. The homeowner is still going to -- the homeowner is still
going to pay a monthly sewer and water charge based on their metered use. So -- and
it's the same type of deal when a subdivision is hooked up to a single point connection
to the city water for irrigation. We charge assessments for the common area open
space.
Borup: Because the existing well was essentially less than it would have been.
Freckleton: Right. Right.
Borup: I'm finally understanding. Do we have anyone else that would like to come
forward and testify?
Centers: Real quick, Bruce. Is this the same developer as the other phases that own
this land?
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 14 of 84
Freckleton: Yes.
Centers: Okay. Thank you. Excuse me.
Pope: My name is Debbie Pope. I live at 2705 South Pine Bar Way. I am the Lot 50
that Becky is talking about that will be adversely affected by fill and by sewer. Also,
there are two other lots, Lots 1 and 9, along the southwest corner of the stump road,
East Lake Creek, will also be affected by sewer and by fill.
Centers: Could you mark them on this little plat, Mrs. Pope? Thank you.
Pope: We have -- we would like to see the area subdivided, those of us that live
adjacent to Phase 5. Like Becky says, it's become -- it's quite an eye sore with
dumping, ATVs, all of that. We do have concerns that if any fill is proposed to bring in --
especially those of us who followed the contour of the land when we built, as the
developer would not bring in additional fill dirt to bring our -- my lot slopes significantly.
I'm lot 50. My front yard is at road level and my backyard is at the lowest point. I have
a walkout basement. I also have a lift station in my basement to get my basement
sewage to -- up to the road. There are some homes along East Lake Creek that also
have lift stations, because they, too, also have -- they are lower than sewer grade. My
concern is that if any fill is allowed to come up adjacent to my fence and the existing
homes that are along Phase 5, we will, one, lose our privacy, because -- and it will be
up against our fence. My fence follows the contour of the land, so that once the land is
graded off, it will still stay along my fence, but if any fill is brought up, it will become up
against my fence. We are asking -- the house pads are quite high and if fill -- if any fill
is allowed to bring the backyards up to the height of the house pads that are existing on
this -- I think on the little maps that Becky brought you --
Borup: Did you have a chance to look at that?
Pope: Yes, I did.
Borup: The fill plan?
Pope: I did. My concern is that if any of the developers, the home builders, are allowed
to bring any fill in, other than what is there, they will adversely affect me and not only
me, but other homes right there with sewage -- I mean with drainage off of those lots.
Our concern is that the builders stick with the existing slopes and are not allowed to
backfill. Also we have questions concerning that the homeowners, once the house is
in, a year down the line, you know, sometimes they don't get the yards in right away, if
they are allowed to backfill. I know some of the homes that are adjacent to mine did
back fill quite significantly and brought a significant amount of dirt in to bring their
backyards up closer to the lift -- to the level of their pads. If that does occur to any of
those homes that are adjacent to some of us that follow the slope of the land, we have
significant sewer -- or drainage issues. Also, the sewer line, will be dug up at the stump
roads of East Lake Creek and South Pine Bar Way, which will affect, like I told Mr.
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 15 of 84
Centers, those three homes significantly, because we are past the sewer drain, so our
roads will be dug up, we will be without sewer. We are requesting that the sewer -- we
be without sewer no more than four hours while work -- if that's at all feasible, because
it affects our way of life, all of us that have kids that are home. We don't have -- we
don't have sewer, we can't even be in our homes while this is occurring. Also we have
questions as to -- we want to make sure it can't -- once they hit those four inch service
lines that come to our home, we want to make sure that they can't back up into the
homes. Also we'd like that the pits that they dig to get to their -- like Becky says, will be
backfilled each day. We'd like that -- whoever it is that does it, we would like that they
take into consideration to backfill each day, because our driveways will be totally
inaccessible, our homes will be inaccessible, we will have to park down the street.
Also, the other thing that we were requesting, those of us that are affected by the sewer
hook up, will lose our mail service, because the mailboxes are all passed the point
where the road will be dug up. We would like to take -- it be considered that we also --
that the developer makes a plan that we will have no disruption of service, whether that
be he puts in -- need to put in temporaries, so that we -- we would request not to be the
ones to foot the bill for the temporaries, that it follows what the U.S. Postal Service will
allow for us. We will be -- until the road is a permanent pavement, the Postal Service
will not come back down, -- if there is any type of construction, they will not deliver mail.
That's pretty much it. Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Any questions. Anyone else want to come forward? Becky, do you
have any final comments?
Bowcutt: Mrs. Pope's brought up some good issues and I think, one, the Master
Grading and Drainage Plan that would be required to be on file at the Building
Department and Public Works and all Building Permits issued would have to be in
compliance with -- I think would cover that. We could also put a note on the plat for the
benefit of the property owner who buys a home, that an overall grading and drainage,
you know, plan is on file. We only have a couple lots that, obviously, could adversely
affect, you know, some of these existing homes, because most of those lots along that
northern boundary are all draining towards us. Lot 50 and then down here at Lot 1, we
would have new dwellings that would be adjoining them. Concerning the issue of
sewer, we have been -- the applicant has explored that and they have been told that
they would need a day to do that. Obviously, we need to put some -- we could put a
temporary mailbox in like one of those buckets out there, so they could receive mail
service. We'd have to coordinate with Public Works Inspectors, as far as, you know,
what -- how they handle the existing service line, I guess to make sure that it doesn't
back up into the existing homes. I don't know if Bruce has any suggestions on that or
not. I don't know. This is kind of an unusual situation where that service line is running
right in alignment with where the main line needs to go.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I spoke with Mrs. Pope yesterday -- day before yesterday
and got kind of a unique situation out there. Her service line comes straight out of the
manhole in the alignment of the stub street going south. Typically, service lines will
come out more perpendicular to the main. This one -- her service line comes out in the
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 16 of 84
alignment of where the new main is going to go, so in order to put that new main in, her
service is going to get tore up. It's going to take some coordination. I don't know a real
easy way around it, other than -- you know, I agree with Becky, I think that's probably a
day's job to get that much main line in and get her service line tied back into it. It is our
policy and in our specifications that at the end of the day they do backfill the trenches
and make sure that all the affected homeowners have access to their homes. We are
still kicking around some ideas. I don't know of an easy way to take care of this service,
other than put the main in and get her in service as soon as -- as soon as they can that
same day. As far as sewage backing up, I can't think of any reason why it would, where
she -- the Pope's property is the only service that would be tied into that stretch sewer.
They are going to have to get into the existing manhole in the intersection of Spring Bar
Drive. It is possible when they get into that manhole that they -- I mean if they plugged
it up somehow, that it could back up, but, again, the Pope's property is the only one that
discharges to that manhole at this point in time. You know, we are just going to have to
work closely with the contractor that's doing the job to make sure that he does it cleanly
and quickly, very quickly.
Centers: Well -- and I would think that, you know, a week or a two week notice could be
given to that homeowner, so that they could plan accordingly.
Bowcutt: Oh, yes, sir. Definitely.
Centers: And that could be met and if they happen to be, wanting to take a trip out of
town, that would work, or something like that but you know, I guess --
Freckleton: The only other thing is if the applicant would be willing to bring in portable
facilities for a day for that length of time.
Borup: Lot 50, the four-inch service line, goes clear to the manhole?
Freckleton: Yes. It comes straight out from the house into the street, out into South
Pine Bar, takes a 90-degree turn, and goes north to the manhole.
Borup: That's just the four-inch -- just the service line?
Freckleton: In the alignment of the main, so --
Borup: Okay a little different. Becky, do you know -- was the intention for that main line
to go clear down to the cul-d-sac at the end of the street?
Bowcutt: When it was originally designed?
Borup: Well, no. Now. I mean the installation, was that intended to -- the one day, was
that --
Bowcutt: No, sir. I believe the one day would we get us passed her home --
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 17 of 84
Borup: To the next manhole.
Bowcutt: To the next manhole yes, sir.
Borup: That's what I was wondering, because I thought that would take less time just to
go to the manhole.
Bowcutt: Yes, sir.
Borup: See, yes, that's a fairly short distance to the manhole.
Rohm: I'm curious about the backfill on these lots right here. How were you going to
address that? As in if they have got their lot sloping away and the adjacent lot wanted
to backfill, how are you going to propose that transition?
Borup: Well, the building plat shows six inches. It doesn't say if that's six inches
maximum at the back of the lot or --
Bowcutt: That would be the pad. That would be at the pad to get that house to sewer.
Borup: Okay. Six inches from existing --
Bowcutt: The existing grade and that would be the pad, not the whole lot.
Borup: Right.
Bowcutt: Most of those homes that they have built on the perimeter that have the
excessive slopes, like to the west or to the south, have walk-out basements. Most of
the people have taken advantage of that slope in, obviously, in the design of their home.
It would be cost prohibitive, obviously, to try to go in there and fill it all the way up, you
know, to match the elevation of the street. What we are looking at is the elevation of
where the home sits at. The only way to restrict the property owner would be by
covenants, by a note on the plat, as far as to keep -- if say you were to buy the home, to
keep you from bringing a truck in and adding five feet of fill in the back of your new
home. CC&Rs and a note on the plat is the only -- the only mechanism which we have.
Rohm: And that's not currently part of the CC&Rs?
Bowcutt: The exiting CC&Rs, no. You would have to have an addendum to -- for this
Phase 5 not that I'm aware of. No.
Centers: If we noted on the plat, which lots we are talking about -- because I think
that's more effective than the CC&Rs 51.
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 18 of 84
Bowcutt: Fifty-one and, then, obviously, this one that adjoins -- what would it be? Lot --
Lot 10, Block 9 and, then, probably you would want Lot 10, Block 8. Then as we start
going northwest, those are all sloping away towards us, so --
Borup: Ten and eight is a cut, not a fill.
Bowcutt: Well, let me see. You have got all my --
Borup: Yes. I have got -- 10 and eight is a cut.
Bowcutt: Is it a cut? Okay so then we would be all right.
Centers: Ten and eight. Okay and then -- help me, then, Becky. What would be a
good notation on the plat?
Bowcutt: Probably a good note on the plat would be the finish grades of all building lots
should comply with the Grading and Drainage Plan of record at the Public Works
Department. No property owner shall deviate or fill lots adjoining to existing homes --
and you could go into detail something along that line. We typically -- we do the same
type of thing when we do hillside lots.
Centers: Maybe matching --
Bowcutt: Matching grades. That would be another thing. That might have some better
language.
Centers: I was looking to see if some of us were making notes when you --
Bowcutt: Don't ask me to repeat it.
Centers: We will run it back in a minute. Okay. We can handle it.
Bowcutt: Bruce will come up with some beautiful language, I'm sure.
Centers: Because I think the note on the plat really is effective.
Bowcutt: Yes, sir.
Centers: A lot of homeowners don't read the CC&Rs ahead of time, they read them at
closing, and if it's there and then the adjoining property owner of Lot 50 wants to point
that out, I think -- I think they would have a lot more leverage, personally. Very good.
Bowcutt: Yes, sir. I agree. Thank you.
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 19 of 84
Borup: And I would suggest, since it's only pertaining to two lots, that the notes would
be located at the lot with an arrow pointing to them, rather than a note that's hidden in a
long list of notes.
Bowcutt: Yes, sir.
Borup: Any other questions from any of the Commissioners?
Centers: We didn't have anyone else, did we?
Borup: Not unless someone has changed their mind.
Centers: Well, I think it's -- Mr. Chairman, I think it's obvious that this little piece of land
needs to be developed for the benefit of the Salmon Rapids Subdivision, to get some
houses on it. Probably would make it a lot safer area. I think if we do it right, that Mrs.
Pope should be protected. She might have a little inconvenience in the future, but that's
-- I think is going to be unavoidable and I think with proper notice as when they are
going to do the sewer hook up and the backfill, that's the best they can do. I move we
close the Public Hearing.
Rohm: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Borup: Okay. Any discussion on some of the items that we want to add to the motion
that -- we have talked about a couple of things that were not in the staff comments.
Rohm: I have made some notes here, Chairman Borup, and the notes that I have here
are -- we would delete Item 11 on Page 5 and we would add Dave's letter -- Dave
McKinnon's letter, dated November 7th
. Additionally, lots within this addition shall
conform to a drainage specified by the developer and on file with the City Planning
Department and the second note would be a note on the plat specifying the backfill of
Lot 10, Block 9, and Lot 51, Block 2. That seems to cover the issues that had been
brought up in discussions here.
Borup: That would be adding a note to the plat concerning the setback calculation.
Rohm: Yes.
Borup: That was the verbal comments that --
Centers: Front setbacks measured from the back of the sidewalk. The applicant had a
disagreement on the term License Agreement in Dave's -- do we have a problem with
that? I don't think we do, Steve. In the applicant's note, she had mentioned that I am in
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 20 of 84
agreement with the staff change, with the exception of the License Agreement. ACHD
requires a sidewalk easement be granted if the walk deviates from the right of way. I
guess I would tend to agree that we don't need that License Agreement.
Siddoway: I would just say that -- go with the third sentence in there, to say that they
have to comply with the ACHD requirements for sidewalks located outside the right of
way.
Centers: Right.
Siddoway: If you just state that, will take care of it.
Centers: Just strike the licensing. I think we need to address the irrigation --
pressurized irrigation and the fact that the --
Borup: The assessment?
Centers: Yes. This developer, if he hasn't installed a new well, they would be hit the full
assessments, but I think we also need to -- you know, there should a well. I mean we
are requiring pressurized irrigation or whether it's a well or the applicant provides proof
prior to the City Council that they have the pressurized irrigation.
Borup: Well, the well was just when the irrigation water is shut off during the transition
period is that correct? This well you're talking about is being used year around? This is
a year around well?
Freckleton: The well ran full season. It was a supplement to the irrigation system.
Borup: So it -- no, I understood that, but I thought it was supplemental well. They are
not getting the water out of the irrigation canals?
Freckleton: They are. This well supplements that. It wasn't used exclusively as
shoulder season it was used throughout the irrigation season.
Borup: I misunderstood.
Freckleton: Yes.
Mathes: Is there a way to get them on their own system, not with the other two
subdivisions?
Freckleton: Well, it's a regional system that Nampa-Meridian owns and it's definitely
more economical to operate a central system that serves a greater area than it is to
have independent systems. That's Nampa-Meridian's deal. I would like to kind of go on
the record, though. Becky has raised several options for the irrigation system and I'd
just like to point out that I want city water to be on the very bottom of their list. I want
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 21 of 84
them to explore every other option that's out there before looking at city water for
irrigation.
Centers: We require that every subdivision have pressurized irrigation, Bruce. Why
would the city water be on the bottom? It shouldn't even be an option.
Freckleton: We do require city water as a backup source if an alternate source is not
available, so --
Borup: There is not enough irrigation water available for this area to provide for all the
homes?
Freckleton: That's something that the applicant is going to have to prove out.
Borup: Well, the canal is running right through the middle of the subdivision.
Centers: Yes that's --
Rohm: Well, if there was a well placed in the subdivision at one time, why could it not
be replaced?
Freckleton: Well, I think it could be.
Centers: It was pumping sand the last --
Borup: Well, the problem at this point is the system has been turned over Nampa-
Meridian.
Freckleton: You know, I don't know what the construction of the well was, whether it
was an uncased well or what it was, but it did collapse on them when they tried to rehab
it. They were blowing the well and it collapsed, so -- it is -- at the time, it was under the
ownership of Nampa-Meridian. It was not -- it was not under the ownership of the
developer, so --
Centers: But it is now?
Freckleton: The well is still under the ownership of Nampa-Meridian.
Centers: Oh, it is?
Freckleton: Yes, but once the subdivision is built, the system gets turned over, lock,
stock, and barrel, to the Irrigation District distribution system and pumping facilities.
You know, that system operated for -- how many years? Five years without a problem
and then, you know, started pumping sand and the well went down. You know, normal -
- if this development was totally built out and Nampa-Meridian wanted to go in there and
put a new well in, they put a new well in, but then every single resident in the
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 22 of 84
subdivision would get paid for a piece of that well in their annual assessment from the
irrigation district.
Rohm: As it is, if they build a new -- or drill a new well, wouldn't the purchasers of the
new lots, then, be the ones that would be paying for this new well, in effect?
Freckleton: I guess in a long about way, maybe. The developer, if -- if a new well is
deemed the best way to go to get irrigation water to the system, this developer would
be putting that well in at his expense and then, of course, he would recover his cost
through lot sales.
Rohm: And wouldn't that be the preferred method to go, as opposed to using city
water?
Freckleton: Definitely. Definitely. There are other options. The pump station could be
upgraded. It's going to take some fairly major -- major work. The assistant
superintendent of Nampa-Meridian told me that -- and Becky touched on this, too -- that
the electrical service into that pump station is maxed out at this point in time. Some
additional electrical service would have to be brought in, panels might have to be
replaced, additional pumps might need to be added, but there are some options out
there.
Borup: So it sounds like the problem is not the water availability, it's the capacity of the
pump station is that correct?
Freckleton: Their pumping capacity. That's correct.
Centers: It's delivery.
Borup: So the water is available to the normal irrigation delivery. To me that's the best
method to go is increase the capacity of the pumping station, if the water is there.
Freckleton: Yes and if they do anything but replace the well, those assessments are
going to be coming into play.
Borup: I don't know why they didn't do that to start with. Why don't they drill a well --
unless it was an existing well?
Freckleton: It was existing on the property.
Borup: Okay. That explains it.
Centers: Would that be appropriate to require something like that prior to the Final
Plat?
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 23 of 84
Freckleton: Well, the condition of the plat is definitely the pressurized irrigation. That's
an ordinance requirement. That's something that they are going to have to get figured
out before they get that far, correct.
Centers: Correct. Upgraded.
Freckleton: Upgrade the system or make sure that they have capacity to take on these
additional lots.
Centers: That would be --
Borup: Can it be added in that the capacity is increased without use of city water?
Freckleton: Certainly.
Borup: And then, it would be up to their option how they did it, whether it was a new
well or increase the pump station.
Centers: Right.
Freckleton: Yes we definitely don't want city water flowing into that system year around.
Shoulder season is a different story, if they don't have available water, but we don't
domestic water going into an irrigation system in August.
Centers: Those were the only notes I had. Did you have any, Mr. Chairman?
Borup: No. I think that included them. Well, no, that did. We have got the other --
Rohm: Yes. I will give it a go here.
Borup: Yes and we will jump in if there is anything else needs to be added. Go ahead.
Rohm: Okay. I'd like to move that we forward this application, Public Hearing PP 02-
020, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 19 building lots and two other lots on 6.503
acres in an R-4 zone for Salmon Rapids No. 5 by Farwest, LLC, north of East Victory
Road and west of South Locust Grove Road. To include staff comments, excluding
Item 11, Page 5. This application will also include Dave McKinnon's letter, dated
November 7th
.
Borup: 6th
.
Rohm: 6th
and, additionally, lots within this addition shall conform to drainage specified
by the developer. All buildings and improvements upon lots within the subdivision shall
comply with the Master Grading and Drainage Plan on file with the Meridian Public
Works and Building Department. Additionally, there shall be a note on the plat
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 24 of 84
specifying the backfill of Lot 10, Block 9, and Lot 51, Block 2, and the developer shall
increase capacity of the existing irrigation system to match the new load.
Center: Well, what are we going to note on the plat on those two lots?
Rohm: That the grade shall match existing adjacent lots and --
Centers: And no -- no backfill allowed or something to that effect?
Rohm: Or the backfill shall match existing developed lots -- help me out here.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, if I might. I hate to muddy up a plat with a bunch of notes.
It's not really the document to be doing that with. I think the thing we need to make sure
of is that this Master Grading and Drainage Plan catches at the points of the existing
lots. In other words, there is not a bunch of fill against those adjacent lots. That would
show up on that master grading and drainage plan. I think by making that note on the
face of the plat, that all lots shall comply with the approved master grading and
drainage plan that's on file, I think we are covered.
Rohm: It makes it redundant, then?
Freckleton: I think with the additional verbiage, I think it's very redundant and
unnecessary.
Borup: But I think, then, your comments would apply to the drainage -- to the drainage
map, not to the -- not to the plat.
Rohm: Exactly.
Centers: Well, I think the -- you know, the owner of Lot 50 was concerned about backfill
coming in.
Borup: That's what I say, that comment that would apply to the drainage map would
need to show that and then the note on the plat would refer to the Drainage Plan.
Centers: Okay.
Rohm: Okay.
Borup: Which would do the same thing without having all those notes cluttering the
plat? Then did you have a comment on that sidewalk -- I mean on the setback at the
back of the sidewalk?
Centers: On Dave's addendum. Front setbacks measured from back of the sidewalk.
Borup: There is a note to add that note on the plat.
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 25 of 84
Rohm: Yes. Add the note on the setback associated with the sidewalk. All right. I --
Borup: Okay. Did we get everything -- did you get everything on the irrigation?
Rohm: Yes.
Centers: Well, you didn't include anything on the irrigation. We'd like the developer to
supply evidence of pressurized irrigation from whatever source, of course, prior to the
Final Plat. I think that would be sufficient from whatever source, other than city water.
Additionally, I would like to require that the developer give the owner of Lot 50 at least a
two week notice of when the sewer would be dug up and that they would be required to
do it in one daylight hour's day. Not 24 hours, but I guess I'm talking 12 hours.
Borup: Or eight.
Centers: And the developer also provide temporary mailboxes for affected -- affected
adjacent lot owners in Phase 4. I don't think Phase 3 would be affected.
Borup: Just say affected lot owners.
Centers: Yes. Right. Question, Nick?
Wollen: Commissioner Rohm, do you adopt Commissioner Centers' wordings on that in
your motion?
Rohm: Yes, I do.
Wollen: Okay. I think I got everything, except the very last part.
Rohm: On the sidewalk or the irrigation?
Wollen: On the irrigation.
Centers: Yes developer to supply evidence prior to the Preliminary Plat that they have
sufficient pressurized irrigation.
Wollen: Other than from municipal water.
Centers: Correct.
Wollen: Okay.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I got a little lost on the motion.
Borup: Which part?
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 26 of 84
Freckleton: I want to make sure that Nick has it down the way that you guys -- because
the portion about the setback from back of sidewalk, I didn't catch that part.
Borup: Oh, that it be measured from the back of the sidewalk.
Wollen: And it was my understanding that's in Mr. McKinnon's note that's -- it's not on
there?
Borup: The motion was to add that in the note to the plat.
Wollen: Correct. It's also going to be added as a specific note to the plat.
Borup: Okay.
Freckleton: I was just wondering if you thought it might be appropriate to have Nick
read back to you what -- if he's got it.
Wollen: Well, on the specific -- what is going to be added to the face of the plat? It's
my understanding -- and correct me if I'm wrong on the language here that you had in
your motion -- all buildings and improvements upon all lots in the subdivision shall
comply with the Master Grading and Drainage Plan on file with the Meridian Public
Works and Building Department. That is going to be the only thing regarding grading
on the plat itself. Then we are going to exclude Item 11 on Page 5, include the letter --
November 6th
letter by Dave McKinnon specifically out of that letter, put the setbacks
portion on the plat itself -- let's see developer to supply evidence of water source,
specifically excluding Meridian city water from that source list. That was what I had so
far.
Centers: Mailboxes? Two week notice prior to --
Wollen: Oh. Two week -- I'm sorry. I had the two-week notice --
Centers: And backfill.
Wollen: Yes the two-week notice was only to be given to the Popes correct?
Centers: Appropriate -- appropriate adjoining lot owners would be better and then we
had something on the backfill, especially related to Lot 51.
Siddoway: I think I have that wording.
Centers: Okay.
Siddoway: Backfill on Lot 51, Block 2, and Lot 10, Block 9, shall be graded to match
existing grade on adjacent lots and that applies to the Master Grading Drainage Plan.
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 27 of 84
Wollen: Okay. Perfect.
Centers: Thank you, Bruce.
Rohm: Thanks for the help.
Borup: There was some discussion on the Sidewalk Agreement with ACHD, rather than
a License Agreement, that it would comply with ACHD requirements. That was the
recommended wording by the applicant and Steve said that was satisfactory, I believe.
Centers: Where was that?
Borup: Well, that was mentioned in Dave McKinnon's memo.
Centers: Yes. We adopted --
Borup: He said a License Agreement and then the applicant's response --
Centers: Well, we are adopting Dave McKinnon's memo.
Borup: Yes. His memo said license --
Centers: Strike the words -- then strike the words License Agreement, is my notes, on
Dave McKinnon's memo.
Wollen: Striking out Licensing Agreement? Okay.
Centers: In Dave McKinnon's memo. All the remainder would be applicable.
Borup: Well, essentially. If you strike out those two words, then the sentence doesn't
make any sense, but --
Centers: Yes.
Borup: But it's saying that -- and then reword the sentence to state to comply -- I mean
that it would need to comply with ACHD requirements.
Centers: Right.
Borup: Okay I think we have -- do we have a motion?
Centers: I think we do.
Rohm: I wouldn't want to restate it.
Borup: Nick has it all down. I think he got everything after we had gone through -- so
we have a motion, we have a second. All in favor? No. We have a motion on the floor.
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 28 of 84
Mathes: Second.
Borup: And a second. Any discussion? All I n favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 6. Public Hearing: RZ 02-004 Request for a Rezone of 8.2 acres from R-8
to C-G zones for Murdoch Subdivision No. 2 by Howell Murdoch
Development Corporation – west of South Locust Grove Road on East
Watertower Street:
Borup: Thank you. Okay. Item Number 6 is Public Hearing RZ 02-004, request for
rezone of 8.2 acres from R-8 to C-G zones for Murdoch Subdivision No. 2 by Howell
Murdoch Development Corporation. Open this Public Hearing and start with the staff
report.
Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Murdoch
Subdivision is located at the intersection of East Watertower and Locust Grove. It is
across from the Woodbridge Subdivision in this area. Murdoch Subdivision No. 2 was
originally annexed to the City of Meridian and zoned R-8 in May of 2000 under the
name of Stratford Business Park. The next year, in May 2001, the Council approved a
plat for this property with the lot configuration that's shown under the name of Murdoch
Subdivision No. 2. The new Meridian Police Station sits on the large lot, right here,
which is Lot 8 of Block 2 of the subdivision. The current zoning of R-8 was granted at
that time, because it was in compliance with the 1993 Comprehensive Plan, which
designated that area as single-family residential. The recently adopted Comprehensive
Plan designates this same area commercial. The proposed rezone from R-8 to C-G in
compliance with the new Comprehensive plan, would allow for commercial development
of this property. The rezone is proposed on all lots of Murdoch Sub No. 2, except for
the police station lot so that one is not being rezoned. You should have a staff report,
dated August 28th
, from Bruce, Dave, and myself. We believe that findings are made
that shows that this rezone is in compliance with the current Comprehensive Plan for
the city. We note the standard conditions on Page 4 of that report and recommend
approval of this rezone with those conditions and I'll stand for any questions.
Borup: Questions from the Commission?
Centers: Any motion, Steve, should it state excepting the police station lot or identify it?
Siddoway: I don't know that it's necessary. The rezone application that was submitted
specifies the boundaries.
Centers: Okay.
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 29 of 84
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Does the applicant have anything to add to staff's
comments? Okay. That makes it easy. Is there anyone else here to testify on this
application? Seeing none.
Centers: Well, I would close the Public Hearing, then. Move.
Mathes: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Centers: I want to do this one. Mr. Chairman, I would move that we recommend
approval to City Council for Item 6, RZ 02-004, request for a rezone of 8.2 acres from
R-8 to C-G zone for Murdoch Sub No. 2 by Howell Murdoch Development Corp., west
of South Locust Grove Road on East Watertower Street, including all staff comments.
Mathes: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES ONE ABSENT
Item 7. Public Hearing: AZ 02-022 Request for annexation and zoning of
119.83 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for proposed Havasu Creek
Subdivision by Farwest, LLC – south of East McMillan Road and west of
North Locust Grove Road:
Item 8. Public Hearing: PP 02-019 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 328
building lots and 27 other lots on 119.83 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for
proposed Havasu Creek Subdivision by Farwest, LLC -- south of East
McMillan Road and west of North Locust Grove Road:
Item 9. Public Hearing: CUP 02-028 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Unit Development with 327 single-family dwellings, one
elementary school, and 27 common lots for proposed Havasu Creek
Subdivision by Farwest, LLC -- south of East McMillan Road and west of
North Locust Grove Road:
Borup: The next three items are all pertaining to the same project. We'd like to open all
three of these Public Hearings at the same time. AZ 02-022, request for annexation
and zoning of 119 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for proposed Havasu Creek
Subdivision by Farwest, LLC, and Public Hearing PP 02-019, request for Preliminary
Plat approval of 329 building lots and 27 other lots on the same 119 acres. Then Public
Hearing CUP 02-028, a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit
Development with 327 single-family dwellings and one elementary school and 27
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 30 of 84
common lots for proposed Havasu Creek Subdivision by Farwest LLC. This project is
located south of McMillan Road and west of North Locust Grove. I'd like to open, as I
stated, all three Public Hearings at this time and start with the staff report.
Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The proposed
Havasu Creek Subdivision is located south of McMillan Road, west of Locust Grove. It
actually borders on its southern boundary, the recently approved Heritage Commons
Subdivision. It does have frontage on Locust Grove, as well as McMillan. This is -- the
property today is a series of five-acre lots along the north edge of this property, some
larger lots along Locust Grove, and then the currently approved Heritage Commons
Subdivision to the south. This is the plat for that area. They have requested
annexation as an R-4 zone. The Preliminary Plat for 327 building lots, 326 of which are
single-family, and then the one large one right in the center for an elementary school.
It's on 196 acres and the elementary school site is about 13 acres of that. The
applicant has provided multiple pedestrian connections into the school. They noted that
all sidewalks within the subdivision are planned to be detached sidewalks from the back
of the curb. The, quote, other lots in this subdivision, include eight large open space
lots, in addition to the landscape buffer and those open space lots are just over five
percent of the -- of the total land area, which is required by ordinance. They are in
compliance with that. They -- as the additional amenities as the Planned Development,
which they are required to have two of, they are actually proposing more than that, they
are proposing two playground equipment facilities, the micro path system, a water
feature, and a gazebo and picnic facility. As a Planned Development, they are
requesting some modifications to existing City Ordinances. Those are detailed on Page
2 of the staff report, dated October 31st
. You will note the setbacks, the lot size, and the
lot frontage all has requested modifications. Okay. If you turn to Page 6 of the staff
report, you will see the additional considerations that staff feels should be considered
tonight in particular. The first one deals with stub streets. There are numerous stub
streets in this project, which staff wholeheartedly supports, to provide the
interconnectivity in this area that we are trying to get. The Item Number 1 under those
stub streets suggests that we add a stub street -- and I need to amend that wording per
Dave McKinnon's letter on November 6th
, that instead of a stub street, it should be a
Cross-Access Agreement or Cross-Access Easement.
Centers: Is that Item 1, Steve?
Siddoway: Yes. It's here under additional considerations in Item 1. It shows up again
as site-specific comment Number 5 on Page 9. If you'd turn to Page 9 and look at the
very top of the Page --
Centers: Got it.
Siddoway: -- it says a new stub -- this is where the condition actually shows up. It says
a new stub street shall be added to the plat. That stub street should be modified to
read, a Cross-Access Easement shall be added to the plat. Bruce is saying that it
should also be a public utility easement. It should be for access and public utilities. On
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 31 of 84
Page 7, the second stub street issue for discussion is -- staff is recommending either
eliminating or relocating the stub street. It's this stub street right here. It's between Lot
1, Block 12, and Lots 25 and 26 of Block 10. If I go to the aerial photo, you can see that
where that was stubbing stubs directly into the back of a house, which is not likely to
redevelop very easily. Our recommendation would be to either eliminate that or just
simply turn it north and stub it into this property here. I have spoken with the developer
working on this property and they are fine with it either way, actually. It will work for a
redevelopment scenario if the stub street is there. They can cul-d-sac a street in their
project if it's not stubbed. The site specific comment that shows up related to this
actually proposes the elimination of it, but if the Commission feels that it should be
realigned to the north and stub in, then Dave has provided the wording for that on the
second paragraph of Page 7.
Borup: Steve, does developer of that other property, do they have a preliminary layout
at this point or --
Siddoway: They are working on one, but it's not finalized, no.
Borup: Are they -- right now it looks like that parcel has two stub streets coming in from
their north and then -- and I assume also they have access to Locust Grove, so they
have three access points into that subdivision?
Siddoway: Their access to Locust Grove is under discussion with the ACHD. We don't
need to get into that one right now.
Borup: Okay. Well, do they have enough access points to adequately service that area
or --
Siddoway: Yes. I think -- let me go to the plat.
Centers: I think the comments stated that.
Borup: That they have do have enough.
Centers: Yes.
Siddoway: It can be developed without it. It also works to develop with it. If you do
eliminate it, you then end up with a boundary from this point all the way around to here
with no connection to the east. If this were to stub north at this point, it could provide for
some more interconnectivity, but the lot can be developed without it. Clear as mud for
you?
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Centers: Steve, maybe -- Dave's last note there on his memo, do we need to renumber
some pages? Do you want to --
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 32 of 84
Siddoway: I'm still going to go over that. You bet. The -- you will see that the
comments go one, two, three, four, five, six and then five, six, seven, eight.
Centers: Where is that? You mean pages or --
Siddoway: No. Those are comment numbers starting on Page 7 of the site-specific
comments.
Centers: Okay.
Siddoway: Page 7 has one, two, Page 8, three, four, five, six, Page 9 it goes back to
five, six, seven, eight. There was some automatic numbering when some comments
were inserted.
Centers: So we want to make those seven, eight, nine and ten?
Siddoway: Exactly. Just make it seven, eight, nine, 10. The other issue that should be
dealt with tonight is related to the phasing. The applicant is proposing to have the -- a
phase one on both Locust Grove and McMillan Road. Staff does not object to this. It
was done -- it was approved that way on the Tuscany Lakes project, but we do feel that
we need to point out that multiple non-contiguous phases will stretch resources of
police and fire, in particular, to cover areas that are not contiguous with other
development.
Centers: See, that's what happens when we start it someplace.
Siddoway: I believe that's all I need to go over in the staff report. Our recommendation
is to approve the project. It does have a lot of nice features, we feel, so we would
recommend approval of the project with the comments and conditions noted in the staff
report and I'd stand for any questions.
Mathes: I have a question.
Siddoway: Okay.
Mathes: On the report from the Fire Department --
Siddoway: Okay.
Mathes: -- he talks about a multi-family unit. Do we need to strike that paragraph? Or
does it matter?
Siddoway: Now which paragraph is it?
Mathes: Nine, 11 office lots and one commercial lot. It kind of sounds like Lochsa.
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 33 of 84
Siddoway: It does. I do believe that you could strike that. I don't see how that applies
to Havasu Creek.
Mathes: Okay.
Centers: Which?
Mathes: Number 9.
Borup: I think he went into his word processor and had stuff from the previous --
Mathes: I was looking for them, but I didn't find them.
Siddoway: Yes. I don't -- there is no multi-family --
Centers: Good catch.
Borup: So that's everything after that first sentence.
Centers: Could be ACHD gets paid for how many lines they write.
Borup: That was the Fire Department.
Centers: No. I mean I'm talking about the ACHD.
Borup: Well, yes, I think so, too.
Centers: They get paid by the page, 9 and 10 or just 9?
Borup: Steve, do we have clarification on the number of lots? The report says 328.
Our agenda said 327. No, it didn't either. Oh, wait a minute. It says both. The agenda
says both.
Siddoway: The difference is there are 328 building lots, but the Conditional Use Permit
points out that there is 327 building lots for single-family and one for the elementary
school.
Borup: Oh.
Siddoway: So that's the difference.
Borup: Okay. There we go.
Centers: Well, since we are doing typos here, the first page, the application summary,
down at the bottom, first paragraph shows 1,196 acres.
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 34 of 84
Siddoway: Yes. I got that, too.
Centers: We need to change that to 119.83?
Siddoway: Well, just strike the first one, which is --
Centers: No. No. Strike that nine -- or strike the six.
Siddoway: Yes.
Centers: That's a big development.
Siddoway: It should be 119 right here.
Borup: And it says that everywhere else. Any other comments, questions from the
Commission? Would the applicant like to make their presentation?
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, one other minor thing I just remembered. It's similar to what
we just did in Murdoch. We do need to add a note on the plat for this one as well, that
the front setbacks will be measured from the back of sidewalk, because there are
instances where the sidewalk extends beyond the right of way in this project as well,
where they are detached. Six inches I think is all, but they still should be measured
from sidewalk --
Borup: Thank you. Becky.
Bowcutt: Becky Bowcutt, 1100 East Valli Hi, Eagle. I'm representing the applicant in
this matter. As Steve indicated, the request before you this evening is an annexation
and rezone to an R-4 designation. We also have a Conditional Use Permit that
accompanies that for a Planned Unit Development and then a Preliminary Plat
application for 327 buildable lots. The project before you, I just want to explain some of
the features. It adjoins McMillan Road. This location here is at the half mile. We are
creating a water feature here on the island and bringing a collector roadway in all the
way to this intersection here. That collector roadway has three islands as you come
down to break up the monotony of the asphalt and we have also provided an
elementary school site that's just a little over 12 acres in size. We did coordinate with
the Meridian School District. In fact, the site plan that you see on the school site came
from their architect, so that would be somewhat, you know, what they would come
before the city with as far as the elementary site is concerned. They are aligning with
these public streets at the three locations, so the configuration was acceptable to them.
We provided three pedestrian pathways, one at this location, one here on their eastern
boundary, and then another one to the south. The way we designed this is we have a
lot of pocket parks for interconnectivity, because, obviously, the central focal feature of
this development is the elementary site. We envision that the children over here at
North Locust Grove, we have got a little short collector, it comes down to this
intersection, it would come through here, come through pedestrian pathways, catch the
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 35 of 84
detached sidewalk, come through another ped path through this pocket park and then
enter on the micro path. Up here they would be coming along through the sidewalk and
then enter the site through that ped path here. We have a shortcut coming up from the
southern portion. This is the boundary of Heritage Commons along here, so the
Heritage Commons kids could come up on our detached sidewalk, come up through
this pathway, and enter into the elementary site or if they chose to come through this
way, we've created a shortcut there. Most of the blocks, with the exception of this one,
we have pedestrian pathways and pocket parks that traverse them. This particular one
has a real nice interconnection. The size of that facility is about 1.4 acres in size, to
kind of give you an idea of the size of that facility. Most of these range from about 1.4
down to about a half acre in size. Most of them are about three quarters of an acre.
We have more, you know, of what you call our traditional type, more gridded pattern.
We have two different product lines. The lot sizes over here are smaller they typically
range around 6,500 and 7,000 square feet. As we go to the southern portion over to
the west portion, those lot sizes increase. We technically have lot sizes that go up to as
high as 19,000 square feet. If I were to give, say what the average lot sizes are in the
project, they would range around 9 to 11,000 square feet. The project, when we look at
our net density, therefore, excluding the school site, excluding the streets, we are at
about 3.92 dwelling units per acre. I think in staff's report they look at what they call the
gross acreage and that gross is about 3.05 dwelling units per acre. The amenities that
we will be providing will, obviously, be the pocket parks. We will also utilize those for
drainage. However, we will have to come up with a design, so that they are usable and
esthetically pleasing. The other amenities would include a gazebo feature in this
location here and then some play equipment, like commercial play type equipment
ranging from anywhere from about 12,000 to 20,000 dollars in cost and we'd have two
of those facilities, one probably is a central region over here on the eastern portion and
then put one probably in that location. We'd also coordinate those with your Planning
Department and Public Works to make sure that they are -- they are located
appropriately as far as concerning the drainage areas. This particular project we have
met the requirement of the five percent. In fact, we exceed that. It's just a little over five
percent. We have got about 9.4 acres of open space, approximately, excluding the
park. Of that 9.4, about six of that is eligible for the open space calculation for the five
percent. This particular area on your new Comprehensive Plan I believe is designated
for medium density. This isn't an extremely dense project, but nor is it a very low-
density project. We did have a neighbor meeting and met with the residents. This
particular site in unusual. We have, I think, like 13 stub streets, which, for a project of
this size of only 119 acres, is a lot. We did that, obviously, to facilitate interconnection
between the existing properties. Along our northern boundary here along McMillan
Road, we have existing five-acre lots called Crestwood Estates. Then located here in
our eastern portion next to Locust Grove we have, I believe, some additional five-acre
lots. We have tried to position those the best we can. We, obviously, logistically,
cannot stub to every single lot, but we can do our best to try to space them
appropriately so we get some interconnection. Staff agreed to the easement here and I
think that's an excellent idea, so that at some point in time if five acres that adjoins that
collector were to redevelop, they could interconnect with our collector. I provided a stub
street here, because we have a five-acre parcel right at the intersection and those
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 36 of 84
parcels that are at the intersection are the ones in the future that are probably most
likely to be restricted for access if they are to redevelop. That was one reason we put
that stub street here. Staff has asked to either remove -- remove or relocate that stub
street located there along that eastern boundary. We are in agreement with staff on
that. This particular project would be serviced off of the White Drain Trunk. That trunk
line comes through Heritage Commons on our southern boundary. The trunk line will
be extended up north. For the record, that trunk line will service all of this area here, up
to this point. Everything west of the western boundary of the elementary school site
would have to be serviced off of a temporary lift station. The reason being is that trunk
line at some point in time on your facilities plan is intended to go up Meridian Road -- I
had to think about it -- up Meridian Road north and then when it comes through the
adjoining 60 acres to the west, it would come into this project and then this western
portion would gravity. The bulk of this would gravity down to the White Drain Trunk, the
remainder on that western side would have to go to a temporary lift station until such
time as the Starkey property were to develop, which is the 60 acres on our western
boundary. Water service will be available in North Locust Grove. We will have to
extend a 12-inch line up Locust Grove from Heritage Commons. Bruce has indicated in
his comments that there are two water pressure zones. It happens -- it's convenient
that the water pressure zones basically match the sewer -- the way the sewer breaks
also. That is also that western boundary of that elementary school site. If we were to
develop that western portion, we would need to extend water from McMillan Road, a 16
inch either up McMillan Road -- or I mean, excuse me, up toward Meridian Road and
then a 12-inch in McMillan Road or come through an adjoining property that is basically
already laid out. They are expected to bring in a Development Plan here shortly, and
then we could extend a main line through them. We have shown that we have two
particular phases, one starting on one end, and one starting on the other. We do that
anytime we have differing product lines. Obviously, the marketing of a project is
increased if you're offering different types of lot sizes and homes sizes and, obviously,
home values and that's what we intend. As far as the school site, their timetable on that
-- they talked about like 2005. Obviously, that always depends on their budgeting and
their bonds. We are reserving that site for the school district. We have gone through
staff's comments. I think we are pretty much in agreement concerning the Preliminary
Plat comments. I bolded those -- Item 1 and 2, just to let you know that we have met
with staff, we have discussed the water issues, the sewer issues. We are aware of
what will be required of us and I believe everything else we are in agreement, with the
exception of we did have a problem with the Fire Department's comments concerning
the 30 lots.
Centers: Becky, let me interrupt. On Page 2, your number system seems to
correspond with the --
Bowcutt: Yes, sir.
Centers: -- confusion here tonight. Do you see it?
Bowcutt: Yes. I always -- I just match whatever they have, so that --
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 37 of 84
Centers: Because your bolded Number 5 -- they are talking about a fence and you're
talking about an easement so you're going to clarify?
Bowcutt: Yes. Yes. I'm talking about a roadway and I think we are in agreement, so I
don't think that's an issue.
Centers: Which is their item that you're in disagreement with? Help me find it.
Mathes: Number 7.
Centers: Number 7?
Bowcutt: Right. You just renumbered them. I follow them as it was given to me.
Centers: Okay. Got you.
Bowcutt: You see what I'm saying? You guys renumbered them. When I number mine,
I try to -- even if it is not in numerical order, I try to match it.
Centers: Thank you. We are fine.
Freckleton: Commissioner Centers, staff does that just to see if you guys read them.
Centers: See if we are on our toes.
Freckleton: Right.
Bowcutt: I think that concludes my presentation. I would be glad to answer any
questions you guys may have.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I have one question. You know, the staff thought that moving
that stub street to the north would be more applicable, but I think they went on to say
that that property owner could care less. Have you talked to that property owner?
Bowcutt: I have not spoken to this property owner here, but we have provided two stub
streets there.
Centers: I see that.
Bowcutt: Staff did kind of a pseudo layout, you know, just kind of sketching it to see
how it could interconnect and so I believe they determined that that was adequate. If
we put too many stub streets, sometimes that causes real problems and constraints to
their site design.
Centers: And didn't you say, Bruce, that that property owner was irrelevant -- I mean
not irrelevant, but didn't really care one way or the other?
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 38 of 84
Siddoway: That's correct.
Centers: Okay.
Siddoway: I had some indications at first that they were going to request that it did
stub, but then he basically told me that they could work with it either way. If you want to
just eliminate it, I think that's fine.
Borup: I guess to me whether the stub would be beneficial would depend on the layout
of the other property.
Centers: Yes.
Borup: And I'd still like to see that, but if -- the staff's comment on if it isn't, you know,
anyone of this section, you could come clear up and around and out over here or -- you
know, they have a long ways to go to get over to here. There are two stub streets,
Becky, to Heritage Commons is that correct?
Bowcutt: Yes, sir. We matched their design and the property just east of the cul-d-sac
there on the southeast corner. I met -- there is two five-acre lots owned by two sisters
and they have existing homes on there. I did meet with them months ago and it was
their preference that we not provide a stub street and in our conversations I
recommended a cul-d-sac to minimize the number of lots that backed up to them and
they were in agreement and so we did follow --
Borup: That's down below --
Bowcutt: Yes, sir. We did follow what we promised those residents.
Borup: Okay. Anything else from any of the Commissioners?
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, Bruce has worked out a potential layout. I mean it's not the --
it's not the developer's necessarily, but it will work and it does provide good
interconnectivity, so I think our preference is to stub it. I think our preference is to stub
it, but -- to the north, but I don't think it's a do or die issue.
Borup: About what phase -- Becky, this would be way along in the phasing, I am
assuming.
Bowcutt: Yes, sir. That would probably be about in the middle of the phasing, as you
would start at Locust Grove.
Borup: So if the developer -- and by that time I assume we would have a plan on that
other -- on the other parcel that it could be coordinated with or we don't know. Okay.
Well, Steve, how does staff usually handle phasing -- of changes in phasing as it
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 39 of 84
progresses? Is there option to adjust? I mean the developers adjust. Do they come
and ask you? Can it work both ways?
Siddoway: In the past we have held pretty strictly to the proposed phasing plan, but --
Borup: As far as exact layout?
Siddoway: Yes. Exact. I mean like to the point of making sure they match exactly, but
there was recently -- I can't remember the project -- where they recommended some
flexibility and --
Bowcutt: Bridgetower Crossing East and Lochsa Falls.
Siddoway: They asked to have the ability to basically follow the basic phasing plan, but
have the ability to do maybe, you know, half of a phase or two phases as one or -- you
know. As long as they are following the general sequence that's shown and that was
approved for Bridgetower.
Borup: But the street design and layout needs to stay the same, too, you're saying?
Siddoway: Yes oh, definitely. Definitely.
Borup: Okay.
Centers: Let me ask -- these are probably five acre parcels or what do we have here,
Becky?
Bowcutt: Those are fives.
Centers: Okay and this is all one property owner?
Bowcutt: Yes, sir.
Centers: And this is to scale?
Bowcutt: Yes. Those should be the same scale as the subdivision.
Centers: I have a feeling that this property owner could care less about that stub,
because he's going to come in just like that and cut it right down the middle, like another
sub that we saw about four or five months ago and have lots on each side and one way
in and one way out. I don't think a stub would do him any good is why he didn't care.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Siddoway: Would you like to see the layout Bruce has come up with?
Centers: Yes.
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 40 of 84
Bowcutt: He's proud of it.
Siddoway: Basically, if you look at that layout, you can see that it would work with the
stubs as proposed. If that stub were not there, it could be cul-d-sac'd. I think, in
summary, it just shows that it can work and if that stub were not there, the end of that
street would simply be cul-d-sac'd.
Centers: Yes.
Siddoway: It just works to break up the blocks.
Centers: How do you feel about that?
Bowcutt: As far as what Bruce designed I think that's probably the most reasonable
way that that property could be developed. I think you're correct. Bring that straight in.
Centers: Well -- and the reason I like it, Becky, is -- I don't know -- I can't remember the
subdivision. It went through -- all the way through. I didn't like it, but there was one way
in and one way out and so I have to agree with Bruce, this gives another access. I
never did like that other particular sub, because, you know -- and it was deep like that.
It went in and that was it. Anyway --
Borup: Okay any other comments or questions? All right. Thank you. Okay. We have
an opportunity for anyone else to come forward and testify on the application, if you'd
like to come forward at this time.
Graham: Members of the Commission, my name is Laird Graham and I live with my
family at 4191 North Locust Grove Road. It's Lot 12, Crestwood Subdivision.
Borup: Are you right on the corner then? Right here?
Graham: No. I'm the second lot from the south in Crestwood. You divide a lot on the
south on Locust Grove and then I'm --
Borup: Oh. Okay.
Graham: Now I'm one lot south. Right there.
Borup: Okay.
Graham: As for the impact of Havasu Creek on our property and our way of live, we'd
like to make the following requests. Our 10-acre lot, which fronts on Locust Grove
Road to the east, is approximately 350 by 1,250 feet. The building site, as we can see
by the aerial, is at the west end -- the back west end of the property. Our nearest out
building is 33 feet and our back yard is within 80 feet of the west property line. Our
neighbor on the south, Lot 13 Crestwood Sub, and the north, Lot 11, has similar
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 41 of 84
situations. Therefore, since it's our desire to maintain some privacy of our own sites
and provide a more gradual site line transition to the west, we ask that the above-
ground portion of the homes built on lots joining our lots, including the cul-d-sac in the
southeast corner of the development, be limited to one level construction. The second
point. We are asking for a six-foot vinyl privacy fence to be installed on our west
property line. We'd like it to be similar in quality and color to a vinyl four rail fence to be
built on Lot 13's south property line, buffering it from Heritage Commons Subdivision,
which is currently under development. A long vinyl fence has also been built around a
home site in the northeast -- excuse me -- northwest corner of the section, apparently in
preparation for a future project, that would be the heretofore-mentioned Starkey
property. Number 3 a provision be made for us to, at a later date, hook up services,
sewer, water, gas, telephone, cable, et cetera, through one of the lots that our property
adjoins. We would prefer it to be in the area of the southwest corner of our property.
Number 4 the irrigation water for the proposed subdivision, we would like it to continue
to come out of the local ditch, that's known as the Parkins-Norse Lateral. At the
informational meeting, it was suggested it might be routed to the pressurized irrigation
system via a different canal, but Crestwood Subdivision needs it to stay in the ditch to
maintain pressure. Number 5.
Borup: I'm a little confused on that. Did you say they were talking about rerouting the
water in your ditch or --
Graham: At the informational meeting, very informal, of course, the representative of
Farwest suggested they might take that water out of our lateral, down I believe it's
called the Starkey Canal, and then pick it up -- and I gathered over by their McMillan
entrance.
Borup: And your concern is that you will not have water available to your property?
Siddoway: We will lose head if they take their water out of the ditch. We don't have
any qualms -- or any dispute with the fact that they are deserving of the water, their
water has always been in our ditch, but we need it to deliver through our ditch.
Borup: Okay. Go ahead. You could repeat anything she said, if that would help clarify.
Graham: Well, Vanessa was asking if we are clear on that. I will go on. Item Number 5
a wastewater facility sufficient to handle the irrigation runoff. We feel it needs to be
larger than the minimum as would be calculated based on the water allotment, because
available volume can vary and we want to be able to take advantage of it without
causing flooding in the development. Maximizing use of the available water may also
have implications for replenishment of our shallow water aquifer, which most of us in the
Crestwood Subdivision -- from which most of get our domestic water. Finally, it was my
understanding from the informational meeting and now again tonight that the southeast
corner of the proposed project is the final phase and where we sit east of that piece of
ground, we would ask that some sort of cover crop be planted there to keep the dirt
down in the summertime. That's all I have.
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 42 of 84
Borup: Any questions from the Commission?
Centers: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Graham -- well, your Item 6, the cover crop, I would --
they wouldn't be going to do -- you know, they wouldn't be doing anything there until --
they wouldn't be cutting streets for about three or four months prior to developing that
phase, so it would be left in its natural state, you know. You're asking a cover crop in
addition to what it is now.
Graham: Well, let me explain.
Centers: I don't know what it is now.
Graham: It's a turf farm. It's a turf farm that's been harvested and so it's bare dirt at
this time and has been a good part of the summer and when we get those west winds, I
mean we literally get blanketed and it's always been something we have contended
with, but, for the most part, there has always been grass there. It would just be the
occasion before the grass -- after the grass came off and before they tilled it and put it
back into grass that we would have the condition. This summer particularly -- and now
if it takes years to get to this phase, it was a much longer period of time that we have to
contend with that. It's -- you know, we are in the country and we are used to a little dust
all right, but we are talking about layers on your cars. My neighbor to the north said that
he was out by his barn one day when it happened and he couldn't see his house.
Centers: So you're going through that now and have been?
Graham: Yes. When the wind --
Centers: You're not in the city right now?
Graham: No.
Centers: But your Item 3 was -- obviously, I made notes. You want to hook up to city
services and not be annexed? Or would you like to be annexed?
Graham: Well, as I was putting this together, thought perhaps I would like to, but --
Centers: You thought maybe that as little -- stretching it a little bit, did you?
Graham: Okay. I suppose we could assume eventually we will be annexed there. I
think the city has wandered all around us and so while I'm not an expert on this, I'm
confident that will come to pass.
Borup: Traditionally, the city would not annex you unless you requested annexation.
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 43 of 84
Centers: But the city is not in the habit of providing services unless you're in the city
either, so it's --
Graham: I guess it raises the issue. We are a long ways off Locust Grove and to get a
gas line down there to get any kind of service to that -- to our home is prohibitively
expensive. At the same time, I'm on a 20 year old well, I'm on a 20 year old septic
system, and so I guess suffice it to say I threw it in for discussion to see what might
come of it. Also would it be possible to make the provision without actually doing a
hook up, in which case it wouldn't have to be annexed until we did make the hook up.
Centers: That's about all I have.
Graham: Thank you.
Borup: Thank you.
Klaus: My name is Vanessa Klaus. I live at 4055 North Locust Grove Road so that's
my place right there. As Laird said, it would be good, since we are being encroached
upon our own little private Idaho -- I'm trying to make you guys feel bad. Okay? I think
it would be reasonable to ask for the six foot vinyl privacy fence, in addition to I would
like to see six foot Hollywood juniper planted six feet apart as a privacy barrier as well,
somewhere along that -- that property line. Crestwood Subdivision -- there are two 10-
acre lots -- actually, the one that is split into five-acre parcels -- right there. Thank you --
is actually a 10-acre parcel as well. The man owns both of them so there are actually
three 10 acre home sites right there bordering, along with the two five acre sites of my
sister and I. We would like to have some privacy there. We would also like to ask to
continue to take the live water via the Parkins-Norse Lateral, rather than the Starkey
ditch. It allows us to maintain the head and there is no way we will get our crops
watered, our pastured watered, if they take their portion of their water and reroute it to
another ditch. I would also like to reiterate, as did Mr. Graham, that we would like to
maintain our access to wastewater drainage, south to north, as we currently do. It's a
very nice subdivision, although it's -- nice to look at. As you can see -- what I would like
to clarify is I think that Becky said something about adding an access. What was the --
where is -- there was some amendment to the submitted paperwork that said where the
stub street added you were going to change it to cross-access easement. What's that?
Siddoway: I can clarify that.
Klaus: Okay.
Siddoway: Up here near McMillan Road and this five-acre parcel, in alignment with this
street, it originally said that they would need to stub over to this property. Rather than
just having it stub with curb returns going into the property, we are just saying provide
an access and a utility easement in this location to get to this property and we would
like that to be 50 feet wide.
Klaus: Okay. All right. Thank you. That's all I have.
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 44 of 84
Centers: I have a question. Is it Mrs. --
Klaus: Ms. Klaus.
Centers: Klaus. Okay. This is 119 acres, I believe.
Klaus: Yes 325 homes.
Centers: Yes 119 acres, though and the irrigation water -- correct me if I'm wrong --
there is so much per acre isn't that correct?
Klaus: Yes.
Centers: So they are entitled to 119 let's say shares?
Klaus: We agree with their entitlement. We would love them to take it.
Centers: What happens now to the head, as you refer to it, when this property owner
irrigates any crops that they do have?
Klaus: It doesn't do anything to our head if they take it down our ditch the way they
currently do, the property owners take that down our ditch, and their portion of the water
coming down the ditch, plus our portion of the water, gives us the driving force to
irrigate, so --
Centers: I guess I wanted your agreement that they are entitled to 119 shares.
Klaus: Oh, we would never dispute their entitlement to life water.
Centers: Very good.
Klaus: We would beg that they would, please, take their life water down the current
path, so that we would be able to continue to irrigate.
Centers: Well, I think the Irrigation District would be involved in that, too.
Klaus: Yes.
Centers: So -- very good.
Klaus: Yes.
Borup: Do we have anyone else? Okay. Becky, did you have any concluding
comments?
Klaus: Can I just add one more thing?
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 45 of 84
Borup: Come on up.
Klaus: I think that at some point it would lovely for this Committee to also consider
connectivity of all the subdivisions going in. As we have it now, we have several
subdivisions in our area that are disconnected by incontiguous sidewalks. The
subdivision does their job of putting the sidewalks in and then they are broken up, so
you have a lot of people and --
Borup: You're talking about on the --
Klaus: On the main roads.
Borup: On the main roads.
Klaus: Locust Grove and McMillan. If you drive around that area, you will notice lots of
kids on the shoulder of the road.
Borup: We are concerned about that. It's not a lot that this Commission can control.
That's under ACHD's jurisdiction. The city does require sidewalks put in everywhere, so
that there will be sidewalks along here and sidewalks along here, so that we can
control. Beyond that, that's someone else's property. That would be in front of your
property, part of it.
Klaus: Not mine.
Borup: Your sister's.
Klaus: Yes.
Borup: Becky, did you have a final comment?
Bowcutt: I will be brief. I'll just address some of the questions that arose from some of
the residents. Concerning Mr. Graham's comment about the single-story, typically we
find that when we have a development that is along a person's eastern boundary or
northern boundary where the view is of the Boise front. Then we find that they are
concerned about single-story. Or if we have property that is elevated above their
property, kind of on a little bit of a bench and overlooking their property, as we had at
Thousand Springs, we have concerns about single-story. Normally, you know, when we
have such a distance -- when I scale Mr. Graham's house, it scales at about 200 feet,
approximately, between his home and our eastern boundary and then I have a lot that
adjoins that that has a depth of 181 feet on one side and 154 feet on the other lot line. I
was really cognizant of the fact that we did have these larger 10-acre lots and I tried to
utilize cul-d-sacs, utilize a knuckle, and make these lots as deep and a large as
possible. If you have got a 200 foot distance and then you have got like a 20 foot front
yard setback, I mean you could have, you know, 350 feet between homes. I think that's
something to keep in mind. Secondly, you brought up the vinyl fencing. We typically try
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 46 of 84
to work with the adjoining property owners to come up with, you know, some fencing
that meets the needs of both the urban and the rural. My client has always utilized
either cedar board fencing or wrought iron fencing and he's never been a fan or
proponent of vinyl fencing. I guess we would like to talk to them and see if we have any
other options, such as picture frame or some upgraded feature, maybe we go with
metal posts, but with wood, the six foot -- the height is fine. Concerning --
Borup: Becky?
Bowcutt: Yes, sir.
Borup: Any reason why he's got a problem with vinyl fencing?
Bowcutt: I guess it's just a personal preference. It's a personal preference.
Borup: Well, it is a lot more expensive than cedar fencing, but not wrought iron.
Bowcutt: Yes wrought iron if you upgrade to the -- the third item was the hook up of
water and sewer service. I don't know -- I guess Bruce would have to comment on that
as far as what their plan shows for service for these properties. All the stub streets that
we provide -- obviously, if it's feasible due to sewer depth and then, obviously, water,
are stubbed at those locations. We typically keep those sewer and water mains in the
right of ways and we don't run down side lot lines, because of maintenance problems
and access and so forth.
Borup: Not only don't, I don't think the city would allow it.
Bowcutt: Yes. They don't I don't believe they do allow it. I know the City of Boise will
not allow it so I don't know. I guess Bruce would have to comment on what his estimate
of future service of these properties from Locust Grove would be irrigation water. This
property -- there are two parcels, that Han property and then the Medco property to the
west. The property on the eastern portion that you see was serviced off of the Parkins-
Norse Lateral. What we have had happen is that property, is my understanding, and
has been taken out of agricultural production a few years ago. However, that property's
water rights are still being turned down the ditch, which, therefore, has allowed plenty of
water for the adjoining five-acre lots. The western portion was irrigated off of the
Starkey Lateral so when we deal with Settlers Irrigation District, we have to determine
which source. We have three sources out there Parkins-Norse, Starkey Lateral, and
the Settlers main canal along McMillan Road. They look at those from the perspective
of which facility has the capacity to handle an urban pump station for a project of this
size. It's up to the district and they, obviously, work with civil engineers to determine
what is the best point of the delivery. In our conversations with Nathan Draper, he
stated that he would gladly meet and speak with these neighbors if they had questions
concerning irrigation. I, obviously, can't promise water to them that this property is
entitled to so I don't know how to work through that issue. Drainage. Obviously, State
Law takes care of drainage. If they are any drainage ditches, which would take
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 47 of 84
wastewater from these properties across our parcel, it is our responsibility to do
continue that on. Dust and a cover crop. If irrigation facilities are available, we typically
try to keep something on those properties, such as hay, which is a good cover crop. If
it's under construction, then, obviously, you typically don't have a crop and I guess the
main thing is dust control, watering, and so forth. Vanessa's concerns were pretty much
in line with Mr. Graham's, other than the juniper trees along that boundary and that
would, obviously, go on private lots, so, you know, it would kind of be up to the property
owners on how they wanted to landscape those. We do have a real good project. We
have really tried hard -- it's always difficult to try to have a good transition when we are
up against estate size lots, whether that be acre, five acres, or 10. We have tried here
to minimize the impact and provide some stub streets, which would, obviously, have
sewer and water for redevelopment and do what we can. This is kind of a tough piece
of ground that we have to work with. Lastly, the only other comment was the Fire
Department and the issue of the 30-lot threshold for secondary access. All the projects
that I have had going onto the Council lately, we have been disagreeing with the Fire
Department on that issue, because they are quoting the International Fire Code, which
Mr. Silva indicated to me that the City of Meridian has not officially adopted and will not
until around the first of the year. At least that's what he told me. I always have a
problem with them imposing requirements that are not part of their adopted policies. He
-- the 30 lots is not the project in its entirety, but he's looking at it from a phase-to-phase
perspective. Obviously, we are trying to make as many interconnections as we can.
We will have a sewer access road coming from the south at Heritage Commons. We
do our best, but that is a pretty low threshold of 30 lots. When we build those 20-foot
wide gravel, temporary, secondary access roads that can handle 75,000 GVW, they are
not cheap, and that gravel is contaminated, it's wasted, we can't utilize it for our
roadways. I just want to go on the record that we do object to that. I think it was, what,
Item 8? Thank you.
Borup: Becky? Anyone else have some questions? What has been -- I'm back to the
30 lots. He was proposing 30 lots total, so 15 in each phase? Is that what you just
said?
Bowcutt: No. No. No. His comment is any portion of the project that has 30 lots or
greater, must have some secondary means of access, whether it be permanent or
temporary.
Centers: A minimum of two.
Bowcutt: Minimum of two. Yes.
Borup: Access to --
Centers: Two points of access.
Borup: To the arterial?
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 48 of 84
Bowcutt: To the arterial.
Borup: But you only have two, unless you count Heritage Commons.
Bowcutt: We have the two stub streets to Heritage Commons, obviously, depending on
their phasing when those would be activated, but we have got the sewer coming up
through there, so we will have to have a gravel road over that sewer, I believe. Bruce,
is that not correct? I don't think that was a condition. When we extend sewer from
Heritage Commons north to say first phase off of Locust Grove will we not have to have
a 14-foot gravel service road over that sewer main extension?
Freckleton: You will have to have, yes.
Bowcutt: Yes.
Borup: What has been the past --
Bowcutt: Threshold?
Borup: Yes.
Bowcutt: One hundred lots because that was --
Borup: That's what I was remembering.
Bowcutt: That was direct from ACHD, because ACHD's policy manual says that you
can have one point of ingress and egress for anything less than 100 lots. When you hit
that 100, you must have two points of ingress and egress.
Borup: A couple years ago, we approved one that was 150. I remember that it had
gone down. That's what I remember, that it was 100.
Bowcutt: And that's what we have always utilized for a secondary emergency access
was 100.
Borup: It was 150.
Bowcutt: Was it? I had one that was like 110 or something like that and I believe
Kenny Bowers said that -- you know, he would allowed 110, but then after that you have
got to have your secondary access.
Borup: Okay any other questions from the Commission? All right. Thank you.
Bowcutt: Thank you.
Borup: Commissioners? Discussion?
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 49 of 84
Rohm: I believe we had another comment here.
Borup: Need to make it in a hurry. We have closed -- I mean we thought we were
finished with the public testimony.
Graham: Laird Graham 4191 North Locust Grove Road once again. In reference to the
single lot -- single level home issue, there is precedence with -- on this Commission for
requiring that. On May 16th
, there was quite a discussion of the Sutherland Farms
Subdivision as it related to the Sasser property and to the Los Altos Subdivision. I have
been out and driven around that area. I just --
Centers: Let me interrupt, Mr. Graham. That was a subdivision that was adjacent to
Sutherland. It was not one home. It was a subdivision. Los Altos has about 15 lots
within it. Okay.
Graham: Okay. I guess I only bring up the Sasser property, because it seemed to be
kind of a driving force in that conversation and now the way -- I see the way it lays
relative to the Los Altos Subdivision, they are kind of the same issue. There are some -
-
Borup: And I think that was part of the -- part of the concern on that project was the
grading, the height difference, as Becky had mentioned.
Graham: Right which does apply to the west end of that situation, which would be the
Sasser property, and the west end of Los Altos. By the time you get to the -- midway
through the third or fourth home in Los Altos moving east, the grade becomes almost
level and yet it was required by -- if I understand it correctly, by this Commission, that
those lots all along the Sasser property and the Los Altos Subdivision would be single
level homes. Now, I might digress a little bit. We have been here for 12 years and we
have really enjoyed the country-like atmosphere. We understanding this is going to go
on and we are ready for it, but we don't feel that we should have to agree to something
that is seriously going to infringe on our lifestyle. As I stand at my home and look out
into that field, granted, it's 200, 300 feet, or thereabouts. It's not very far out there --
300 feet is not very far out there and if a large home comes in with upstairs windows
looking to the east, guarantee, they are going to be looking right down on top of
Vanessa or I and my neighbor to the north, Lonnie Johnson. Then, again, in the June
20th
zoning meeting there was a considerable amount of discussion about this same
issue. They talked quite a bit about, well, are we going to limit it to single-story or are
we going to limit it to ridge height and I think you agreed that it would be limited to ridge
height and I think you came up with 25 feet. Most notable about the minutes from
meeting are just a couple remarks that came out of there where Mr. Borup said, well,
we are protecting, in this case, Los Altos and the Sasser property's privacy. What about
those people who live within these subdivisions and have the small lots and maybe in a
cul-d-sac and they are encircled by two story houses. Mr. Shreeve, who I gather is no
longer part of this Commission, responded he understood that, but Los Altos, in this
case, or Crestwood in our case, are there. We are people who are there, who are living
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 50 of 84
there and have to live with this situation. Mrs. Bowcutt is not going to live there, she's
only going to sell the lots, and so I think that it should defer to the people who live there
and whose lifestyle is going to be infringed upon by how this is constructed. As far as
the fencing goes, I'm not a fan of vinyl fence, either. Just -- as we all know, this county
and all over, the country is riddled with shabby-looking cedar fences and particularly
these perimeter fences, people don't claim responsibility for their upkeep and the
reason we are asking for that is two things. First of all, it is consistent with what's going
to happen on Lot 13, south boundary, for material and it's also going to -- while it may
not be your favorite material for fence, it's going to look as good five years from now as
it looks today and probably be a better animal fence than the cedar would be.
Centers: What kind of fence do you have now, Mr. Graham?
Graham: Around my pasture I have pole and wire. I recently put in 250 feet of post and
pole around my yard and that is my preference, natural wood fence, but in this case,
back on that property line, I think low or no maintenance material is what I would like to
have.
Centers: So it's going to be a fence on their property adjacent to your fence? It's not
going to be on the property line, it's going to be on their property, I would assume.
Graham: Okay. I'm not sure how that works, but if you say so.
Centers: Well, if I were putting the fence up, I would want to make darn sure it was on
my property.
Graham: Back there I have a -- again, a post and wire.
Centers: So it's going to back up to the -- you're going to have two fences, then.
Graham: It's probably going to help our situation back there, because it's in pretty poor
shape but there will be two fences I guess. Is that what they do, they erect them that
far apart and --
Borup: Unless your fence is over the property line.
Graham: No comment.
Centers: Well, in reference to your recollection of minutes from previous meetings,
okay? I don't know if it was recollection or if you were here or -- they are public record,
of course. Each application -- each project is different. There is none that are alike and
there are different requirements for each. The distance from your home to their
property, you admit, is 300 feet. That's a football field. I think when you look at it like
that a football field is quite a distance.
Graham: I don't dispute --
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 51 of 84
Centers: If you're standing --
Graham: -- from my home to the other home, from my back yard, it would be 100 or
so --
Centers: If you're standing at the goal line and you're looking to the other goal line, you
can look way over a two-story house, if you can visualize a football field. You know, I
don't think you're going to see a difference between a single level and a two level. I
really don't. I'm just trying to visualize it myself.
Graham: I'm trying to visualize it myself. Go out there and put a --
Centers: Well, I mean you're going to have a house and a two-story is -- Mr. Chairman,
is 12 feet higher 15?
Borup: No two-story would be about nine feet higher.
Centers: Nine feet higher. In 100 yards away, are you going to notice nine feet?
Graham: Well, not that it's a problem on this Commission or anybody else, but we are
used to looking at the sun disappear into the ground out there.
Centers: I understand that.
Graham: And we know that's going away and it would with any kind of structure. I
guess I maintain, without going out there and somehow elevating myself to the level of
a second story window, I maintain that they are going to be looking down into my
property and I'm sure not going to be looking at theirs. In my case, I'm a single-story.
Vanessa is also. I don't dispute what you're saying. I probably would like to reiterate
the fact that we are the homeowners and we are there and to allow a two story home to
be built there is basically going with the wishes of somebody who is only going to be
there for as long as it takes to get that home developed. Then they are gone and we
are going to be left with the residue and so --
Borup: Anything else?
Graham: I might make mention. It didn't come back up, but the cover crop -- kind of a
general term -- just something to hold the dirt down is what I have in my --
Centers: She mentioned -- yes. In fact, I made note.
Klaus: Vanessa Klaus 4055 North Locust Grove. I'm still going to reiterate my request
for the vinyl fencing. Mr. Turnbull doesn't like vinyl fencing either, he's never done it
anywhere else, he did it for us, and we’d love it if you'd do it. I still think it's reasonable
to expect single level dwellings bordering on five to 10 acre parcels. I continue to hear
over and over how the Council is sympathetic to current homeowners, growth, and
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 52 of 84
overgrowth. I continue -- you know, I'm just now reaping the realities of Heritage
Subdivision. I had to fight a black tarp engulfing my truck as I came to the meeting
tonight. So -- you know, the things they put over the cement so it dries. Okay. Have
had to -- anyway, I'll make it brief. I think that it's reasonable to ask for the single level
dwellings in order to preserve some privacy and I think it would be reflective of the
sympathies of the committee if you could take that into consideration. Thank you.
Centers: Mrs. Klaus?
Klaus: Yes. Ms. Klaus.
Centers: Ms. I’m sorry. I was here.
Klaus: Yes, you were.
Centers: Yes and what type of fence did Heritage put in?
Klaus: They put in vinyl fencing.
Centers: Right here?
Klaus: They put in four rail vinyl fencing consistent with the horse ranch that we have
going there along the south of our property, graduating to just west of my drive, they
graduate to a five rail vinyl fence, 50 feet from the west most point of my property, they
graduate to a six foot off-white vinyl fence. That will be for 50 feet from east to west,
the back part of my property. It's going to look pretty strange if we do some different
fencing. I'm in alignment with Laird Graham. I have roundy pole, which is very
expensive, as well as I have chain link across the back of my fence. I anticipate I will
have to tear out my fencing, because I'm one of those neat freaks and I like all my
fencing to look the same. It's going to cost me some money to go to white -- or off-
white vinyl along the perimeters of my property and --
Centers: I get the point.
Klaus: Thank you.
Centers: Thank you.
Borup: Okay. Becky, did you have any comments you'd like to make? Okay.
Centers: I think we get the drift. Mr. Graham wants to speak again, Mr. Chairman.
Borup: We need to have you finish your comments while you're up here.
Graham: Laird Graham once again. My neighbor to the north was unable to be here
tonight. He's had some illness in his family, which has taken a lot of his time. His home
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 53 of 84
is probably 50 to 100 feet further west than mine and then he has a pool facility, which
is probably another 50 feet or thereabouts, further west. The arrow is on it and I just
wanted to point out that -- how he would be impacted in this question also.
Rohm: Is his a single-story home?
Graham: His is a two-story home.
Centers: Good question. I would move that we close the Public Hearing.
Mathes: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Borup: Discussion? Revision to any staff comments? Did we have --
Centers: I have got them all noted.
Borup: Okay any discussion you want there?
Centers: Well, I think that Mr. Freckleton should take up a side job as a draftsman and I
would agree with that stub to the north. I think everyone would, wouldn't they? They
are going to have to realign the plat there a little bit. I think it means the loss of maybe
one lot.
Borup: And they'd probably redesign it so it wouldn't. If they eliminate the stub street
and do just a circle there, they are going to lose a lot anyway, but I mean just a right
angle on the street -- if they did a bowl in there, they might still gain one back, but I don't
think they can and have the frontage -- required frontage without a frontage reduction. I
may be wrong.
Centers: And I guess the way -- you know, we listen to the two adjoining homeowners
and I -- and, you know, we listen with open ears and we absorb it and as I told Mr.
Graham, each application -- each case is different and has to be considered differently.
I guess regarding the six foot vinyl fence, I think the way I would like to word that is that
developer to meet with the adjoining property owners on the -- that would be the east
side of the subdivision and try and comply with their wishes for a six foot vinyl fence. If
he -- if he has budgeted five -- three dollars per lineal foot and the six foot vinyl is six
dollars per lineal foot, and those people want to pay the difference, you know, I would
say that's up to them to work it out -- try and work it out. To simply make it a
requirement for that part of the subdivision, they have fencing going in, but I can't see
requiring vinyl for just that part of the subdivision. I think we've covered everything else.
I think we should require that until they complete the phases, that a cover crop of their
choosing be in until they start the infrastructure of the various phasing.
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 54 of 84
Borup: I believe in one of the last projects we did have a requirement of a steel post on
one, rather than allowing wood posts.
Centers: Yes I think --
Borup: Because of the -- the concern there was the longevity and the fence holding up
and --
Centers: Yes I would -- that would be fine. I think the applicant mentioned that.
Borup: Okay anything else that -- and Becky mentioned the water runoff needs to be --
it would need to continue.
Centers: Yes. I think as the applicant stated, they are regulated in that regard by
certain agencies. Mr. Chairman, I would like to recommend approval of Item 7, AZ 02-
022, request for annexation and zoning of 119.83 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for the
proposed Havasu Creek Sub by Farwest, LLC, south of East McMillan Road and west
of North Locust Grove Road, including all staff comments. That would be it on the
zoning. Other than Page 1 of the staff notes that, it is 119.83 acres, not 1,196.
Borup: Okay. We have a motion.
Mathes: Second.
Borup: And a second. Any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I would also like to recommend approval to the City Council for
Item 8, PP 02-019, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 328 and 27 other lots on
119.83 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Havasu Creek Sub by Farwest, LLC,
south of East McMillan Road and west of North Locust Grove Road. Including all staff
comments, with the following changes, Page 6, Number 1 at the bottom eliminate.
Page 7, Item 2, relocate the intended stub street to the property north of Lots 25 and 26
of Block 10 in alignment with North Mooney Falls Way.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Centers, if I could just direct you -- those items show up
in the site-specific comments, which is where we actually need to make those changes.
On Page 9, the new Number 7 and 8 they were -- used to be 5 and 6.
Centers: I have got you.
Siddoway: Okay.
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 55 of 84
Centers: You could strike that and then we would refer to Page 9, Item 8 we would be
adding the stub street to the north with the verbiage: Property north of Lots 25 and 26 of
Block 10 in alignment with North Mooney Falls Way. Continuing on Page 9, Item 7,
which was Number 5, line out new stub street and insert Cross-Access Easement and
public utility easement.
Siddoway: And could we make that 50-foot, 50-foot wide?
Centers: Fifty foot.
Siddoway: For a standard Public Road access.
Centers: You got it and then the -- so Item 8, which I covered earlier, is below that,
obviously. Then you have 9 and 10, which were previously 7 and 8. I think anything
requiring the cover crop and the fence we do on the CUP, wouldn't we? Yes, so that
would be the end of motion, including all other staff comments.
Rohm: I will second that.
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Centers: Continuing on. I would recommend approval for CUP 02-028, request for a
Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development with 327 single-family
dwellings, one elementary school, and 27 common lots for proposed Havasu Creek Sub
by Farwest, LLC, south of East McMillan Road and west of North Locust Grove,
including all staff comments. In addition, developer to be required to maintain a cover
crop on land not being developed or until the infrastructure for that phase started.
Developer to work with adjoining landowners on the east, specifically Ms. Klaus and Mr.
Graham, regarding a vinyl fence. If they can't work out their differences on a vinyl
fence, at least will be required to install a six-foot wood with steel posts. End of motion.
Rohm: I will second that.
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Borup: Thank you. That concludes that application. Would the Commission like a
short break at this time?
Centers: Yes, please.
(Recess at 9:50 P.M.)
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 56 of 84
(Reconvene at 10:05 P.M.)
Item 10. Public Hearing: AZ 02-023 Request for annexation and zoning of 6.06
acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Moshers Farm Subdivision
by CMD, Inc. – 895 North Ten Mile Road:
Item 11. Public Hearing: PP 02-021 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 26
building lots and 6 other lots on 6.06 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for
proposed Moshers Farm Subdivision by CMD, Inc. – 895 North Ten Mile
Road:
Item 12. Public Hearing: CUP 02-031 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Unit Development for 25 single-family detached homes and 1
single-family existing home in an R-8 zone for proposed Moshers Farm
Subdivision by CMD, Inc. – 895 North Ten Mile Road:
Borup: Okay. We'd like to reconvene our meeting this evening and start with our next
and final project. Items 10, 11, and 12 and open these Public Hearings at this time. AZ
02-023, request for annexation and zoning of 6.06 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for the
proposed Moshers Farm Subdivision by CMD, Incorporated, 895 North Ten Mile Road.
Also Public Hearing PP 02-021, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 26 building lots
and six other lots on the same property and CUP 02-031, request for a Conditional Use
Permit for a Planned Unit Development for 25 single-family detached homes and one
single-family existing home in an R-8 zone for the same proposed Moshers Farm
Subdivision. I'd like to open all three Public Hearings at this time and start with the staff
report.
Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The location of this
project is on the west side of Ten Mile Road, is just south of the approved Berkeley
Square Subdivision project in this location and Vallerie Heights. Sorry. Thank you. I
was trying to remember the name of the project across Ten Mile Road to the east and
Vallerie Heights project was -- had been previously approved on that property. This is
the site photo of the existing property. You can see the existing rural building and out
buildings on that property. This would be the proposed Preliminary Plat. The applicant
has come tonight with the minor modification, which I will try and hit the highlights of, as
I understand them, and then the applicant can go over them as well. The application is
for 26 building lots, six other lots, and they requested R-8 zone. There is about a little
over half acre open space in this area right here, it's .57 acres, and five landscape
buffer lots, two of which are on Ten Mile Road, two of which are islands. The fifth one --
oh, this -- probably this island right here. This is also being requested through a
Planned Development and they are requesting modifications to the base ordinance
standards. You can see those detailed in the staff report dated October 21st
. On the
second page, it requested modifications to the setbacks, the lot size, the lot frontage,
and the minimum house size, all of which are reductions from the current City
Ordinances. The one special note that's highlighted in black, what that is referring to is
even in the Planned Development Ordinance it states that you cannot reduce the
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 57 of 84
setbacks around the perimeter of the property. Their rear setbacks are proposed to be
15 feet in all locations, except for the one lot where the existing single-family house
stands. I guess I don't have one that overlays that, but the existing single-family house
is in this location right here. I believe it sits on this lot so they would be requesting a
reduced rear setback for that property, because of where the house currently sits. My
understanding is the remainder of the lots would maintain a 15-foot rear setback along
the perimeter. This note on Page 2 dealing with Lot 10, which is this lot right here, they
have asked to -- they have asked for a reduction to the side setback for the subdivision
in general as five feet, not five feet per story. This one in particular would have to keep
the five-foot per story per the staff report. Just a couple things to point out in the staff
report itself. On Page 4, Item G, the development would be required to install a
temporary sanitary sewer lift station that would provide sewer service to these lots until
permanent mains can be installed from the future Black Cat Trunk, which is not yet built,
but it will be connected to that trunk in the future. If you go to the additional
considerations on Page 6, this kind of highlights the items unresolved for the
Commission to discuss tonight, the first of which is a pedestrian recreation easement.
The original proposal was to -- well, first of all, to the west of this property is the
Chaparral Elementary School. What was proposed at the time of the writing of the staff
report was to connect for the children in this subdivision through this common lot and
then across an easement behind these properties to get to the school there. Staff didn't
feel that was a very safe or good arrangement. We'd much rather see just a simple
connection between these two lots. The applicant has brought in a revised plan that
everyone should have just received a copy of tonight, one that shows that stub
micropath. Now, the main thing to point out here is the City's Ordinance for these
micropath lots is a 10 foot -- or, sorry, a 15 foot requirement with a five foot pathway and
five feet on each side. As they are drawn on here, they are a 10-foot easement or 10
foot wide lot with a five-foot pathway and two and a half feet on each side. Given that
this is a Planned Development, if the Commission -- first of all, this arrangement allows
the developer to provide that access without losing a lot, which is why he desires to
reduce the width on those. That reduction could be approved, because this is a
Planned Development, if the Commission supports it, without a Variance. This may be
a minor issue, but one thing that we would -- that we feel is we'd still like to maintain
the standard requirement for, you know, the one tree for 35 lineal feet. Two and a half
feet wide is not wide enough, really, to plant a tree. If we can meander that pathway
just a little bit through it, you can get, you know, five feet on side here and there and still
-- and get the room to plant a tree. You can still get the trees planted along there that
you wouldn't be able to get if it was just a two and a half foot wide planter strip. Okay.
The second additional consideration deals with open space. The location of the open
space that's provided for this subdivision is on the south portion of this property.
Basically, the problem that staff has with the location of it is that it's not visible from
anywhere on the public right of way. The only place that it is visible from is the rear of
the lots that back up to it. Staff would prefer to see the lot centrally located in a manner
that's visible to the majority of the subdivision. We do recognize that the topography of
this site is such that it falls from north to south and for drainage purposes that's the
logical location for drainage to go at the low point of the property. However, if that
drainage is also to be considered as the required open space, we would like the
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 58 of 84
Commission to at least consider moving the location of it to a more central location.
Site-specific comments on Page 7, Number 3, the pressurized irrigation system, they
have not indicated the ownership of that. We would like to have that clarified tonight. If
there is an existing well on site that could be used or what the intention is for the type of
pressurized irrigation system that they will be providing. I think the only other one that I
-- well, I got a couple more. Okay. On Page 8, Item Number 8, simply point out the
requirement to tile the Ten Mile Sub Drain, which runs along the southern portion of this
property. Turning, again, to Page 9, Item A, the second paragraph there states that the
submitted elevations for the homes that will be located within this subdivision will not fit
on all the building lots, specifically we couldn't find a way for them to fit on some of
these lots in the northwest corner of the subdivision. It's my understanding that the
applicant was going to be coming with some additional elevations tonight that might fit,
but I'll let him address that in his comments. I think that's all I need to go over
specifically. We do recommend approval of the annexation upon resolution of those
outstanding issues and with the requirements of the staff report and I would stand for
any questions.
Centers: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Steve, what is the required open space for a Planned
Unit Development again, the percentage?
Siddoway: It's a five percent minimum, plus two amenities.
Centers: Right. Right. You were -- someone referred to that park area acreage as
being over an acre, but it doesn't appear to be. It shows as 41,151 square feet on this
revised plat, which would be less than an acre.
Borup: But close.
Centers: Yes. An acre is 42,560.
Siddoway: Where are you looking? I have it as .57 acres.
Centers: .57?
Freckleton: Commissioner Centers, I think the reference that you were talking about
being a little over an acre, that was on the Havasu project. They were talking about that
common area in the north that was a little over an acre.
Centers: Well, this isn't .57 acres either. This would be about 7/8ths of an acre.
Siddoway: I think we better let the applicant address with the correct --
Borup: The previous plat's got 24,900 is all -- no, 25,000 square feet on the first one.
Centers: Really? This one has --
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 59 of 84
Borup: This one's got 41.
Centers: Yes. Well, the applicant can talk about it.
Siddoway: Yes. Mr. Chairman, the Preliminary Plat shows that lot as 24,911 square
feet and this revised one tonight shows 41,151. It might be just an error, but we can get
that resolved.
Borup: Commissioner Mathes pointed out that the previous revised one showed it 41,
also.
Centers: And we have 6.06 times five percent. Is that the simple math? Okay.
Thanks.
Borup: Any other questions from any other Commissioners? Would the applicant like
to make their presentation?
Ralphs: Thank you. Members of the Commission, my name is Rod Ralphs, I represent
the applicant CMD, Inc., in regards to the approval of the annexation and the
Conditional Use Permit for Moshers Farm. By way introduction, some of you may be
familiar with the principal of CMD, Doug Campbell. He has developed many of the
subdivisions here in West Meridian. You know them more readily as The Lakes at
Cherry Lane, the Fairways at Ten Mile Grange, which are gated communities, and
Dakota Ridge and Wilkins Ranch and Wilkins Estates. These developments also abut
schools and Fire Department buildings. Where we have this track record with working
with the City of Meridian, and developing this quality, that's exactly the kind of quality we
want to bring to this small piece of Meridian here just northeast Pine-Ten Mile
intersection. As you have noted from your review, Moshers Farm is a 26-lot subdivision
with one existing single-family residence on 6.06 acres. On the west side of the
property is Chaparral Elementary School and, as staff indicated, we have, on the
revised plat, shown a pathway, which would provide complete access to Chaparral
Elementary School for any elementary age kids or for the public to be able to access
that site. We believe the proposed subdivision with this application contains all of the
site approvals that we would ask for in going forward with this project. I'd like to go
through point-by-point some of the concerns expressed by staff. Starting on Page 3 --
actually, Sub Part G on Page 4, where it's asking about requirement of installing a
temporary lift station, the lift station will remain the ownership of the homeowners
subdivision association. Then it would be able to enter into a Maintenance Agreement
with the City of Meridian and it would stay that way until the Black Cat trunk line would
be able to service that subdivision. Turning your attention now to the additional
commentary on page six regarding --
Borup: Could you clarify that again? You say it would remain in the ownership of the --
Ralphs: Of the homeowners association.
Borup: Okay.
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 60 of 84
Ralphs: With the --
Borup: With a Maintenance Agreement with the city.
Ralphs: Exactly. Right.
Borup: Okay.
Centers: So you agree with the comments?
Ralphs: Certainly. Now, going to the additional commentary found on Page 6 regarding
the pedestrian easement. We have also addressed that with the revised plat you
received this evening. We have placed the pathway in a common lot that will proceed
there between Lots 11 and 12 on the west side, allowing access to the elementary
school. The pedestrian walkway that is between Lots 16 and 17 there to the south
would remain, and then the access from the cul-d-sac there off of Brittany Court would
also remain. We have added a third pathway in this revised plat, so instead of two 15
pathways, we are providing for three 10 foot. We believe we can get the travel and
pedestrian traffic there on the five foot walkway and we would certainly be able to
explore the meandering effect of that pathway by staff, to just see if we can
accommodate the trees and make sure we get approval. The only thing we would like
to point out that along all of these pathways there will be four foot open fencing, so as to
eliminate a tunnel effect as you're going through these walkways. Any of property lines
that are affected or abutting up to the walkways would have a four-foot clear -- or
vertical slated fence that would be see through. Also as we have discussed some of
the fencing --
Borup: The fence would be a picket type fence?
Ralphs: Well, it would -- probably not a picket. There is a type of fence, actually, where
the -- they have square type rails or slats. That's a one-by slat that they put in and they
insert inside of the --
Borup: But you said it’s see through?
Ralphs: Right. It would have these pickets all the way through it, but when I hear the
word picket, I think of the ones that have the points on it, but we would certainly do
anything that you would be open to on that design.
Centers: I think that's a requirement, if I'm not mistaken, that it has to be see through.
Ralphs: Definitely. Yes.
Borup: Well -- or under a minimum height.
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 61 of 84
Centers: Yes.
Ralphs: And I seen in the notes it said it could be four foot solid.
Centers: I think it's both, because of small --
Borup: Isn't that correct four foot height, they can have it four foot solid.
Siddoway: I was trying to remember if it was three or four. I have the ordinance, I could
look it up, but I believe it's --
Borup: I couldn't remember ether, whether it was three or four.
Siddoway: I know there is an option for either a three or four foot solid fence or a six
foot open and this goes a step farther with a four foot open fence, which is perfectly
acceptable to us.
Ralphs: And as we discussed some of the fencing on this particular site, we would
point out that in order to increase the visibility of the park area, we would have four foot
-- this four foot see through fence all of the lots that butt up against the park. You would
have that -- it would add a degree of openness to that. You do have visibility from both
Ashley Avenue down the pathway into the park and then you also can't see it, but it's
from the cul-d-sac. There will be a fencing requirement on the lot -- it looks like Lot 22
back of the cul-d-sac where the placement of that house and then fencing would allow
for increased visibility back into the park. We would actually tuck that house into the
north part of that lot and then there would be requirements that this open-type fence
would exist on the south of the house to create more openness. I wanted to address
also the comments from the staff regarding the placement of the park in the other areas
of the subdivision. We have looked at that, however, as indicated also by staff, there
are unique characteristics to this particular piece of property. There is a rather
significant gradient that we are finding on the property. From north to south, you have a
drop of approximately eight feet and it gets steeper as it approaches the drain. In order
for us to accommodate and even change the gradient draining for storm drain needs,
we would have to bring in an excess of eight feet and taper it to the north. That is why
we would request or ask that we be allowed to keep the park there in light of the open
fencing that we would be willing to provide. We also wanted to just throw out for
discussion here tonight -- we realize we were supposed to throw in a couple of pieces
of recreational type amenities there in the park. Didn't know what kind of limitations or
suggestions you would have on that, given the proximity to Chaparral and with the
direct access to Chaparral and certainly open to any kind of comment from you on that.
As we go to Page 7, Sub Part 4, I believe there are some comments in the staff report
about the perimeter fence being solid all the way around it. I wanted to note that there
along the Ten Mile Drain that we have down on our Preliminary Plat that it would be a
six-foot chain link fence. I believe some of the things that we ran into with Nampa-
Meridian is if you go for any kind of solid fence, especially one made out of wood, their
concerns are over combustibility when they go in to burn those weeds and won't lose
that fence. I believe we noted in the staff report that it be solid around the perimeter, we
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 62 of 84
would ask that along the drain that we would be able to go with a six foot chain link. Let
me show you also -- there was an expression by the staff regarding the type of house
that we could put on Lot 10 there in the northwest corner of the subdivision and I
wanted to present you this as a sample. In each of your booklets, there were some
tentative plans of different types of designs for the homes in this subdivision and here is
another one we were looking at for Lot 10. This is a general concept that would fit the
footprint. Of course, the exterior would be -- would meet that or exceed that as far as
design but that one does have the necessary footprint to be able to fit on that particular
lot. I did want to address also on Page 9, Sub Part A, where we are talking about
different types of homes, we do want to have that decreased setback, at least for that
particular lot, to accommodate the homes on that site. The comment about the ditch
tiling, we wanted to note that the Ten Mile drain -- at that point it's a considerable size
drain that comes through there. We note that it is not tiled ether upstream or
downstream and as we go all the way out to Black Cat there is no tiling on that and we
would ask that that requirement be waived.
Borup: Have you talked with staff on how that would be handled?
Ralphs: No, I have not.
Borup: My understanding you would need to apply to the City Council for a Variance is
that correct? This Commission cannot grant the Variance.
Ralphs: I understand. Thank you. The other things that we just wanted to point out on
this subdivision are to look at some of the extras that we have put in here. We have
done a lot of work as far as placing Landscape Plans. If you look at the Preliminary --
or the adjusted plat that you received here this evening that indicates the green areas
that we have put in here. We have got the common landscaped areas there, of course,
along Ten Mile to serve as a buffer, we have got the island as an entrance, and then we
have done islands on each of the cul-d-sacs. The radius that we have in there is for fire
traffic. Understand that also one of the notes in the staff report regarded concerns
about parking along those lots, that we would find back there in the west cul-d-sac and
we would certainly be amenable to providing through the CC&Rs that there would be a
prohibition against on-street parking in that cul-d-sac to allow for emergency service
vehicles. I don't have anything else. If there are any questions, you would have of us.
Borup: Questions from the Commission?
Centers: Yes. It says in the application six other lots. With your amended plat, here I
see one, two, three, four, and five. Maybe I'm counting wrong. I don't know.
Ralphs: Actually, if you -- let's see.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Six, counting the new pathway?
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 63 of 84
Centers: I counted that one.
Borup: Oh. Both Islands?
Ralphs: We have got the two islands and then we have the one there in the center
there in the entrance.
Centers: I think we have an answer over here.
Siddoway: Yes. I think I can point it out to you.
Centers: Please.
Siddoway: There are one, two landscape lots along the frontage.
Centers: Right.
Siddoway: There are one, two, three -- it's getting dim, but three islands.
Centers: You're counting those little islands along the street?
Siddoway: Yes those are --
Centers: Okay. That one. Okay.
Siddoway: And then, the large open space lot on the south.
Centers: One, two, three, four, five, six. Got it. Okay. I missed the island. You can
certainly see where staff is coming from on that, the little park area. Boy, that is isolated
but then, on the other hand, I can see why you want to put it there for the drainage. Of
course, the lay of the land there. Was there ever thought about another pathway or two
from Ashley Avenue down to it? Your lot widths would allow for it like you did on Lots 11
and 12 or -- yeah.
Ralphs: We can certainly look into that as far as --
Centers: That's the only way to provide additional access. I mean I can see where it
would be difficult --
Ralphs: You mean on 21 --
Centers: Yes. Right. Yes. Exactly. Right there on that -- on the bush right there but
you know I can see why you want to put it there, without a doubt. I guess your salability
of the lots is your business, I mean -- so I think it's kind of an esthetics thing, personally.
You mentioned a couple items -- or you said for the PUD you had to provide two things.
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 64 of 84
I forget the verbiage you used, but we look at them as more than two things. I mean
five percent open space as mentioned, and then you have your choice. You say you
were just going to put some playground equipment and --
Ralphs: That's one of the options. The other one would be either like a half court
basketball court or maybe a sand volleyball pit, something like that.
Centers: The pathways, in my view, are the open space, so I think you have only got
one thing there, in my opinion. Playground equipment.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Commissioner Centers, the five percent -- the five percent
open space is required separate from the two amenities. A possibility for one of the two
amenities would be a 10 -- bumping it up to 10 percent or -- but the pathway
connections to the school could count as one of the two.
Centers: And while you're on that, how many square feet of open space does he have
because five percent is only 13,000 square feet.
Ralphs: We have 24,000. That was a typo there on Lot 24 for the park.
Centers: Ten percent is 26,000 feet so he has almost 10 percent. Okay.
Borup: But that 24 was the correct size for that --
Ralphs: 24,911.
Centers: And you have big lots?
Ralphs: Yes.
Centers: You have more than 24,911, then. You have 24 in that.
Ralphs: Yes in that particular lot. Correct.
Centers: Right.
Borup: Well, the definition is usable open space, so --
Centers: Pathways don't count as open space? Well, the front common areas count as
open space. Yes.
Siddoway: The front common areas, the street buffers, do not count.
Centers: They don't?
Siddoway: They cannot be counted towards the five percent. The ones on Ten Mile is
that what you're talking about?
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 65 of 84
Centers: Yes.
Siddoway: Yes. The ones along Ten Mile cannot be counted.
Centers: What's the normal buffer?
Siddoway: Twenty-five feet.
Centers: For any subdivision?
Siddoway: Along an arterial road, yes.
Centers: Okay. Okay and that's what he's got. Well, the point is he's got about double
of the minimum requirement. Okay. That's all I have. Thank you.
Borup: Anyone else? I -- one that maybe -- a question for staff. That was on a
proposed reduced setback. Did you have any comment on that 10-foot side street
setback? There was nothing in the staff comments, so apparently not.
Siddoway: Street side 10 feet on corner lots. No, I don't think we have a problem with
it as part of this Planned Development.
Borup: Okay.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman? Maybe while the applicant's representative is up here we
could get an answer to the pressurized irrigation question.
Borup: Oh.
Freckleton: As to the source and --
Ralphs: We do have a year around source in Ten Mile Drain. However, we would be --
the ownership of that system would be by Nampa-Meridian.
Borup: Is there enough capacity in there? Has that been looked into?
Ralphs: As far as capacity going off Ten Mile and the water rights on that? I don't have
an answer for you on that.
Borup: But it would be making use of the existing well on the site for secondary water?
Was that the intention?
Ralphs: Yes.
Borup: Okay anything from the other Commissioners? All right. Thank you.
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 66 of 84
Centers: Staff comments cover that if you require the staff comments.
Ralphs: Thank you.
Borup: Do we have anyone that would like to testify on this application?
Atkinson: I'm Irma Atkinson. I live at 1124 North Lightning Place, which is across the
street, across Ten Mile in Thunder Creek Subdivision. I guess you all know by now I
have been here before. Oh yes there. Okay. Down. Down. Yes. That's it. Okay
obviously, I have been here before. When I look at a development, I think of pedestrian
safety and auto traffic safety and the impact on the existing neighborhood. With this
particular developmental I was glad to see the micropath to the school, because to get
from Haven Cove and Thunder Creek -- if I was -- if I let my kids walk -- I think I used
the words over my dead body -- they would have to go up Ten Mile and into Parkside
Creek and around and then down into the school property. I was glad to see Berkeley
Square put a micropath and I'm glad to see Moshers Farm putting a micropath,
because then I could go out to the school district to get a crossing guard and a
crosswalk, too, but -- so I think that is a good thing. I question the amenity of the open
space that isn't accessible, although Laura, who is probably going to speak next, will
say it's great, because she can enjoy that view from her house off of Pine Street, so,
sorry, Laura. I guess my concern is it doesn't -- I hear the applicant saying that he's
going to make it more visible by requiring the properties adjacent to have four foot see
through fences. As a mom and a pet owner, I'm just not sure how that would work in a
single-family subdivision, because certainly, my dog can jump over a four-foot fence
and a smaller dog could probably go in between if it was a slatted fence. You know,
yes, it's there as an amenity, but I'm not sure if they are practical, but I also can see the
problems with the layout of the property, too. My -- on the traffic concern, yes, this does
meet the requirements of ACHD for how far the entrance is away from the nearest
intersection. I understand that it's small enough that a traffic study wasn't required, but
to go from probably the current vehicle trips of 10 up to -- I think the estimate was 250
on that road and that particular place. I can see the northbound traffic trying to turn left
into the subdivision backing up and creating other hazards there for the traffic,
especially the high school kids and I have a high schooler now. She's not taking
Driver's Ed until she's 30, but we can work on that. I also feel that there should be
some responsibility for Moshers Farms to address that intersection. I certainly -- and
I'm sure the Fullers would you agree -- held them accountable for -- with Vallerie
Heights that they needed to do something to address the problems that traffic would
cause and although Moshers Farm is small, it's still adding, you know, 240 vehicle trips
a day on that road and I think there needs to be some accountability there. Questions?
Borup: Any questions from the Commission? Anyone else?
Wilder: Hi. I'm Laura Wilder. I live at 3401 West Pine, which is the unpaved section
that is west of Ten Mile. It's the lot across from the Episcopal Church. Our property is
within 300 feet of the Moshers Subdivision. We are not opposed to the Moshers
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 67 of 84
Subdivision and we think that a single-family development there is fine. However, I do
have some concerns and I have a couple questions of the applicant's representative
that aren't clear to me as far as the sidewalk, as far as that southeast corner. First, I
would like to echo Irma's sentiments as far as the traffic. The speed limit on Ten Mile
Road is 35 miles an hour and anyone that drives that road knows that 90 percent of the
cars do not obey the speed limit. It's closer to 45 as far as an average. I'm also making
a lift turn often on that intersection and I have witnessed a number of accidents. There
was one on the 25th
of October after school. It's a continual thing and I think that with
that road not being a residential street, it's a major thoroughfare, even though this is a
smaller development, having some kind of a center turn lane would be very beneficial
safety wise as far as those people trying to turn in and out of there. I'm concerned with
all the development on the northwest of the city, the impact that that will have on that
road and the hazards, it will be to the residents of not only that subdivision, but to the
rest of us that live nearby. The entrance to that subdivision is approximately 400 feet
from the intersection. That's a very busy intersection, especially at school time and that
is a concern that -- I know it's a difficult thing to deal with right now, but I would like to
see center turn lanes in and out of these subdivisions considered on Ten Mile Road for
the safety of all of the motorists and the residents. The question I have -- and I'll point
out to the spot that I'm talking about. The question I have -- the diagram shows that the
sidewalk goes up right to the edge of the Ten Mile Drain. I know that when the
Episcopal Church develops that they will be responsible for the sidewalk up to the other
side of the Ten Mile Drain and I would like to know whose responsibility it is to cover
that little gap in between, so that we have safe passage in between that area. There is
a very narrow shoulder on Ten Mile Road. Right now, there isn't room that people can
really bike or even walk down there and especially where that drain is. That property
where Lot Number 25, I guess it is, it really slopes down and then the road is elevated
up where the -- above where the property slopes. I want to know is the sidewalk going
to be along the road or is it going to follow the slope down into the corner of the
property? That's one question I have and the other question is who is going to be
responsible for side walking over that drain to make that safe, because it's a very
congested area. It's very close to the intersection, it's very narrow shoulders there, I
see that to be a very troublesome spot as far as the sidewalk right at the corner of that
property, and I think that should be addressed. The other thing that I would like to say
on the record is we have owned our property since 1985 and we currently have
agricultural production on our property. We have a small flock of sheep, they pretty
much are quiet, they don’t bother anyone, and they can be compatible with the
neighborhood. We haven't had anyone complain about them yet. However, with
people that aren't used to animals living close to them, I just would like to let it be known
on the record that there are times, such as weaning or feeding in the early morning
hours, when there is some noise. Not very often, but a couple times a year we will
clean pens and use organic fertilizer and spread it on the pasture. If the wind happens
to be blowing that way -- we want the applicant to be aware and to please notify the
residents that there is agricultural production within 300 feet of the development and
that we would respectfully ask them to not complain. We were there first so I just would
like that to be known. That brings me to the other issue that Irma brought up as far as
dogs. I have read the covenants for the subdivision and it's very clear that the owners
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 68 of 84
are responsible for keeping their dogs inside the fence. However, I, too, am concerned
about those fences. When we have lambs, we can't have dogs around. We pretty
much call the county and have them come and pick them up. We have a zero tolerance
policy, because I mean any lose dogs around our livestock is a very bad situation and
we would express some concern over those low fences and want to make sure that
people are going to be able to keep their dogs contained. Those are the concerns I
have and we are not so much opposed to the subdivision, but I would like to have those
questions answered and a little more clarity on that.
Centers: And I understand what you're talking about there and the dogs with sheep.
They are proposing a chain link fence along that back property line, which should really
help that. The four-foot vinyl see through fence is within the subdivision.
Wilder: Right. I understand that but dogs have a way of finding their way out of there.
Centers: They do across the road and --
Wilder: And so, I just wanted that to be on the record that that is a concern. The chain
link fence is definitely -- definitely will help and we have not had any problems with any
of the other developments nearby. We haven't a problem with dogs at all since they
have been there, but we have 40 ewes. During lambing time, we have about 80 lambs,
and we keep yearly lambs over. Sometimes we have 140 head of sheep 300 feet from
where that development is going to be and I just, you know, want them to be aware of
that and hopefully we can work together if we have a problem, but I do think it needs
mentioned.
Centers: Good point.
Wilder: That's all that I have.
Centers: Thank you.
Borup: Anyone else?
Ketterling: I'm Kasey Ketterling, representing Leavitt & Associates, the engineer for
Doug Campbell on this development. I just want to address the pressurized irrigation
system. The proposed plan right now is to involve this development, as well as the
development south of Pine Road and also the church that's being built in that same
area, involve those three developments in a combined system. This -- we feel that
putting these three developments on one system will be -- minimize the number of
systems that are being cared for and taken care of. We also propose that we do a
combined system for the sewer as well with this development and the development
south of Pine Road and the church. Minimize the -- for the sewer we have to put in a
pump station, so to minimize the amount of pump stations that are in this area and limit
it to one to three developments. I just wanted to make that -- just to make that
comment, just to reference that. Also if you could put the map back up of the --
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 69 of 84
showing the lots. One idea to increase the open space -- I just spoke with the
developer. One idea is to take the Lot 22 and create a rectangular lot, which is deeper
into the park and take the corner lot off the north -- the more southern corner, remove
that and make the lot deeper. It would be a similar shape to the other lots and it would
open up that cul-d-sac to the park more, creating more vision through there. It wouldn't
require as much prohibiting of the fences and a clear line of sight through that cul-d-sac
into the park.
Centers: I'm not following you on that. I see Lot 22 up there and Lot 23. Now, what do
you want to do with that?
Borup: I think he's saying cut the property line here, Jerry, back and --
Ketterling: Make it deeper.
Centers: Would 23 still be big enough? That would be great.
Borup: It looks like it would so all this section down here, which nonbuildable area,
would become open -- would become park area.
Centers: Yes.
Ketterling: Exactly. Then there wouldn't be a problem with fences and it would -- we
could make that lot have the appropriate depth and width to accommodate the
footprints --
Centers: Right. Right.
Ketterling: -- as some of the other lots.
Centers: I wish I had thought of that. That's a big lot anyway.
Ketterling: If we had to require that they couldn't build in that southern portion, it may
not be as desirable lot, so this may create a more desirable lot anyway.
Centers: Yes very good.
Borup: Anymore questions?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman? I have just got one, ownership of the PI. Are you leaning
towards Nampa-Meridian as far as your regional pump station irrigation system?
Ketterling: Yes, we are. I spoke with them as the source of available water and their
thoughts are is if they have an available irrigation source, they would prefer that the
water be pulled from there. If there isn't a supply available, then they will allow it to be
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 70 of 84
pulled from the Ten Mile Drain and we haven't researched that any further than that.
The water is available there from one of those two sources, so --
Borup: Okay. Anything else? Thank you.
Ketterling: Thank you.
Borup: Anyone else?
Fuller: Dave Fuller, 890 North Ten Mile. I own the property right across the street. Just
want to make a few comments. I have been talking to the developers a little bit. There
are some concerns on that corner and Keith knows all about it. Just to address a little
bit about the intersection, one of the gentlemen told me that they are going to be
working -- Ada County does have that scheduled here in a few years -- three years or
something like that, which is good. You might keep in your thoughts and minds about
tiling that ditch. I wouldn't think it would be necessary to tile the whole ditch along the
property, but if they did tile a portion of it right there at that bad intersection and put
some gravel over that pipe, it would sure create a lot safer deal while we are waiting for
Ada County to get there. If they widened the shoulder a few feet, and I don't think it
would be a very expensive deal to put in, you know, a couple sections of tile while we
are waiting for Ada County to get their act together three years down the road. Other
than that, I would like to say it looks like a pretty good development. It is a little bit of
low ground. I'm sorry that we had to do the pump station, but you know you have got to
do that on low ground. We are glad to see it come alive and get the whole area
developed and, you know, we have struggled for a long time to see it done right over
there and we trust you guys to get it done right. Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Okay. Have you got final comments
you'd like to make? Maybe address some of the -- go ahead and then we will ask
anything else if --
Ralphs: Just wanted to address a couple of the requested comments about some of
the concerns with the roadway. If we can go back to the plat map. If you will note, that
sidewalk goes all the way to the property line and the property line will butt up against
the south property line, which is owned by the church. Inside that area is the Ten Mile
Drain and so the two properties -- the two adjacent property owners would be taking
care of any kind of sidewalk. I would --
Centers: Wait the church and yourself?
Ralphs: Yes.
Centers: So you're going to go halfway and they are going to go the other half?
Ralphs: Well, to the extent the property lines abut.
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 71 of 84
Centers: Okay.
Borup: And don't they abut right there?
Ralphs: Yes, they do so that's where they abut and so the church would have part of
that and -- the property line goes right to the middle of that drain.
Borup: Right now where that sidewalk shows is out in the middle of the ditch is that
correct?
Ralphs: That brings me to our next point. We met with ACHD about two weeks ago
and what they have asked us to do is place the sidewalks -- the funds that were going
to be used for the sidewalks improvements into a trust, a road trust. Here in the next
two or three years they will be widening that to a five lane from Franklin to Cherry Lane
and so instead of us putting in the sidewalks and having them tear it out, they have
requested that we bring the sidewalks to the curb radius, the edge of that radius on the
plat. Then put the rest of the funds that would be used for improving that into a road
trust where they would put it in at a later time. The sidewalks at that time would be
reflecting a five-lane road and ACHD would be putting that in when they expand the
road.
Borup: And then, is that in their work project?
Ralphs: That's in their work project when --
Borup: For what year?
Ralphs: What year was that? It's in the five-year plan, but they indicated they were
already moving it and, actually, November was the month that they were putting
together a report. They have already indicated that as we go forward with the project
they want that put in the trust because of that --
Borup: So they don't have an exact year anticipated yet, other than being in the five-
year work plan?
Ralphs: Yes.
Borup: Okay. That -- I don't know. ACHD has asked for that in the past where it's
going to be within a short time. That doesn't -- would you like to expand on the
comment about pedestrian traffic along Ten Mile now and not being able to get passed
that point?
Ralphs: That was one of the chief reasons that we put that stub into Chaparral, so that
-- our sidewalk to the north is going to end. I don't know how far Brittany -- or, excuse
me, Berkeley comes down from the south, but the pedestrian traffic on Ten Mile right
now, until ACHD gets the project done, they would have to use the existing shoulder.
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 72 of 84
Borup: Right but I think part of the concern was at that point there is no existing
shoulder to speak of, because -- am I correct?
Ralphs: Well, we would landscape it and there would be some things there --
Borup: Are you looking at maybe adding at least one pile right there, so you would be
able to widen it out at that point?
Ralphs: We hadn't looked at that, no.
Borup: I think that was the concern, from what I understood, is that there is not enough
of a shoulder here, because the ditch comes so close to the road that you --
Ralphs: Well, right there you have a drop off of eight feet.
Borup: Right.
Rohm: It isn't an area that's being used at all by pedestrian traffic.
Borup: Right so the pedestrians have to walk out into the roadway.
Ralphs: Which they have been doing. I don't have a quick answer for you on that one.
Borup: Would there be any problem with putting a piece of tile in and fill in that so they
could walk across it?
Ralphs: I think we would have to check with ACHD before we proceeded on that one.
We would be open to it, but we would want to make sure that it was okay with ACHD.
Yes, we can do that or Nampa-Meridian, too.
Borup: Well, yes. Probably -- like you said, it’s probably only going to take one section.
One or two, whatever it takes. Okay.
Ralphs: And as far as the dog issue with the four-foot fences, you know, the City of
Meridian has an Animal Control Ordinance and if animals are getting out and people
can't control them, then the city has already got that taken care of. We would -- the
other issue that was raised was about the notice to the homeowners that would be
buying in there about the agricultural operations within 300 feet. We can certainly add
that to the CC&Rs, make sure that they are on those and at least at this point in the
approval, we have agricultural operations functioning that close to the project, so they
would be on notice of it. People will complain, but it's a very short phone call.
Centers: Well, l think that's good. You put them on notice. If they didn't read the
CC&Rs, that's -- you could refer them to it. The lady has a good point. I have a
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 73 of 84
question on the -- you know, the plat that we have has 26 lots and your amended plat
has 26 lots, but you renumbered them all?
Ralphs: Well, they number to reflect, as you go through -- let me pull that up. You will
notice, for example, that the park area has a lot number.
Centers: Yes. Right. Well, previously it was Lot 23 and now it's Lot 24.
Ralphs: To accommodate -- when we submitted this plat the walkways were actually an
easement. They didn't exist as a separate lot.
Centers: Okay.
Ralphs: And we addressed that staff concern. Exactly right.
Centers: Okay.
Borup: It became Lot 12, so everything is sliding down.
Centers: The gentleman that came up and offered to give away part of Lot 23 on your
amended plat, how many feet would you propose there? Because if we are going to
make a motion to take part of that lot, I think we need to -- either that or we need to
revise the plat and you need to come back.
Borup: Fifty-four, 55 feet wide?
Ralphs: It would be 100 feet deep by 90 wide? Is that the first point? You will see
there is a point down there 90 point 81.
Borup: Well, no, the width would be -- it would be back -- it would be narrower that --
Centers: Yes you would be taking off the 90. Are you going to make it 60?
Ralphs: Right the 90 would be reduced by the distance coming out.
Borup: So probably 54 wide would be the same as 56. That would be --
Ralphs: Fifty-four would be consistent with what we have got. It would be 54 --
Borup: Fifty-four to 58.
Ralphs: Yes and we have got 100 feet deep.
Centers: So it's 81.
Ralphs: Well, it is now, but after we adjust it, it would be -- we would be taking that off
the south side there and adding it to the west.
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 74 of 84
Freckleton: Would the 100 feet be measured on the north boundary?
Borup: Or could we say just in line with the other lot there, which would be --
Ralph: Lot No. 21 and just put it there on the west boundary of Lot 21.
Borup: Actually, I guess it doesn't matter. Does that say a minimum of 100 feet?
Freckleton: Just specify which boundary it is.
Borup: The north boundary.
Centers: Well, why don't you just kind of draw it in there what you're looking at?
Excuse me.
Borup: Okay. Was there anything else Commissioners felt needed to be addressed by
the applicant? I think we talked about if they would file and get -- at least get a gravel
walkway over the drain along the road there where it narrowed up. We talked about
redesign of Lot 23. I think that certainly handles the area. I realize, you know, the staff
comment is that it's not real central, but this is not a large project and everybody living
here is going to know where the park is.
Centers: Yes that's -- exactly.
Borup: If they can't find it, then they have got bigger problems.
Centers: Well -- and if they can't sell the homes because of the park location, that's
their problem, too.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, if I could throw out a little food for thought. This -- maybe
just a little bit of a concern that I have got. In reading, ACHD's staff report it talked
about the five-year work program and they want the applicant to put up money for the
sidewalk, the road trust. That could be three years. There is a lot of pedestrian traffic
on this stretch of Ten Mile. I guess the thing I'm kicking around is whether the applicant
could, in lieu putting up money into road trust. If they could install a separated sidewalk
at this time and -- you know, that way you would have a sidewalk now to get the kids off
the street, a detached sidewalk that would be in their -- in their common area. It
wouldn't be tore out when Ten Mile gets improved, and if ACHD -- I mean if it's a matter
of the applicant building the sidewalk now or putting it into road trust, he's out the same
amount of money, so --
Ralphs: We'd certainly be open to that. That's a great suggestion.
Borup: Actually, from the figures I have seen, it would probably cost you less, instead of
a road trust.
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 75 of 84
Freckleton: Oh, yes because they are probably going to add some --
Borup: So would we want to make that as a requirement or either/or?
Centers: Well, if we make it a requirement to put in the sidewalk now, are you going to
be okay with ACHD, though?
Ralphs: That would be the one thing I would -- if you would -- that would be pending,
the objection from ACHD, that they -- if they insist on us not doing it, then, that would be
waived.
Borup: But other subdivisions have gone in that way when the roads have been
widened, they left the existing meandering sidewalks there --
Ralphs: And as we put it in, we would confer with ACHD just to make sure that the
meandering sidewalk is completely of the proposed right of way. We would definitely go
that route, but --
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I believe that if the city required it, it would be done.
Borup: ACHD would allow it. If your plan is right, if it's just within that landscaping lot,
you're out of the right of way. Yes, you have got 25 feet there to get the sidewalk in.
Ralphs: Okay.
Borup: Okay anything else that needs to be discussed?
Ralphs: Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Commissioners?
Centers: For staff, we would want a new revised -- or a new Preliminary Plat prior to
City Council.
Freckleton: Yes. I would be comfortable with that.
Centers: Primarily because of the reconfiguration of that park area.
Freckleton: I think as long as your motion is very clear, we are fine with getting a
revised plat prior to Council.
Centers: And we will take them with -- you know, in approximate footage -- I mean give
or take a few feet because I think it was a good idea and generous on their part, so
that's good. I would move we close the Public Hearing.
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 76 of 84
Mathes: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Centers: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: I would like to recommend approval of Item 10, AZ 02-023, request for
annexation and zoning of 6.06 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Moshers
Farms Subdivision by CMD, Incorporated, at 895 North Ten Mile Road, including all
staff comments. End of motion yes end of motion.
Mathes: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Centers: Continuing on, would like to recommend approval for Item 11, PP 02-021,
request for Preliminary Plat approval of 26 building lots and six other lots on 6.06 acres
in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Moshers Farm Subdivision by CMD, Incorporated,
at 895 North Ten Mile Road, including all staff comments.
Siddoway: Mr. Centers? Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Go ahead.
Siddoway: I would -- if I can find it. Item 2, site specific comment two for the plat --
Centers: Page?
Siddoway: On Page 7 requires that the common lot pathway be added with a minimum
width of 15 feet. If you agree with the proposal from the applicant, you would need to
revise those dimensions and we'd ask that you ask for the meandering version of that,
so that the trees could be added as well.
Centers: Right had that. Thank you. Bottom of Page 6, regarding the open space, the
applicant has agreed to forfeit part of Lot 23 on tonight's revised plat, giving up
approximately 45 feet of the southerly portion of Lot 23 and the revised plat showing
that change should be completed prior to City Council. Page 7.
Siddoway: Mr. Centers, could we have the dimensions of that lot in this notion? As I
understand it, it would be 54 by 100?
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 77 of 84
Centers: Well --
Borup: I think we left it 54 or 56 wide by minimum of 100 deep.
Centers: The remaining Lot 23 would be approximately -- it would be 87 plus 20 -- 128
feet deep on the north line --
Borup: That's 81, not 87.
Centers: Yes 81 is 27 is 128.
Borup: Okay.
Centers: And the width of Lot 23 would be approximately 45 feet. Does that describe
it?
Borup: Fifty-four?
Freckleton: Fifty-four by 100 is what I have.
Siddoway: I think 100 feet deep is plenty. It matches the other lots.
Centers: He's going clear -- he drew it for me here, Steve. He drew it on my map. The
applicant did. Okay?
Borup: Well, I think are we fine with --
Centers: The north lot line would be approximately 128 feet deep.
Borup: No, not 128, 108.
Centers: Twenty-seven. You're right 108. Excuse me. Excuse me. I added wrong. It
would be approximately 108 feet deep.
Borup: Well, it was making sense what you were saying.
Centers: Yes and the width would be approximately 45 feet.
Borup: Or 54 he's dyslexic.
Centers: Fifty-four. I can submit this with the motion, his drawing, if you like, and I'll
give it to the Assistant City Clerk.
Borup: Okay.
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 78 of 84
Centers: Because the applicant drew it here for me. Anyway, the remaining part of Lot
23 would be part of Lot 24, the park area. Okay. Page 7.
Borup: That would also eliminate the pathway, paved pathway at that site, I'm
assuming. Does that need to be stated or is that --
Centers: Yes good point. Wouldn't have any need for it. Good point. That would be
part of the motion that that pathway could be eliminated. Okay Page 7, Number 2
proposed pathways would be reduced to 10 feet wide -- a total of 10 feet with a five-foot
pathway, with appropriate trees, per city requirement. You had mentioned trees
planted.
Siddoway: Yes from the Landscape Ordinance, one tree per 35 lineal feet is the
requirement.
Centers: Okay.
Borup: To accomplish that it would have to be a meandering pathway.
Centers: Right. Number three I think we are okay. The applicant understands he must
provide pressurized irrigation and identify the source and the ownership. Number 4, I
would agree with the applicant and allow chain link fencing along the canal or the drain.
I think we could add it here that the applicant should include in their CC&Rs that
homeowners are aware of agricultural use surrounding the property and livestock, such
as lamb, cows, chickens, and you're coming in at your own pleasure, but they are there
first.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman? Commissioner Centers, I think just a reference to the Idaho
Statute of Right-to-Farm -- it's the Right-to-Farm Act, It's an Idaho Statute.
Centers: We understand that, but they want it in the CC&Rs so that buyers know that
they are buying next to some people that have some animals.
Freckleton: Absolutely and I want it on the face of the plat, too.
Centers: And if the odor is there, then that's too bad so you want that on the face of the
plat?
Freckleton: Absolutely.
Centers: So part of the motion. The applicant has stated that they wouldn't allow
parking on the cul-d-sacs and I would say both cul-d-sacs no parking. To provide the
sidewalk in advance along Ten Mile Road across the drain and, of course, tile the drain
to accomplish that and work with ACHD to make sure there is no problem there but put
in the sidewalk in advance.
Borup: Outside the ACHD right of way.
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 79 of 84
Centers: Correct. They better. As far as the -- you know, I think this is the place to
cover it, the setback waiver on the existing home, per applicant's request, which fronts
on Ten Mile end of motion.
Rohm: I will second that.
Borup: Motion and second. Any other discussion?
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, can I just clarify a couple items?
Borup: Yes.
Siddoway: Thank you. Okay. Item -- since I have to write this recommendation.
Centers: Oh, yes. You have to.
Siddoway: Yes so Item 1 I have revise Lot 23 per the dimensions noted, approximately
54 by 100. Item 2 I had some question about the pathway. If you will look up at the
Landscape Plan that was submitted, the proposal that was originally submitted actually
connected the pathway through from one cul-d-sac over to the street.
Centers: No, we are not eliminating that one. Is that what you're saying?
Borup: No. He's saying there is a continuous pathway.
Siddoway: There is a continuous pathway --
Centers: Oh.
Siddoway: -- that connects all the way across, so I'm wondering what you're
eliminating?
Centers: Well, this is going to all be park, Steve.
Borup: We are looking at the new revised --
Siddoway: I know so you're saying it doesn't have to connect over to their cul-d-sac
now.
Centers: Well, it connects, because this all going to be park.
Siddoway: Will they have a path through the grass?
Borup: We weren't looking at the same --
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 80 of 84
Centers: They didn't have a continuous pathway on mine.
Borup: On the landscape one they did, which we haven't been looking at.
Centers: Oh. We were looking at the revised plat.
Siddoway: We would like to have it connect through, per the Landscape Plan.
Centers: Why? Because the lawn would get wore out with them walking across it or --
Siddoway: Walking, biking I mean it can become a pedestrian amenity.
Borup: The biking, maybe, I can see. As far as walking, it's nice to walk on grass.
Siddoway: Roller blades and skateboards.
Centers: What kind of surface are we talking about?
Siddoway: Asphalt or concrete.
Borup: Probably asphalt. It's on the Landscape Plan. It is on the Landscape Plan.
Siddoway: The applicant wants to do it as an asphalt pathway.
Borup: That is per landscaping?
Siddoway: Per the Landscape Plan.
Centers: Okay. The motion would be amended -- or to include the pathway that starts
on Ashley Avenue and connects down to Brittany Court as a five-foot pathway.
Siddoway: Okay. Then I would continue my notes of this motion to show that the
micropaths would be approved from a 10 foot as proposed, but they would meander
and accommodate the trees. Next, the pressurized irrigation system doesn't really
sound like it changed to the staff report, but just a reiteration that they need to get that
worked out.
Centers: I think your staff report covered it.
Siddoway: Yes you also reiterated the chain link fence as proposed along the south
side is approved.
Centers: Correct.
Siddoway: We are adding a note regarding the Right-to-Farm Act on the face of the
plat, as well as in the CC&Rs.
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 81 of 84
Centers: Correct.
Siddoway: We are stating that there is no parking allowed in the cul-d-sacs.
Centers: Correct.
Siddoway: We are recommending that the sidewalks along Ten Mile Road be built, and
not road trusted, as detached sidewalks within the landscape buffer.
Centers: Correct.
Siddoway: And that the applicant tile a section of the Ten Mile drain to accommodate
that sidewalk.
Centers: Correct.
Siddoway: And then -- okay. I guess the question is are you requiring -- are you
recommending that they require the tiling of the full Ten Mile Drain or just the one
section of pipe that you were talking about earlier?
Centers: That's a good -- you know -- and that was running through my mind. All the
way or just -- you know, because I don't think it's fair to ask the applicant to go all the
way when the church should do their half, you know. If they went all the way, you're still
going to have an end --
Borup: I think you're talking about two different things here, aren't you?
Siddoway: Yes.
Centers: Oh.
Siddoway: We are asking if you -- with regard to the tiling of the ditch itself.
Borup: Which is a City Ordinance.
Centers: Yes per staff comments right.
Siddoway: So tile the full ditch is your recommendation along the south property line?
Centers: Well, that was your requirement.
Borup: I don't know that we have a recommendation. We realize the applicant needs
to make application to the City Council to ask for a Variance is that correct?
Siddoway: It will ultimately have to be approved by Council, but I think you can make a
recommendation.
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 82 of 84
Borup: We can make a recommendation -- well, then, maybe we should have got more
information on what the diameter of that pipe is and what the existing ditch is east and
west of here, et cetera.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Yes.
Freckleton: That is correct. It is a City Ordinance for tiling the ditch. You can make
recommendation, Council, ultimately, is the one that will have to decide. This being a
PUD, they can waive the requirement. It's not necessarily a Variance it's a waiver
Borup: Okay.
Freckleton: One thing that I would recommend that the applicant do is dig into this, get
your ducks lined up, because they are going to want to know -- they are going to want
to know what the flow is, what size of pipe it would require to tile it, and those sorts of
things, so --
Centers: And in your staff comments, you had recommended tiling of the ditch,
because it is --
Freckleton: It's an ordinance requirement.
Centers: And I think we want to concur with that and then the applicant can address
the City Council.
Freckleton: Absolutely.
Centers: So we will require that per your comments, but go ahead, Steve.
Siddoway: Okay so the recommendation is to tile the ditch per staff comments and
have the applicant address that with Council.
Centers: Right.
Borup: Our motion didn't even address that, other than -- because of staff comments.
Siddoway: The final item, you specifically pulled out the rear setback of 12 foot for the
existing family home. I assume that with that you're also approving all the other
requested modifications for setbacks, lot size, lot frontage, minimum size --
Center: Per the --
Siddoway: -- per the request noted in the staff report.
Centers: Right.
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 83 of 84
Wollen: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, specifically Commissioner
Centers, I just had one clarification. I also took notes on this and I thought regarding
the Right-to-Farm Act, I thought it was in the -- on the face of the Final Plat it would
have mention of the Right-to-Farm Act and in the CC&Rs it would have specific mention
that neighboring property owners did have livestock that would be --
Centers: That would be correct. It would be up to the developer to develop to wording
in the CC&Rs, but -- you can talk about lambs, chickens, and the rest. That would be
end of motion. Thank you.
Borup: Good job. Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second?
Mathes: We had a second and --
Borup: Oh, I'm sorry. Right. We did have a motion and second. That was the
discussion phase of the motion that we just went through. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Centers: Well -- and then the stenographer has had to compare notes. All right and
continuing on, I would like to recommend approval for CUP 02-031, request for a
Continual Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development for 25 acres -- are we talking --
yes. Right because there is one there. Twenty-five single-family detached homes and
one single-family existing home in an R-8 zone for proposed Moshers Farm Sub by
CMD, Incorporated, 895 North Ten Mile Road, including all staff comments, and the
applicant -- and Page 9 -- yes. That's what I want to do. Page 9, the applicant showed
us footprints that would fit on the specific homes, we are satisfied there. I believe this
would be the place. I'm satisfied with just the playground equipment meeting the PUD
requirement, because of the pathways and the expanded open space. I think that
covers it.
Mathes: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Borup: Thank you.
Centers: I'm going to submit this to our Assistant City Clerk for the dimensions of that
new park.
Borup: Do we have a final motion?
Rohm: I move that we close the session.
Meridian Planning and Zoning
November 7, 2002
Page 84 of 84
Mathes: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to adjourn. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Borup: Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:24 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
/ /
KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN DATE
ATTESTED:
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK