Loading...
2003 12-04Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting December 4, 2003. The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman Keith Borup. Members Present: Chairman Keith Borup, Commissioner Michael Rohm, Commissioner Leslie Mathes, and Commissioner David Zaremba. Others Present: Jill Holinka, Jessica Johnson, Bruce Freckleton, Anna Powell, Craig Hood, Brad Hawkins-Clark, Steve Siddoway, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call ___X___ David Zaremba _______ Vacant ___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 of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for December 4th. I'd like to start with the roll-call attendance of Commissioners. Borup: The first item is that of the minutes for October 16th and November 6th. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, prior to that I would like to discuss adoption of the agenda. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Borup: Okay. Please do. Yeah. That should have been the second -- Zaremba: Staff has suggested that Items 12, 13, and 14, which relate the Saguaro Canyon Estates Subdivision, be continued. They had a recent meeting with the applicant, who also has had meetings with neighborhood people, and that is recent enough that staff did not feel comfortable preparing notes for tonight. The applicant has agreed that they have a little bit more to do to change the plat before they are ready to present and it is, in all likelihood, we will continue that. My suggestion is that we move Items 12, 13, and 14 in front of Item 4. Borup: Okay. And we can do that if we are looking at a continuation. If there is anyone here -- let me ask that, maybe, first, before we do. Is there -- it looks like that we will probably continue that on. This is a request both of staff and of the applicant and it more than likely will be continued to the January 8th meeting. Now, we realize some of you have come here. Is there anybody that even though we are going to be continuing it and not have a staff report or report from the applicant, is there anybody here that would like to testify on that tonight? All right. If there was, we would still take that testimony, but we would do that in a regular scheduled place on the agenda. I Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 2 of 83 see no one that wanted to testify tonight, if that was the way that -- Zaremba: I would so move that we rearrange the agenda such that Items 12, 13, and 14 are dealt with before Item 4. Rohm: I'll second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Approve minutes of October 16, 2003 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting: B. Approve minutes of November 6, 2003 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting: Borup: Item No. 3 was the Consent Agenda, which consists of the minutes. Did we have any additions or comments on the minutes? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we approve both A and B, the minutes of October 16th, 2003 and the minutes of November 6, 2003, as written. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 12: Public Hearing: AZ 03-027 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 140. 25 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for proposed Saguaro Canyon Estates Subdivision by Farwest, LLC – north side of East McMillan Road and east of North Meridian Road: Item 13: Public Hearing: PP 03-032 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 461 single-family building lots and 43 common lots on 140. 25 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Saguaro Canyon Estates Subdivision by Farwest, LLC – north side of East McMillan Road and east of North Meridian Road: Item 14: Public Hearing: CUP 03-058 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for reduced requirements for frontages, lot sizes, and minimum house size and permission to have two cul-de-sac lengths exceed the maximum length in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 3 of 83 Saguaro Canyon Estates Subdivision by Farwest, LLC – north side of East McMillan Road and east of North Meridian Road: Borup: Okay. Then, we'd like to open Public Hearing AZ 03-027 and Public Hearing PP 03-032 and Public Hearing CUP 03-58. All three of those are for the Saguaro Canyon Estates Subdivision by Farwest, LLC, on the north side of McMillan Road and east of Meridian Road. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: For reasons stated earlier, both at the request of staff and the applicant and, apparently, the agreement of any neighbors who wish to testify, I move that we continue all three of those items to our meeting of January 8th. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Okay. So, that meeting has been -- I mean that hearing has been continued to our January 8th meeting. There would not be any other notification to the neighbors. Tonight would serve as the notification of the time change -- or the meeting date change. Zaremba: And did I say 2004? I want to make sure I didn't say 2003. If I did, I'm correcting it to 2004. January 8th, 2004. Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from October 16, 2003, 2003: AZ 03-021 Request for annexation and zoning of 114. 52 acres from RUT to R-8 (PD) and C-G zones for proposed Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 2 by Packard Estates Development, LLC – south of East Ustick Road and east of North Eagle Road: Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from October 16, 2003: PP 03-024 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 302 building lots and 28 other lots on 90. 29 acres in a proposed R-8(PD) zone for proposed Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 2 by Packard Estates Development, LLC – south of East Ustick Road and east of North Eagle Road: Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from October 16, 2003: CUP 03-041 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for single-family residential use with reduced setbacks, lot sizes, lot frontages, house sizes and increased block lengths for proposed Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 4 of 83 Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 2 by Packard Estates Development, LLC – south of East Ustick Road and east of North Eagle Road: Borup: Okay. Our next Item is continued Public Hearing from October 16th and -- Items 4, 5, and 6. So, we'd like to open AZ 03-021 and PP 03-024 and CUP 03-41. All three of those are related to the Red Feather Estates Subdivision. I think we had some partial testimony, but it was continued mainly waiting for the ACHD commission to meet and for their report, but I think there is probably several other staff items also, so at this point -- at this time we'd like to start with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. There are a number of items on these three applications. Did I hear correctly, you did open all three hearings on this? Borup: Yes. Hawkins-Clark: Okay. So, I will do my best to kind of summarize the project here and, then, hit some of the highlights that I think are outstanding for the Commission to decide tonight. Item No. 4 is the annexation and zoning request for the property. All of the property that is within the legal description of the annexation is shown in bold on the outline here on the screen. Ustick Road is on the north. Eagle Road, Highway 55, here on the west. Cloverdale Road is a quarter mile to the east, just off the screen. There are a number of subdivisions, six of them, I believe that, actually abut the property. I think one important thing to point out for the annexation request is that two of the parcels that are shown here, which are under different ownership than the rest, are not a part of Items 5 and 6 on your agenda. The preliminary plat and conditional use permit do not include the Bryson parcel, which is the larger one here with the South Slough along its south boundary and, then, the parcel that is under the ownership of Shamrick Trust is the smaller one here. Both of those do front on Eagle Road. Those two parcels have been requested for a C-G, Commercial General Zone, and the remainder of the property -- there are four other property owners on the balance and they have requested R-8 zoning for those four parcels. So, approximately, 24 acres is proposed as C-G and a little over 90 is -- or a little under 90, I'm sorry, is -- remain for R-8. As far as some of the adjacent property is Perkins-Brown Subdivision, which is in Ada County, is here adjacent to the west. It has an access off of Ustick Road. Duane Drive is the sole street that serves Perkins-Brown and it does come and currently dead ends at the south boundary of their subdivision. Heather Meadows Subdivision is in Boise City. That's on the north side of Ustick. Clover Meadows Subdivision, which is also an Ada County subdivision, is here on the south. Briarwood Subdivision just off the screen, you can see the cul-de-sac that comes in off of Cloverdale Road and then, Briarwood does cul-de-sac right here at this point. Dawson Meadows, currently under construction, is also in Boise City, shown here on the east. And, then, Red Feather No. 1 is shown just below Dawson that has received approval through on Boise City. I think those are the six subdivisions, Perkins-Brown, Heather Meadows, Clover Meadows, Briarwood and Dawson and Red Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 5 of 83 Feather that all abut the property. In terms of the recommended conditions that staff has on the annexation, we have five recommended conditions. We have received written response back and the applicant is in agreement with those five recommended conditions. I think the only one to really maybe -- well, yeah. The one item worthy of being pointed out is number five, condition number five on the annexation and zoning, and that is in reference to the South Slough, which does cross the property down here in the southwest corner of this parcel currently owned by Dirkmeier and we will discuss that in the next couple of items. But the development agreement that we have recommended be entered into between the City of Meridian and the applicant is -- I think the only unique thing to that is that we have recommended these two commercial parcels. Any future uses would have a Conditional Use Permit requirement and that even before they submit for a conditional use they would have a master concept plan and if you recall the Kissler annexation that you have already reviewed and recommended approval on to the City Council is just to the north of this and we had the same development agreement condition on the Kissler as we have recommended for the Bryson and other parcel here. The other development agreement conditions would be taken care of with any preliminary plat approval that might take place. This aerial photo shows, generally, that you can see the Milks lateral crosses the property coming out of Dawson and then the South Slough is in the southwest corner of the Dirkmeier parcel here and then continues over to Eagle Road and crosses under Eagle Road. Here are a few site photos that were taken a few months ago. Duane Drive here up in the upper left, approximately 24, 25-foot rural street with no curb, gutter, or sidewalk. Most of the drainage takes place in the swales that are adjacent to the street and as I mentioned before, this is taken from the very south end of the Duane Drive looking up towards Ustick Road. Here is the site from Ustick, currently agricultural uses. The stub street from Dawson on the eastern boundary is shown on the bottom right and then Granger Street, as you can see, has been improved as a part of the Dawson Meadows Subdivision up to the point where it abuts Red Feather Estates No. 2 and then it turns into a gravel -- a gravel road. And continues all the way through to the east. On the preliminary plat -- this will be, actually, split into two different slides here. The first slide is the majority of the project and then down here in the bottom left is the next -- where the next screen connects and this is proposed Granger right here. So, I'll just go back and briefly summarize. They have ingress- egress. The sole point for the project at this point is off of Ustick Road. They have a residential collector street that does extend all the way through the project and then connects to Granger. They have proposed all single-family detached houses for the subdivision. The two amenities that they have proposed -- well, actually, three, but the largest one is a subdivision private park that is located here in the center. The residential collector does front that. They have proposed a small parking lot that would allow people to actually drive to the amenity and a clubhouse and a pool. They have also shown a tot lot there. Their storm drainage is here on the north end of the common lot. They have several micro paths that they have proposed throughout the subdivision. Briarwood cul-de-sac is shown here and with staff support they have just shown a pedestrian connection there instead of carrying that through. There is quite a nice mature tree that's at the end of this cul-de-sac that they would provide a pathway stub connection there just to save -- preserve that tree. There is an existing house Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 6 of 83 that was built a couple of years ago on this Lot 1, Block 12, this large lot here that's a little over three acres in size. That existing house does take access off of Granger today. We have asked for a re-subdivision plan and we have received that tonight that shows a couple of different options on how this three acres might re-subdivide in the future. It does have a stub street coming out of Dawson that we have asked to, in the future, connect all the way through to the residential collector should the project be approved and this become a lot. Then, moving further south, they are showing to utilize a stub street that's in Red Feather No. 1. Again, that was approved in Boise City, but not developed yet. They would utilize that stub street, so they would have in the future two stubs on their east boundary. There is no existing stub on the south, so they have not shown anything at least on this portion that's east of Georgianna Milks' subdivision. Granger, as shown here, would then extend across -- cut across this corner here and then the other -- one of the latter phases of their preliminary plat is here south of Perkins-Brown Subdivision. Here is the Duane Drive connection that I mentioned earlier. Here is the second common lot, private park that they are proposing. They are showing a basketball court as another amenity for the project. ACHD, as you mentioned, Chairman Borup, one of the main reasons they continued this was so that the highway district could have their hearing on it. As you will no doubt hear from some of the public here tonight, the decision was made by ACHD to require a swinging gate be constructed across the south terminus of Duane Drive, but they were asked to provide a pedestrian connection. As I mentioned in the memo that I submitted a couple of weeks ago, the original plat did show Duane Drive being connected, but ACHD placed that condition on there. They said that the swinging gate could be removed at the request of the developer, City of Meridian, residents and other interested parties, basically. A very broad condition that if the highway district receives a formal request from any of those parties, then, they would remove that swinging gate. But until that happens that would be connected. Now, bear in mind that this is shown right now as a latter phase in the development and maybe we can ask the applicant to address when they anticipate that. The fire department also made some -- made some comments regarding this in terms of a secondary access, because if Duane is closed, of course, they would only have Granger to access this area, which would -- they would need a secondary -- permanent secondary point of access to serve it. They are showing another stub in the future out to the Bryson parcel, which I showed earlier that has -- that goes out to Eagle Road and has a frontage there. I think there is only about four or five items that probably are worthy of specific discussion. Maybe I will start -- Bruce, you want to talk about the -- okay. I guess on the first item we are going to -- it deals with the extension of a water main and that was addressed in both the staff report and the applicant's response dated November 26th and we will request the applicant Becky McKay to address that. I guess the first item to point out -- and I will go back to the larger plat view here -- is there is a one-acre parcel that is not a part of this plat that is under the ownership of Smitchger and that has not been included, by the request of the owner. That one-acre parcel was a part of the over all lot that you -- the parcel that you see here. It was split off in 1997 through Ada County, but it was not approved under Ada County subdivision ordinance per se. We have requested that the applicant provide us evidence that that split was done legally in Ada County. We have not received that and have been told that it was, indeed, done illegally through Ada Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 7 of 83 County. So, we have -- the City of Meridian's ordinance says that a subdivision -- the way that it defines a subdivision is that it must include any parcels that have been split off from the parent parcel, if you will, since 1984, which was the adoption of the City of Meridian's subdivision code in 1984. So, it essentially ties the two together and says if you -- unless that parcel was split off in a legal manner, either through the City of Meridian or through Ada County then the whole original parcel needs to be incorporated into the legal description of the plat. So, that's the reason that staff is asking for that piece to be included, as well as this Commission and the City of Meridian City Council have made it pretty clear that Ada County enclaves are something that we want to address at the front end, so that we can avoid having these enclaves in the area of impact where at all possible. So, those are the two main reasons that we are asking for that -- that the City of Meridian ordinance requires it be included and direction from the Commission and the Council that these enclaves be avoided at the front end of the process. Looking at the staff report, the original staff report, which was submitted September 15th, there is four other -- I think four or five other items here to point out. Starting on page 10, there are some special considerations that we pointed out for the plat. They have requested reduced -- excuse me -- reduced lot frontages as a part of the planned development, the Conditional Use Permit. They have requested that they have at least 37 feet of frontage on the street -- straight street sections and 33 on cul- de-sacs. This is a deviation that would be allowed under the planned development, as long as they provide the amenities, which they have. The reduced lot sizes that they are asking for, standard is 6,500 square feet, they are asking for 5,250. It's about a 20 percent reduction. Block length. They have asked for a couple of the blocks to exceed the maximum and a couple of the blocks to be below the minimum. The minimum blocks, there is two of them, they are both right up here at the north end of the project and those are just, I think, a little over 250 feet long. Largely, they need to go below the minimum 500 in order to maximize the connections on the north end of the project here. Let's see. The Ustick Road right of way is a pretty standard comment, so I won't deal with that. The street buffers, landscape street buffers, are required to be 25 feet on Ustick and they are showing the 25 feet of street landscape buffer there. They have -- the plat that's on the screen here is a revised plat from what was originally shown and one of the changes is Arch Street -- what they have proposed as Arch Street and that is a slight change in alignment from the first plat to make this a straight connection, instead of having a jog. So, that was done at the request of staff. I think in terms of the stub street issues, I think that was really the only one to point out. The out parcel on page 12, I have mentioned that, that's the Smitchger parcel. The driveways for the lots that -- the lot here, Lot 1 Block 12, that has the existing house on it, since Granger is a residential collector, in the future we have asked them to demonstrate how that would take access internally, so that is something we have asked for much later in the process, though. I don't know how much of that is really up for discussion tonight. On page 14, Item number ten -- or, I'm sorry, Item number eleven, there -- we would ask that the applicant address how -- just to clarify, if the street -- if the sidewalks in the project are attached or detached. There is a conflict between the landscape plan that they submitted and the preliminary plat as to whether or not they are attached or detached, so we'd just like that clarified for the record tonight. And, then finally, I think on the South Slough pathway -- and I'll go to the second sheet here Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 8 of 83 of their plat, the South Slough, which is also called the Finch Lateral, comes from the south and then just bisects this corner of the property. They are showing this entire drain as a separate common lot in the project, which is kind of blended with this common lot on Tahiti Drive and those -- the City's Comprehensive Plan does show a multi-use pathway along the South Slough. This will be the first project that we have seen that abuts that South Slough, so we have recommended, since the Comp Plan shows it, that they include it. However, Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District did submit a letter back in July that stated that that is not acceptable. They are calling it a lateral. Typically, the irrigation district says no -- no pathways along laterals, only along drains. I think it's a question of definition of this facility, is it a drain, is it a lateral. It has an 80- foot wide easement on it. So, I guess since this is a later phase, I think staff would still like to see at least the easements provided there so that it can be reserved. If necessary, that could be vacated in the future. The parks department, when it comes to the point of connecting those, at least preserve that connection. So, if it's not shown, I have just tonight talked with the applicant and they are possibly open to just extending this Lot 13 up to the north, extend the boundary a little bit up to the north to accommodate the pathway outside of Nampa-Meridian's easement. So, that is an option that -- the parks department did not comment on that pathway. We would like also for the applicant to comment on this connection on Granger. It does -- there has been some dispute between the owners of this lot and Georgianne Milks, which is a five acre out parcel that shows better here on this first sheet, as to the property line and whether or not Granger is encroaching into this parcel or not. I think there have been two different surveys done, hired by both parties, so I think -- I have not had an update on that, but would ask the applicant to clarify where that issue is As well as that it does appear the right of way for Granger encroaches into this lot in Perkins-Brown a little bit, but Perkins-Brown is not shown as an owner in this project, they haven't given consent for this application. So, if that right of way does encroach into that lot, then, we, obviously, need to get that consent. And, then, on item number six, the planned development, really not going to go over anything on this project -- I mean on this application, other than to point out the required amenities. Here is the -- one of the open space lots on the south end of the project. It doesn't reflect it, but they have shown a basketball court there and, then, here is the park that is further north, shows some of the landscaping, some of the micro path connections there. We have asked for a site plan to be shown on how a reduced house size can be -- how a plot plan can fit on a couple of these lots that are here where the Milks Lateral -- that's this straight line coming across the middle here, has a pretty wide easement on it and it does restrict the frontage to around 50 feet. We have certainly seen plot plans in Woodbridge in particular where we have -- and Heritage Commons where they have shown houses on 50 foot of frontage, but we would like to see where that's going to -- demonstrate how that lot's going to be buildable with that easement coming so far into the lot. So, I guess just to summarize, I think the main points for you to -- in terms of disagreement between staff and the applicant is on the annexation and zoning is on the out parcel and on the preliminary plat. The water extension from Eagle, which I didn't talk about, but Becky will, and Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District encroachment agreement, I think -- I didn't mention that, but there is just -- I think they would like to submit an encroachment agreement later than what we would prefer. We'd like to see it earlier in Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 9 of 83 the process, so I think we just have a little disagreement there. And then that South Slough pathway. So, I think there is four items that -- that there are some differences of opinion on between staff and the applicant. We have -- we have recommended approval. We think that their -- this project was submitted over a year ago to -- they were requesting a Comp Plan amendment change to remove this entire acreage from Boise -- from Meridian's area of impact and put it into Boise's area of impact and they were denied that request, in part, because they were told at that point that the City of Meridian was going to serve this area soon and if they could find a path of annexation, then, it would be brought in and that was one of the reasons. It is a fairly developed area. If you go further down Ustick, the majority of that is urbanized for the most part. There are certainly pockets, but it is an area that while on the fringe of our area of impact is very much built out in the larger area. So, as long as some of these issues can be worked out with services, we are supportive of the project being annexed and so I think -- do you have anything else? I guess at this point staff will stand for any questions. Borup: Okay. Any questions from any of the Commissioners? I might have a couple. And I don't know -- one was on the water extension. Did -- Bruce, did you have any comment on that at this time or did you want to wait until on? My assumption was that you'd like to see a loop system. Was that the reasoning there? Freckleton: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, some of you might remember back to when we had the Comp Plan amendment coming through last winter. It was something that I brought up then that we needed to have. We were out on the ragged edge as far as being able to provide water to the subdivision with just a single feed. Our comfort level is not real good and, like I said, that was last -- last winter when the Comp Plan amendment came through. We have had a lot -- a lot of development in the area over the summer and when we reevaluate the model, which we have done recently, the need to have the loop is even greater now. We are working on trying to acquire a site for a new well up in the area. However, well sites are taking longer to get and longer to license and get drilled and on line and so by having a tighter network with loops and -- you know, you just get a lot better hydraulic distribution of your water in your system and can be able to provide the level of service that we -- we strive for. So, the City has -- in our new budget year we have identified some weak areas in the system and we have got some projects that the City is going to be taking on and the applicant and I talked before the meeting that some of our projects may benefit this area. We have got some projects that we are going to be doing in Eagle Road, so I know some of their concern was the bore under Eagle Road and, you know, like I said, some of our projects may benefit them to where that huge expense wouldn't land on them. So, I think that between them and the timing of their phrases and the timing of our projects and just the demand on the system, what I think we can do is just work with them of as each phase comes in. We will evaluate them to the system. It may be possible to serve their first phase from Ustick Road off of a dead end line and, then, deeper into the subdivision the loop would have to be completed, but it's just a huge timing issue at this point and, like I said, with all the development that's going on, it's hard to pin down and say, yes, you could do your first phase, because, you know, Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 10 of 83 somebody else may build before them and I can't guarantee capacity in the system for this development when we have others that are coming in, so -- Borup: So, you do have -- you do have some concern just in the first phase you're saying, then? Freckleton: We do. We do. But, like I said, we have to -- the timing of the city projects, the timing of other projects in the area, and the timing of their project, we are just going to have to work with them and -- Borup: Okay. Freckleton: -- see what we can do. Borup: Another question for Brad and that was on -- I think I maybe answered it, but on the reduced -- you had mentioned on the reduced frontages, 37 feet. I only found one lot that -- were there more than one lot that even needed that stipulation? I saw Lot 8, Block 10. Hawkins-Clark: Right. Borup: I didn't see any others that even -- Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. Craig Hood, the other planner who was also working on this project, just told me that he believes that's correct, that it is just one lot. That's 37. Borup: One lot. So, that whole request for reduction is just for that one lot? Hawkins-Clark: You know, they have to request the minimum -- Borup: Right. No. I understand. Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. Borup: Okay. And I did note that the others -- the reduction on the cul-de-sac ones were -- I think on that south cul-de-sac and those lots range from 84 to over 11,000 feet. So, the lots were good size, even though the frontages were reduced. Okay. That's all I had. Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Unless -- any other Commissioners have anything else that -- McKay: Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, business address 150 East Akins, Suite B, Eagle. I'm representing the applicant in this matter. I will kind of give you a brief overview of the project. What we have here is the particular property that you guys, as Brad indicated, looked at a few months ago and considered removing it from the Meridian area of impact and allowing it to go to the City of Boise. Our project, as I indicated before, was split by the Boise area of impact line right here. The Council Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 11 of 83 believed that it was in the best interest of the City of Meridian that this remain -- this property remain in Meridian's impact area, due to the fact that the Public Works Department has went to a great expense to extend that South Slough trunk out to this area. So, what we did is the Boise portion, we processed through the City of Boise. Granger is a residential collector that comes off of Cloverdale Road. The -- I extended that collector up through the center of this. There is no front-on housing, with the exception of this existing dwelling and, then, it comes up across from Providence Place Subdivision, so it is in alignment with the street on the north side of Ustick. So, we do have a continuous collector, which, as you well know, adds capacity to our transportation system by minimizing the amount of traffic that's on the arterial, due to the fact that traffic can cut through a particular section in this fashion. On your Comprehensive Plan this property that you see in the preliminary plat is designated medium density residential, that's three to eight dwelling units per acre, and the portion that is -- adjoins Eagle Road is mixed use regional. Now, that -- we included that in our annexation, because that is the point that we are contiguous with the city limits and so those property owners were kind enough to enter into this application, so that we could annex them, zone them, yet they have no particular plans for development of those two parcels at this time. I think staff has indicated that they are comfortable with those parcels being annexed and zoned C-G, with a development agreement that would require conditional use permits for those particular uses. Those properties are along that Eagle Road corridor. That mixed regional does allow for, you know, like arterial type commercial, big box users, also office and I think it talks about minimizing the amount of curb cuts out on Eagle Road, within interior connection and roadways that go kind of parallel to Eagle Road. So, when those properties have a purchaser, I believe they will have to come forth and then present that plan to you guys and the Council. So, I don't see that as problematic. We have requested R-8 designation, which is a medium density zone. Our density that we are requesting is 3. Thirty-three dwelling units per acre. That's our gross density. Our net is 4.23. So, as you can well see, we are on the low end of that density scale when we are looking at the medium density designation of three to eight. We have got about 90. Twenty-nine acres in the residential and as Brad indicated, about 24. Twenty-three acres in the C-G portion. We went with a planned unit development on this particular property due to the fact that, one, it is large in size and we needed the flexibility in order to provide differing product lines. We have got product lines as you can see by the size of these lots, about 5,250 square feet up here in this area adjoining Ustick Road, so up at the arterial our higher density exists. As we come closer into the interior of the project, the lots go up to about 6,820 and they range from about 7,500 in this area and, then, they go to 87 and 9,100 range in through here. So, we do have four different product lines that will accommodate four different types of homes in size and price to, obviously, make this available to a larger portion of the population and different socioeconomic groups. We have a centrally located amenity here that's 2. Thirty-seven acres in size. As Brad indicated, we are proposing a clubhouse and swimming pool. Also, a parking area, in the event that some of the residents would want to drive. There is no parking along the collector roadway. Therefore, we want to be able to accommodate some type of parking in here. Also, that would allow handicapped people to drive a van there and access this facility also. We have pathways that meander and micro paths that extend Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 12 of 83 out to make this as accessible as possible. We also show a volleyball court. As we come down here, we have got pedestrian pathways that will link up in this area and, then, we have another pocket park down here. As Brad indicated, we propose a basketball court. This is the South Slough right here. Nampa-Meridian calls it the Finch Lateral. They have indicated due to the fact that it is a live water ditch, they are opposed to your multi-use pathway that is shown on your parks comprehensive plan. So, our only alternative is -- either, one, as Brad indicated, to provide some type of an easement to the City, so that in the future if negotiations with Nampa-Meridian are successful, that that pathway could be constructed or, two, to try to slide the pathway and have it just adjoin that easement. They cannot prohibit us from building a pathway if we are outside the easement. This South Slough is a very nice water feature. We are proposing to leave it open. It appears that there had been a lot of cattle out there over the past few years, therefore, the banks are beat down. It's a real nice gentle slope, it kind of looks like a nice little creek and doesn't resemble a standard lateral that we typically see. This area here is about 2-3 acres. We have varying areas throughout the project to accommodate storm drainage. We have the Milks Lateral that traverses right through here. This is the historical location and that's where we are piping that facility. I believe staff's concern was -- on our drawing we show the existing facility, we show the existing easements, then, we indicate that that will be placed in pipe. So, when the pipe is located adjoining the roadway and, then, running like this, then these lots are considerably larger than they appear on the preliminary plat, but I will make sure that they have adequate area to build on. Concerning access, we have Briarwood that adjoins us here. We only have 20 feet of right of way. Therefore, our only connection can be pedestrian. We also have a very large tree right at the end, which we moved our pathway to miss, but maintain that interconnection. We are connecting here on the Granger collector. We have a local street connection here. Clover Meadows adjoins us on the south boundary so there are no connections there. We have a stub street here and then a stub street here to the west, so some future interconnection to Eagle Road. The contention at the highway district was over this Duane Drive connection. This subdivision, the Perkins-Brown was developed in 1971. This is a straight shot, substandard, kind of rural road with no curb, gutter, or sidewalk. I think there is approximately between 21 and 24 feet of pavement. Therefore, no matter what we do in our planning, you're going to find traffic going out that way from this area here. So, the highway district struggled. We had two meetings and they struggled with how to -- how to keep that traffic from going through the subdivision, even though it kept them -- our traffic did not exceed the threshold of 1,000 vehicle trips per day, they still were concerned about the integrity of the neighborhood, and I agreed with them. So, thereafter, what they have asked us to do is we will dedicate that right of way, we will build the roadway, but we will chokers here at this intersection and then this will be gated off, but yet, the gate would allow emergency vehicle access and then it would also allow pedestrian bicycle. So we would still get that interconnection, but we wouldn't get the cut-through traffic. So, that will force the traffic out to the collector roadway, where we intend it to go, because we don't have front-on housing and the conflict that we typically have with a local street. Brad wanted me to address this issue right through here. We had dealt with the Mittleiders, they are an out parcel here. I'm stubbing to them. Their property is a perfect width for redevelopment. This stub street Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 13 of 83 will come in, go up and be just perfect. Obviously, the city will require that we stub services to that parcel, so it will be prime for development. The contention was -- it's like a 1901 plat, in the early 1900s. The dimensions on the plat do not scale correctly and so there have been different interpretations from the surveyors on what is the true dimensions of this particular parcel. Granger -- there is an old granger right of way that exists that comes across here and stops and then there is 20 feet of right of way that comes up to about there and stops. There is 30 on this side, 20 on that side. So, what I did with Mittleiders, since we could not come to an agreement or compromise -- and we did work diligently to do so. We have made the dimensions of the parcel the dimensions that the Mittleiders believe they own. So, we were very conservative and not to be a bad neighbor, we went -- and this is 660 -- I believe 660. 2. The previous dimension 642, I believe. Now, the problem we have is we have got to come down into this Derkheimer parcel here -- that's the previous owner. There is existing right of way 30 feet here, 20 feet here. On that particular plat -- and I can submit that into the public record. It's clearly shown. It's called county road right of way. There are two types of line work on that plat. There is a solid dark line shown for Duane Drive and then there are two dashes in a long line showing the 30-foot easement here and a 30-foot easement across here. When that plat was recorded, the way state law read at the time it was recorded that right of way is dedicated and we have had a lot of controversy over the, what, 13 years I have been doing this on when they call it an easement, is it really right of way. According to the highway district, yes, it is right of way. It's an unopened, unimproved right of way that they have the ability to open at any such time they believe it necessary. So, I have been working with the Altmans, because I don't want to be a bad neighbor and we have been talking to them, we have this staked, because they said, well, we'd like to see where that right of way is, how much area it takes up. We did that. We also offered them some compensation because they believe that they have paid taxes on that right of way easement over the past few years, so we have been working with them to make that happen. The highway district was comfortable with the situation. I believe what was stated for the public record, you know, it's our responsibility to work with them to get that accomplished and they didn't have a problem with it. So, they were satisfied, they were comfortable, they approved us. We have got a really good project here, I believe. We have got a couple of minor issues. One being the issue of the enclave. If this parcel -- I guess, in my personal opinion, if this parcel had been split out recently, if this person had owned this property and had split it out and we excluded him from our plat, then, I could see that the city would say, no, that needs to be included and we have had that happen in other instances. But this was split out six years ago. Split out by the previous owner of that property. And Mr. Smitchger, if you recall, was at our area of impact hearing. He was the gentleman -- the elderly gentleman that indicated he didn't want to be anybody's area of impact, he didn't want to be in Boise's, he didn't want to be in Meridian's, he didn't want to be annexed by anybody. Borup: So, that was -- in '98 that was split? McKay: '97. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 14 of 83 Borup: '97. McKay: So, I guess how can I force an individual to consent to have his property annexed? He wants to just remain the way he is, in the county. He knows his taxes will go up if he's annexed and that's why I believe he testified that he -- his preference was he not be annexed by anyone. He be left alone. When I worked at the county we had instances like this continuously. We would find that if someone wanted to build a house -- like years ago on this property, they wouldn't loan on the 40 or the 37 acres, they'd only -- the bank would only loan on the one acre. So, they'd go in and do a segregation request and give that another parcel number, build their house on it, and, then, over time they sell the house off with the acre, then, they sell the rest of the property. So, I mean it's just something -- we can't solve all the problems on the illegal divisions that have taken place. But one thing, when a property is illegally divided, the only way to clean that up is to subdivide it. When you subdivide a piece of property, you, therefore, make it legal. Mr. Smitchger does have an option -- this is an R-1 zone, which adjoins him. He could rezone his property, if he wanted to, to an R-1, which, then, he would be in conformance with the dimensional standards. But I'm just powerless to force him to be included in this annexation. If he was the seller, you know, we could say, well, you know, this is what you have to do in order to do make this project happen, but he is not the seller. Borup: I think that's understood. The staff question was clarification whether that was a legal split or an illegal. It sounds like you're saying that was an illegal split. McKay: We went down and we researched it and we confirmed -- we got a copy of the deed that -- the deed is dated 1997 and it was an RUT zone -- or an R-2 zone at the time, which is a five acre minimum lot size and he's one acre. Borup: And who was -- who was the owner of the entire parcel at that time when it was split? McKay: Smitchger. Borup: So, he's the one that did the illegal split? McKay: Yes, sir. Borup: And, then, he sold -- McKay: To Victory 37. Borup: How -- in -- McKay: '97. Borup: In '97? Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 15 of 83 McKay: Yes. Borup: Okay. And Victory 37 didn't check in to make sure they were buying a legally split property, then. McKay: I guess not. I wasn't involved in that division. Borup: Okay. McKay: So, in my comments back to the staff's report, I guess I stated under item five, the annexation and zoning, that it is our preference to leave that South Slough open, to not pipe it. And, then, the third issue of contention is the issue of water on Ustick. At the City Council it was discussed -- if you recall it was discussed here -- the fact that United Water has a 12-inch mainline in Ustick and in Cloverdale. Boise City has a sewer line here. Boise City has a sewer line located right there. And both the City of Boise and United Water indicated that they could service this property. The question arose -- the City of Meridian's ability to service the property and it was staff's contention that with the extension of the South Slough, the boring of Eagle Road, that it was just a matter of time before that sewer line was available, which is correct. We are bringing the sewer from Eagle Road -- from the east side of Eagle Road along that slough and into the development. The issue of water was discussed and Mr. Watson at the City Council indicated that he believed that the 12-inch Ustick water main could supply service to the property, because one of our arguments was we may not be able to get that water eastward over to the site. In my client's negotiations with those property owners for the sewer easement, the issue of water has been discussed. So, the ability may be there to bring that water on eastward. But I guess I am a little bit disappointed when we were told that the 12-inch was adequate to serve this project and the Council made their decision to keep this parcel within the city area of impact based on that information. Borup: And what year was that? McKay: That was last year. Wasn't it last year? Borup: But -- okay. McKay: Now, the other issue -- Borup: Was that accurate what Bruce had said, though? Other projects have come on line since then? McKay: That's true. That's true. Now, the other thing I want to bring up is we do have an eight-inch main -- United Water eight-inch main here at Granger. They stubbed it right here at the end of the pavement. They also -- where this Red Feather No. 1 is under construction, they are requiring that we stub an eight inch water main right there. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 16 of 83 So, Bruce said he doesn't believe it's possible for the two entities to connect their systems, but, nonetheless, that water is there. So, I just wanted to kind of throw that out for discussion. In the original staff report there was a discussion about the applicant extension of Granger, Palm, and Duane. We are, obviously, going to need the Duane Drive extension struck, because it is a restricted emergency access only. On the encroachment agreements, we have always in the past submitted those agreements prior to signature on the final plat. The reason being that Nampa-Meridian will not consider preparation of an encroachment agreement until you submit plans. So, if it's required that we submit the agreement with the final plat, it usually takes us anywhere from two to three months to obtain that agreement from Nampa-Meridian, because they send the plans out to their consultant for his review and that's -- well, I have had plans in there now for two months. So, it causes a real time crunch and obviously, your plat doesn't get signed if you don't have an encroachment agreement. So, I don't understand why they are jumping that up to that earlier step. On Item 18 is the Smitchger issue and I guess, like I stated before, we can't be held responsible for something that we had no part of that was done six years ago and that Mr. Smitchger is not going to consent to the annexation. I'm convinced of that. Item 19 is the vacation. There was a discussion in the staff report about vacating that 20 feet of right of way, we got a short 20 feet of right of way. We will also be exchanging right of way, so I wanted that just clarified with the Granger right of way here, so instead of the collector roadway going straight, the collector is going to this way. So, ACHD discussed that we would do what they call an exchange. So, they are still getting their right of way, they are getting their collector, it's just in a different location and I have done that before out off of Shamrock Street. Sample floor plans. The staff had a few concerns about the 50-foot lots. You guys have seen 50-foot lots in projects such as Woodbridge. Here are some examples of some elevations and floor plans for some of the homes that have been constructed on those 50-foot lots. We wouldn't propose the 50-foot lots if we didn't believe that they were buildable. They are detached. We have no attached dwellings. There is a market for those. A lot of elderly people like the smaller lots. They have less lawn to maintain and they are popular and we want to provide a wide spectrum of homes and lot sizes. Do you have any questions? Borup: Questions from the Commissioners? You had mentioned the lot sizes on the 50-foot lots and, you're correct, we have seen a lot of that. I don't -- the lots that I have the concern on was the same ones that staff had mentioned, maybe those along the Milks Lateral where you have got, you know, a 20-foot building area at the front or so. Have any -- McKay: Like I told you -- Borup: Well -- and I don't -- it's going to be a problem, but any lot can have a house designed for it, so something can be done. McKay: Right. And, like I said, it looks odd because of that -- Borup: Well, no, I understand, but it's still -- it's still an easement through there, isn't it? Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 17 of 83 McKay: No, because I'm going to relocate the easement. Borup: Okay. Okay. I'm sorry. I misunderstood. McKay: Yeah. I guess I wasn't very clear on that. That was my point. The easement -- I have to show it in its historical location, the waterway. Borup: So, the easement will move over to the property line? McKay: The easement -- I'm going to -- that's why I have these separate lots all along here to accommodate that -- that irrigation line and move the easement north, which, then, those lots will be enlarged. So, my response to the staff is those lots will be enlarged when we pipe that and move the easement north. It just looks -- Borup: It will move north to the property line? McKay: Yes, sir. Borup: Okay. McKay: Out on this common lot here. Borup: Okay. McKay: Yes, sir. Borup: Okay. No other questions, Commissioners? Is there anything staff maybe wanted to bring up while Becky is up here? Hawkins-Clark: We are fine with waiting until after all the comments have been made. Borup: Okay. Okay. Thank you. McKay: Thank you. Borup: Okay. This is the time -- portion for any public questions, input, or testimony. So, we'd like to invite anyone up that would like to testify at this time. Do we have anyone? Belcher: Chairman Borup, Commissioners, my name is Fitzroy Belcher. I reside at 2920 Duane Drive and I'm also the president of the Perkins-Brown Homeowners Association. So, be it for 24 houses. I have some concerns. I think you folks received correspondence from us expressing our concerns and we have a few more that have come up this evening. One is Eagle Road access, when that will come about. The question of the enclave-- will be a 60-acre enclave of county completely Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 18 of 83 surrounded by Meridian and Boise to the north. Does that present a problem? You expressed earlier that you didn't like to see enclaves if you could get away with it at the planning time. Borup: And I think part of that was the size of the enclave also. Belcher: On the size. Okay. Borup: And it doesn't flow as well. Historically, in the past the City has not -- I'm not familiar that the City's ever forced an annexation, especially of a developed area of that size, but -- Belcher: I have a concern with the statement I think by staff on the Duane Drive opening. I think if you read the motion by Ada County Highway District, it does not say anything in there about being -- any party being able to open it in the future. The only thing that I recall them saying in the discussion was that it would be up to the people in the Perkins-Brown to open it, if they felt that they needed additional access. I have a concern with our lots are all two and a half and five acres, most everyone has livestock of some sort, horses, some people raise some steers, some people have coats, sheep, and we are going to be putting -- the back of my property -- I'll have three houses abutting my property and we now have a barbed wire fence. What are we going to have back there when we get a subdivision back there? Borup: As far as a fence? The subdivision will be putting in a six inch -- a six-foot fence. Belcher: Wood, probably. And who is going to maintain our side of the fence, which is going to turn gray and ugly within two years. Another question I have is on -- that Becky stated that they are going to move the easement on the Milks Lateral. Will the pipe stay in the same place or will it be moved and, if so, where are we -- how will that affect our head gate for our irrigation. That's my concerns. Thank you. Borup: Okay. We will get answers to those questions. Zaremba: I can comment on one of them. The ACHD report on page eleven -- I will quote what ACHD says to us: The gate will be removed when a formal request, parenthesis, by anyone, i.e., the City of Meridian, a citizen, the developer, a resident of Perkins-Brown Subdivision, et cetera, closed parenthesis, is received by the district to open Duane Drive public right of way. So, that's what ACHD provided to us. Borup: And I question whether that's -- if that was what they meant or that it means they may look at it at that time and still have another hearing and -- Zaremba: And there is no time attached to it either. Borup: No. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 19 of 83 Zaremba: I mean that could -- Borup: Twenty years from now. Zaremba: It's making it sound like I could walk over there and ask for it to be opened and that could happen tomorrow and that doesn't sound like that's what the intent was, I'm certain. We must have some authority modify that or clarify it, anyhow. But, anyhow, that's where that statement came from. Borup: Yeah. That was all from ACHD. Zaremba: We don't necessarily agree with it. Borup: Do we have anyone else that would like to come forward? Tyvand: Hi. My name is Diana Tyvand and I live at 4240 East Green Meadow Drive. That's in the Clover Meadows Subdivision that abuts the southern boundary of the Red Feather No. 2 Subdivision. My neighbor Gary Peva was going to come here tonight, but he had a death in the family and couldn't come, so I believe you have his letter up there to read and I just kind of want to speak to that, too, and say that we are concerned on that we keep -- have access to our irrigation ditch. You know, we have lived there since 1979 and we use the irrigation for our one acre lots in that subdivision and it looks like when they surveyed, they -- the boundary has changed. Our ditch was -- you know, our boundary line was north of the ditch and it looks like it's bumping to the south of the ditch now and so I guess we spoke with Becky McKay and I believe the developers and I guess they have come to an agreement of some sort and we just want to make sure that we still have access to that ditch and that the property line remain where it is, you know, with the fence now. So, I just wanted to kind of concur with what Gary had said in his letter. Borup: Okay. And we will get some comment on that, but the irrigation water will be still delivered at his historical -- Tyvand: And we want it to be an open access still like it is. Borup: But depending on where the ditch is located may affect that and I'm not sure on what the situation is on your boundary line. Tyvand: Okay. And, see, that's what I wanted to clarify. Borup: If it was improperly surveyed in the past and -- Tyvand: And I don't know. That's what I want clarification -- Borup: Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 20 of 83 Tyvand: -- if I could, please. Freckleton: Mr. Chair? Borup: Yes. Freckleton: I just wanted to, for the record, indicate that we did get a letter from Gary Peva, dated 12/4. Borup: Yes. We have that in our packet. Freckleton: You should. Zaremba: Actually, from Gary and Sue Peva. Freckleton: Correct. Zaremba: Along with several others. Not to totally answer all of the irrigation questions, but -- along with the previous speaker, even if the applicant reroutes -- pipes and reroutes an irrigation through their own property, I believe the rule is they -- by the time they get to the edge of their property, they have to have brought it back to where you historically got it. I believe that's the correct interpretation. So, even they did loop-de-loops within their own property, the end of it has to be where it comes into your property, the same as it always has been. Now, whether that's a legal property line, as the next lady suggested, that's something else that needs to be clarified. Borup: Was there anyone else? Come forward. M. Tyvand: My name is Mike Tyvand. I live with Diana Tyvand on the south side of this proposed subdivision and I submitted a letter and what I'm mostly concerned about is we are going to have increased traffic on Ustick and Cloverdale and -- and what we kind of not discussed is there is no pedestrian route out of our subdivision across all of this to get to Ustick school there. I think that would probably be a good idea if we could have some pedestrian route there. We talked about Briarwood and some of the other pedestrian walkways, but there is none coming from the south, so that's mostly what I'm concerned about. Borup: Question on that. Do you have someone in your subdivision that would be willing to do a pedestrian pathway to this subdivision? M. Tyvand: Well, we will find out on our side. We also have a street ending right there where the Georgia Milks Subdivision is and that's kind of unclear of what's going to happen in there. And I think the indication was that there is going to be a road going north from that existing butt there. Well, that won't provide any pedestrian route either. So, I think -- Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 21 of 83 Borup: Which location are you referring to? There is a light -- should be a laser -- M. Tyvand: This lot right here. We are right here. Well, we are actually about right here. But our subdivision ends right here. And so talking about this six-foot fence, it's going to be encompassing the whole subdivision here. Zaremba: Sir, can you pull the microphone that's behind you closer to you, if you're going to be over at the map. M. Tyvand: So, this is going to block off any pedestrian access from the south here up toward Ustick school there up in the corner and I'm not sure whether the subdivision -- proposed subdivision abuts Ustick school or not, but it comes mighty close. And, also, for any of these individuals that may want to go south with bicycle or pedestrian, they can't do that either, if there is no -- if there is no pedestrian route here. So, our subdivision ends right there and, you know, any of these routes could be a possible walkway, I think. Borup: And I think the developer would probably be glad to do that, but there has to be a pedestrian walkway in your subdivision for them to tie into. T. Tyvand: Okay. Borup: You can understand that. T. Tyvand: Sure. Sure. But it would be -- you know, we have been living there for 25 years and we have never had this opportunity before, so -- Borup: Right. T. Tyvand: So, you know, we are not the ones that have come up with this plan, but, you know, it -- Borup: Does your property abut against this subdivision? T. Tyvand: Yes, but it's one of the smaller -- the narrower lots right in here. Borup: Well, I was just asking -- would you like that pathway to come from your property, then, to get into that? T. Tyvand: I might do that. Unless we can find -- you know, unless we can find a better route. Borup: Yeah. T. Tyvand: But I think it's something that should be considered. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 22 of 83 Borup: Yeah. And the interconnectivity is always something we look at and that's an important aspect. T. Tyvand: Okay. Borup: Okay. Yes. Brown: For the record, Kent Brown, 3161 Springwood, Meridian. Just the issue of requiring the developer to annex property that has been previously divided, is a poor precedent, as far as I'm concerned. I agree with the argument that Becky provided, if it was being subdivided currently it would make more sense. The entity that has the power to do that is the City of Meridian and if they want it to be annexed, it's less than five acres and they can do it and I know that they choose not to do that, but they have that authority and power and it's not greater than five acres and I would hope that that would be the condition for all developments in the valley. Zaremba: I agree with that philosophy, but I'd actually like to ask the question the other way around, perhaps of legal counsel. Can we annex a portion of a property that has not been legally split? Holinka: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'm actually not sure about that part of it, whether you can annex the -- if it has not been legally split. It is correct that you can -- the City can annex a parcel that's less than five acres. But I would have to get back to you, actually, on the question of whether -- Zaremba: Well, I guess my question is if it's not been legally split, is this still part of the same property? I think that's the point that staff is making. Brown: And when you look at the state code with regards to annexation, it makes no provision there for the division, other than the five acres that I'm aware of. And -- I mean cities can choose to annex or not annex the properties, but the provisions that require -- Zaremba: I guess what I'm not understanding is I feel whatever the property was, if it's not legally split, we have to consider the whole piece of property, which, if staff is right, still contains this other acre that's not a separate parcel legally. Borup: Well, normally, the time when that issue comes up is when there is any type of development, someone is trying to get a building permit. I would assume, in this case, if someone applied for a building permit that would be researched and they would not be granted a building permit. Brown: And that would be true of what Ada County would do to that person to make that happen. When -- the nine years I worked for the City of Boise and there was an illegal division, we required the person to go through a subdivision, even for one lot, if Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 23 of 83 they were illegally divided. I mean, so the city in the future can have the ability to do something. Borup: You mean after the fact you did that. Brown: After the fact. Borup: And how did you enforce that? Brown: Well, we wouldn't give them a building permit. Borup: Right. But if they weren't -- in this case, the parcel we are talking about, there is a way to force that, isn’t there? Brown: And it seems unreasonable to take a third party and try to make them responsible to -- Borup: Well -- but that third party is not a third party, he's the one that did the illegal split. Brown: Well, the developer is a third party, though. Borup: Right. Brown: I mean he didn't even buy it from the person that did the illegal division. Borup: Well -- and I can see the problem in hindsight there, but maybe he should have looked into what they were buying a little better. But, you know -- Zaremba: And I agree with both sides. If it's legally split, I can't see any reason to force the acre parcel out into it. I guess my question is if it's not legally split, we can't do anything else. Borup: Well, I -- and I can't cite a case, but I feel pretty comfortable to say that we have probably done it a lot already on other projects. Brown: I mean that's why you go through a subdivision, as Mrs. McKay talked about, that -- that corrects their portion that they have some ability to control. They don't have ability to control the other person. You can notify the county and with computers and technology that we have you can make sure that he doesn't ever get a building permit until he rectifies it one way or another. Borup: Well, one acre they are probably not planning on doing anything else with that parcel. Okay. Thank you. Come up, sir. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 24 of 83 Reeves: Commissioners, I'm Gerald Reeves and I live at 2990 Duane Drive, and I just wanted to emphasize what Mr. Belcher said earlier. I attended the ACHD meeting also and I heard what Mr. Belcher had said, that Duane Drive was to be closed with a swing gate until the residents of Duane Drive decided otherwise and by the amount of applause that I heard in the audience, I think everybody else heard that also. That's all I wanted to say. Borup: Okay. Yeah. So, that -- that was what the commissioners had stated, too, that -- is what you are remembering? Reeves: Yeah. Borup: And assuming everyone -- or pretty much everyone there liked the idea of the gate. Reeves: Yes. And I think that's why there aren't as many people here tonight. Borup: Because they were assuming there is going to be a gate. Reeves: Yeah. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Becky. McKay: Just to answer some of Mr. Belcher's questions, as far as the access to Eagle Road, I mentioned that at some point in time there will be access to Eagle Road through stub -- via this stub street on our western boundary right here, but, obviously, there are no plans for that at this time, so I don't think he should be concerned. Any development of those properties to the west will go back for a Public Hearing and they will be looking, obviously, for a circuitous route of that public street to make sure that if Duane is ever opened up, that they don't get a cut-through effect from Eagle Road. Secondly, the Duane Drive opening -- my recollection of the discussion from the Ada County Highway District commissioners was that if the residents of Duane Drive wanted to petition the commission in the future to open up Duane Drive for vehicular access, if at some point in time it was extremely difficult for them to access Ustick Road and it would benefit them to have access via Granger going out to Cloverdale, then, it would be entertained, but I believe they did make some reference to the City of Meridian or the Meridian fire department having the ability in the future, if they saw a need, for it to be open. But they talked about they would want it to be like a Public Hearing. So, it wouldn't be a behind-closed-door decision. It would be opened up for discussion and notification. That was my impression. Concern the fencing -- Borup: So, if -- as Commissioner Zaremba said, if we clarified that, it sounds like that would be okay with the applicant and -- McKay: I believe so. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 25 of 83 Borup: Because that was your understanding from ACHD. McKay: Yes. I guess to be accurate, one would need to get a copy of the minutes from the ACHD commissioners meeting to be accurate. Borup: Because all we have is a summary of minutes. McKay: That's correct. And I haven't seen the detailed minutes from that meeting, but we can, obviously, access them, get them to staff, and have staff write a summary -- Borup: But that's still your understanding, it would be a petition by the Duane Drive residents or the city. McKay: Yes. Borup: And I think that makes sense to have the city included in there. McKay: That was my understanding. Zaremba: But I also think it makes sense not to have anybody -- any citizen from anywhere be able to -- McKay: No. That was not their intent. Zaremba: And, then, the second question is should there be some kind of a timing. This can't be asked for until X or should we just leave that? McKay: Well, this is our last phase, this phase six, so you have got five phases that will take place before this ever develops. I mean we can do a phase a year, I mean that could be five, six years away. So, to put a time frame, I don't know if that would be appropriate. Zaremba: Okay. McKay: The issue of fencing along Perkins-Brown eastern boundary. Yes, wood fences do discolor. My client has indicated that he would be willing to install a vinyl -- one of those new vinyl type fences. They don't discolor. If they have animals, the vinyl typically doesn't hold up well to the animals. It probably would be in our best interest and theirs that the vinyl go on the outside of the ag fence, so have the two fences abut each other. Borup: I found that cedar fences don't hold up well with horses either. I have got posts that have been chewed through by my neighbor. McKay: Concerning the Milks Lateral. As Commissioner Zaremba indicated, the historical exit point of that facility will be matched. We are keeping it pretty darn close Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 26 of 83 within our interior of its historical location, it's just sliding over a little bit as we pipe it through our development. As far as the head gates are concerned, I did meet with John Anderson at Nampa-Meridian, I did discuss with him retaining some of those boxes and head gates that are on our perimeters, because when you get into those facilities and start messing with them, sometimes you have problems and he said he was not opposed to that, that we could -- as long as we fenced around them or covered them in some fashion to meet the ditch safety regulations. Borup: So, that's your intention to leave the ones on your perimeter -- McKay: Yeah. If at all possible we try to leave those, if they are in good condition and we can, obviously, work with the facility. Sometimes they can't be salvaged and, then, we work with the adjoining downstream users, in addition to Nampa-Meridian, to come up with a different solution. Borup: But, either way, they would be entering and exiting your property at the present location? McKay: Yes, sir. Concerning the Clover Meadows Subdivision, I did forget to talk about that. I have been discussing that issue with Gary Peva, who is kind of their ditch master for Clover Meadows Subdivision and the issue is -- for clarification, there is a ditch that runs along this south boundary. In Red Feather No. 1, we have piped that ditch. When it gets to this point, then, the property boundary is falling approximately the center of that ditch. It is these residents' concern that they don't want that ditch put in pipe and they want to make sure that they have access to the ditch, since they are the ones that utilize it. Our pump station is up here off the Milks Lateral, a regional pump station in conjunction with Dawson Meadows. So, we have no use for that facility. So, it was my recommendation -- I said, well, so do you want the ditch open and you want it on your site. They said, yes, we want to make sure that it gets properly cleaned, we have access, so I said let's put the fence up on the north bank, so the ditch is on your side. Those lots are about 115 to 117 feet in depth, they have adequate depth, they will never miss the two feet. Your ordinance, I believe, states that if a ditch adjoins or is adjacent to, that you will pipe it, unless it exceeds a 48-inch or someone grants you a waiver. So, I believe the Council has to grant that waiver. So, we will have to bring that issue up with the Council. But I think that's a good solution. We always -- when the gravity irrigate out of the ditch and that is the case, we have a problem when we try to put it in pipe. Borup: So, at this point you're anticipating the fence would move two or three feet? McKay: The fence would move two feet to get it to the north boundary of that ditch. Borup: That was my other question. Are you going to discuss the boundary line also? McKay: They believed that that ditch was on their side, because the fences reflect that, but that – in actuality that was not the case. So, that's where they became concerned, Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 27 of 83 because the felt they were going to lose control and access to that ditch. So, I can't do a property boundary adjustment from unplatted property into platted property. So, the only solution that I can think we -- we also can't leave a strip two feet wide. So, we find a lot of times that our fences are inset a foot or two, depending on conditions. I means that's -- as you well know, the fences don't always reflect the actual boundaries. Zaremba: You feel comfortable with a two-foot easement or something like that? McKay: Yes. Yes. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: You feel competent that the present survey is accurate? McKay: Yes. That's my understanding that it is accurate and I recommended to Mr. Peva that he provide the clerk and Bruce a copy of his letter requesting that, so there is something in writing in the record. The pedestrian pathway. I think that's an excellent idea, because we do have the Ustick elementary located right up in this area here. The only thing is, somebody in the Clover Meadows Subdivision would have to grant an easement on their side and provide some type of access on their side. Zaremba: You can put it in, but it has to go somewhere. It has to connect to something. McKay: Yeah. If that's possible, then, we -- and we can line up, I mean we are not opposed to making a pedestrian connection. In fact, I'm always a proponent of interconnection between the neighborhoods. Borup: So, you would need that -- but this would be in about phase five? McKay: That's phase two. Borup: Phase two. Mathes: So, what do you do with the ditch? You pipe it where they are going to cross? McKay: You would have to put a little piece of pipe through there to have them cross it. Borup: But I'm also assuming you would need to know where that access would be sooner than later, so you can design accordingly. McKay: Yes. And I'd hate to put a pedestrian pathway and, then, have them not find a resident willing to -- Borup: And that was my point earlier. That has to be existing before you design it. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 28 of 83 McKay: Yes. But I will work with them to try to come up with that, because I think it is a good idea. Lastly, the issue of the Smitchger parcel. Probably about 40 to 50 percent of the time a particular property at some point in time has been illegally divided. I think you're getting hung up on the issue of that fact, when -- I mean like as Commissioner Borup indicated, this body has been annexing parcels for years that their creation was not researched. Borup: Just that we were never aware of it. McKay: True. It wasn't an issue at the time. I guess my contention is I know of no state law and there is nothing in your ordinance that I have ever come across that would prohibit or inhibit you from annexing this property and leaving that outside, especially where it's a separate entity, has been a separate entity for multiple years. The problem is Mr. Smitchger's. If he -- I worked at the county, so I'm very aware of this. If he comes in for a building permit to add onto his home, for example, an addition, obviously, it's very obvious that he's zoned RUT, but he's only one acre in size. Immediately that sends up a red flag. So, the county planners, who have to issue a zoning certificate in order for that building permit for the addition to be issued, will take a look at it and they will tell him that he needs to legalize his property, bring it into compliance with a particular zone, like he could rezone to R-1 and possibly bring it into compliance that way, if that was acceptable to the county or, as Kent indicated, he could plat it. And I have had multiple one lot plats in the city of Boise to legalize a parcel. And a lot of times they were out in industrial areas where they have been illegally divided in the '80s and I had a client buy the property and Boise wouldn't issue a permit until we legalized it, so we platted it, and not once did I -- was I ever mandated to include the other parcel that had been illegally subdivided also. That was their problem, their owners -- the responsibility is on that owner to rectify the problem. Powell: Chairman Borup? Borup: Yes. Powell: Is this your last point, Becky? Could I chime in, so--okay. Becky and I both have the advantage of having worked at the county, but I have the further advantage of having worked more recently and they have changed interpretation and the prosecuting attorney staff has said that if you have an illegal sub, the remedy is not for just one portion of that illegal sub to go through the subdivision process, but that you recombine, such that you have the parent property, the original property, and that has to go through the subdivision procedure. So, there is -- Borup: What's the definition of the parent property? Powell: Well, in this case it would have been the whole -- whatever existed as of -- what is it, January 1st, 1985, is their amnesty date. So, that's what they consider a lot Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 29 of 83 of legal record was one that existed in the county recorder's office as of January 1st, 1985, so -- Borup: But in this case you say the parent property has to comply. Powell: It would be the ones -- the property we are looking at today, plus the one-acre. They would make that property go in. Borup: Well, I thought you said the parent property had to comply? Powell: Well, that's the parent property. Borup: Which one? Powell: The whole thing. The parent property is one that -- the original parcel of record. Borup: So, the definition of parent property is both parcels? Powell: Yeah. Borup: Okay. Powell: So, that is what they would require. Now, if the city were to annex the remainder of the property and just leave the one-acre, they wouldn't take retribution on that one-acre. They deem it that if the city annexes it, then, that's their fault and so -- because the rest of it is out of their jurisdiction, they'd legalize that one-acre. And I'd also like to say Becky is right, as far as we know, there is nothing that prevents us from annexing. The question is can we submit a subdivision on it and the subdivision regulations say it has to be an original parcel of record, our subdivision ordinance, since 1984. And so what we are saying is that it does not meet that definition of being eligible for a subdivision as it stands. That one-acre property needs to be included with the subdivision to make that. Not to say that we haven't done it in the past, we know we have, but -- Borup: That was my next question. Powell: That doesn't mean we should continue to make that mistake in the future. The other thing I'd like to say -- it's not -- you know, annexing it -- the reason we don't -- the reason staff, in particular, is interested in this -- and I think the city in general, is that it's not just the tax roll or having that person on the tax roll, it's more a question of getting those services and providing -- or getting the street improvements along Ustick and being able to provide services. If that one acre parcel, if that septic were to fail, right now they'd have to bring it in from the entrance road and they'd have to take sewer and water -- sewer services all the way over there. There is -- that's a long way for one property owner to take that length of sewer just to provide that service. So, we are not Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 30 of 83 -- we are not getting the services, we are not getting the street improvements. Those are the things from -- at least from the planning standpoint that we are concerned about, not necessarily that he's on the city's tax roll or not. Particularly with the school nearby, those sidewalks become very important and ACHD doesn't always have funds for those. So, those are some of the reasons that -- you know, that we are interested in this being part of the subdivision. It's not -- you know, for one, it needs to be by our code and, for two, there are those improvements that we are looking at. Borup: The question I would have, then, what option does the applicant have? I mean in the past the ones that we have addressed -- you know, this past year, the same -- one individual owned both parcels and by making that a requirement, the owner would have the option of an annexing or not, but, obviously, in that case, if they didn't, I'm assuming they would lose their sale on their property, so they had some incentive to do that. In this case there is no incentive at all. Powell: Well, other than possible litigation, I suppose. But, hopefully, we won't get to that. I agree -- Borup: Are you saying for the applicant to litigate? Powell: Yeah. Not us. Borup: Right. Powell: There is private remedies for an illegal property. But the county is faced with the same things since they have enacted this interpretation and there is -- you know, there is more incentive there when you can withhold permits or withhold annexation or withhold approval of a subdivision than later. The reason I brought up the improvements is perhaps to say that maybe there is a compromise situation there, if the developer is willing to look at things that -- to address some of those issues, knowing that it is not really eligible by our standards, but recognizing that we have done it in the past and that there are extenuating circumstances in this case. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: I would ask an additional question, I guess, again, of legal counsel. If there was a sale seven or eight years ago, I guess it was, and, then, a new sale again now, those have had to go through some sort of a title process and has this split thereby been legitimized by the fact that a sale has been recorded twice? Borup: I don't think -- I don't there is a relationship between the two. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: You can buy something that you can't do anything with. Not very smart, maybe, but a person can still do it. And that's something that the buyer is taking the Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 31 of 83 chance on. You know, it's -- they are taking that risk if they don't research what they are buying. Zaremba: But that's what you pay title insurance for, at least on a private residence. Borup: Well, maybe someone can answer that. I'm not sure a title insurance guarantees that it's -- Zaremba: That it's a legal lot? Borup: -- a legal lot or that you can get a building permit or anything else. Maybe someone can clarify that. It would guarantee that the property you're buying is what you actually got. And, then, any other conditions. Zaremba: Free of liens and other stuff. Borup: Right. Becky. McKay: I guess, Commissioner Borup, I'd like to just say a couple things. Anna talks about including this in the annexation that will facilitate the construction of sidewalks. ACHD puts no condition on an annexation, they can't, for extension of sidewalks. That's on a subdivision. Powell: And we were saying it should be included in the subdivision. McKay: So, you're saying it should be included in the subdivision? Powell: Yeah. McKay: Okay. The other issue, too, is when I worked at Ada County we got a legal opinion and it was determined that we could not force another property owner to participate in a plat or a rezone if his property was illegally divided if he chose not to. So, I guess my point is it depends on the legal whims of the time. When I was there it was different director. When Anna -- you know, then, when Anna was there. Now, they are going to have a new director, so -- they have got new commissioners. Interpretations change. I think they are going to have a hard time demanding that a property has to include an unrelated parcel in its application if at some point in time, ten, 15 years ago, it was illegally divided. I just -- we use the subdivision process to legalize parcels and that's -- and create parcels. When we technically subdivide a portion of a parcel, you are splitting it. What about the remainder? There have been discussions about that. If you take an 80 and you plat 20, what about the 60? What is the status of the 60 if the rest of the development is never developed? I mean there are a lot of questions. But we always have that platting process to legalize and that opportunity is available to Mr. Smitchger and the City of Meridian has the ability to annex that property if they see fit. There is United Water right in front of it and Boise city sewer. If he gets into some type of a situation where his septic system fails, I'm Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 32 of 83 sure he could appeal to the city or Boise or Meridian to allow him to connect to, obviously, the most available, cost-effective services that are out there. I just -- I just think it's wrong to take a project of this size when the city has spent so much money to extend that South Slough trunk and say just because what someone did six years ago, gee, we can't approve this. I guess it just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Thank you. Groves: Do I have to state who I am? Borup: Yes, you do, Mr. Groves. Groves: I'm Craig Groves. 3920 East Shady Glen Court, Boise. Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, you know, I'm sitting here kind of feeling, I guess, stupid, but, on the other hand, I don't really think I should feel that way, because in the last 25 years of experience in the real estate brokerage development business, I have never seen this happen or come to this point ever before. And, believe me, if I would have known this was an issue, I wouldn't have gone out and closed on over four million dollars worth of real estate and you have got an issue up here -- there is, really, two properties up there. The one acre parcel Mr. Smitchger doesn't own anymore, someone else does, and there is a little battle between Smitchger and him, and you're asking me to go solve it, because of something that's never enforced before and I would really like to encourage you to, you know, use the other powers you have, if you really feel it needs to be annexed, and you guys take that battle on. Borup: Well, we haven't asked anything yet. We are discussing. Grove: All right. Thank you. Borup: Any other questions of Mr. Grove? You know, I forgot to ask Becky when she was up on where the school boundary is. Do you know where that is on here? Grove: The school boundary for -- Borup: The grade school. Grove: -- the grade school? Borup: It goes right up to that corner of the property? Grove: Yes, it does. As you know, Keith, the school boundaries for the grade schools change all the time, so we anticipate -- Borup: No. No. I meant the property itself, not the attendance lines. I meant the property itself. Grove: No, I don't think the school is at that corner. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 33 of 83 Borup: It's not at the Boise city line, then? Grove: No. It's over -- it's over another quarter. Borup: Okay. Grove: I stand corrected. Borup: Okay. It is right there. Thank you. Commissioners, questions? How about some discussion, then? Zaremba: I don't necessarily have a problem going with precedent, you know, and particularly since this property, apparently, has been sold a couple times, independent of what was another piece of the parent property. Borup: I think the other aspect along that line is there has kind of been some commitments made a year ago on this -- on this property, back when they were looking at annexation into Boise and -- I mean so the city was aware of it at that time. Is that what you were leading to? I mean that was -- Zaremba: Well, it's been talked about and I don't think anybody told him he would have to be annexed as part of this at that time either. I don't remember that part of it being a topic of discussion. Borup: No. The time when that should have come up was in '97, but at that time there was no development discussed, because there was no services available. Zaremba: Okay. Let's talk about -- was it water and sewer that needed to be looped and have -- Borup: Just the water. Zaremba: Just the water. To have two ways in. Borup: Sewer only goes one direction. Zaremba: That's true. Downhill. Gravity. Yeah. The pressurized incoming water. I know Bruce already stated that he thought there was some question about having enough water even for phase one of this, but what I'm thinking is there will be -- the same way with a roadway and -- we don't have any application for the C-G portion of this yet, but there will be a road through there at some time and could be the rest of the loop of a water system there? Is that a possibility if we were to say that had to be part of it? Borup: Well -- Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 34 of 83 Zaremba: My question is can we prepare this for a looping connection, but not require it today? Borup: And maybe beyond that -- and I was thinking maybe over here on phase six that maybe by that point it would be necessary and say that before that could be -- you don't even want to go that far. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, no, our recent remodels indicate that -- like I said, we are on the ragged edge. Borup: What's changed from two years ago or even a year ago? Freckleton: A year ago? There has been a lot of development in the north end. Borup: On the same water line that's using it now? I mean where did that water go from the last year? Because nothing else has developed in the last year, other than the one subdivision that's -- I forgot the name of it -- Champion there on Ustick. Is that on the same -- is that the same line? Freckleton: The lines in the city are totally interconnected to each other, so it's not like we serve this area and it's not interconnected with -- development in the entire city has an impact on -- on this area. Zaremba: Well, so you're saying it's not just the pipe, it's -- you mentioned that we are trying to get another well in that area -- Freckleton: Exactly. Zaremba: -- so you can have a supply for it. Borup: The distribution could be empty. Freckleton: We don't want to get to that point. Rohm: Well, isn't that something -- a decision the city made at such time that they said they did not want to turn this property over to the city of Boise? I mean isn't that kind of a commitment to serve it with water by taking that position a year ago? Freckleton: Commissioner Rohm, I don't believe that there was a commitment to serve this development off of a single feed from Ustick Road. Rohm: I don't know -- Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 35 of 83 Freckleton: The discussion that I brought up at Planning and Zoning level when the -- when the application came through last winter that we felt that we were weak in the system in this area. Borup: So, if there is not enough water, what difference does it make if there is a loop? Freckleton: The distribution network -- you will be able to bring water in from Eagle Road, you will also be able to have it come in from Ustick Road. By having the loop, it creates redundancy in the system and you can balance your hydraulics in the system better with a loop than you can by having a single 12-inch feed trying to feed all of these lots. And when we -- hopefully, it won't be too long and we will be drilling another well up here to provide more water. Borup: How many years is this, hopefully? Freckleton: Well -- Borup: Are you saying two years? One year? Freckleton: No. No. Hopefully this year. Borup: Oh. Freckleton: Or not yet this year. It will be in -- Borup: This fiscal year. Freckleton: Yeah. Borup: In this fiscal year. Freckleton: In the budget year, yes. We hope to be underway drilling a well. Borup: That would solve -- that would solve everything, then? Freckleton: With the loop. Borup: With the loop. Freckleton: The loop and the supply. Borup: Well, in the short term would that -- would that solve for the first half of the phases or something? Freckleton: As I mentioned previously, we are going to have to just kind of work with the applicant with our project that we have got in Eagle Road and the timing of Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 36 of 83 development in the area, we are going to have to be able to model the phases and see if we can provide the flow that is required to the first phase off of a single feed. Zaremba: Let me ask a dumb question. Freckleton: We don't want to get pinned down right now to say, yes, we can serve the first phase or the second phase or the third phase, because of the timing issue. Zaremba: So, let me ask a dumb question about, actually, the process. They can get building permits without water. Can they get occupancy permits without water? Borup: You can't get building permits without water, because of the fire hazard. Zaremba: So, in other words, the water has to be there before you even allow them to build. Freckleton: Commissioner Zaremba, the water has to be there before, hopefully, the city approves the final plat. Zaremba: Okay. Freckleton: We have to be able to provide the flow and the pressure. There is fire protection, life safety issues -- it's got to be there. Mathes: How long does it take to get through to final plat? Borup: Four or five months. Freckleton: From what point? I mean from when they submit the final plat application to the time it gets approved? Borup: Well, she's saying from today. Mathes: From today. Borup: Four or five months. Freckleton: A lot of that time line depends on the applicant. Borup: Right. Zaremba: I think what -- I would ask a question of both the applicant and Bruce. I'm inclined to require the loop somehow. I understand the purpose of it and the necessity of it. On another application it's even mentioned that junk collects at the end of a dead end and you have to have a loop in order not to get junk collecting in your line. But I guess my -- staff is offering to work it out with the applicant how the time line is going to Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 37 of 83 go. My question of the applicant is if we say at some point it does have to have a loop connection and at some point the city is talking about a new well out in that area, is the applicant comfortable knowing that there may be some delays, but you just need to work with the city on -- I'm seeing nods yes. Is that good enough for the record? Both the applicant and the applicant's representative have nodded yes in answer to that question, for the record. McKay: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, I guess are you asking time line? September of '04 would be the earliest we anticipate any building permits being issues. That is our target date. As far as the -- cooperating with the staff, we really don't have a choice. We have to have that 1,500 gpm to meet the fire flow requirements. The staff has indicated they have some public works projects in this area that they may tag on the bore of Eagle Road, because that is a very expensive endeavor and assist us kind of as a cooperative nature getting that water line eastward over to our boundary. So, I guess the answer is, yes, we will work with the staff to obtain easements and get that loop at some point in time, I guess, when it is needed. Borup: So, you understand when you say you need to have the gpm -- McKay: Yes, sir. Borup: -- and that would be determined prior to final plat. McKay: Yes. When we submit construction plans and a final plat, the staff -- I would assume at that point in time Bruce's group will run a water model based on availability of water, any developments or houses that have come on line between now and then to determine if we have got adequate flow. And if we don't, then, obviously, they are not going to approve those construction plans, the Council is not going to approve that final plat. We would, obviously, have to go pull that other main line eastward get that loop at that point. Borup: And to bring that one from the -- McKay: It's at Leslie Drive. Borup: To bring it in from Eagle Road, are you going to need some type of conceptual layout design, I'm assuming? McKay: Commissioner Borup, it would follow the same alignment as the sewer, running parallel with the South Slough. Borup: Okay. So, you go in that easement, that existing easement. McKay: Right. And the water main is in Leslie Drive right now on the west side of Eagle Road. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 38 of 83 Borup: Okay. And I wouldn't anticipate any problem with the property owners. I mean that's a benefit to them. McKay: Yes, it is. So, I guess have the staff come up with some conditions that they are comfortable with. Borup: Bruce, as long as that gallons per minute is necessary, then, before final approval, is there any other restrictions that needs to be stated at this point, as long as it can meet that criteria? Again, understanding that it will be looped eventually. I'm just wondering if a phase or two couldn't go in if it meets the criteria. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I think we would be comfortable with basically stating that, you know, prior to the first phase it's going to have to be evaluated for the -- or the criteria of the system has to be met and if it can't be met, then, they are going to have to do the loop. Borup: Well -- or something to meet it. Freckleton: Right. Right. I mean we just can't go out on a limb. Borup: No. Well, I think -- I think Becky stated that. They understand that it needs to meet that criteria. Freckleton: Right. Borup: But do we have to -- but is it necessary to state how it will, whether it's a loop or the other well or -- there is probably no other choices besides those two, but -- Freckleton: That's about it. That's about it. The developer is not involved in the well, that's something that we are moving forward with. About the only thing that the developer could be involved in would be that loop, so that was the reason I wrote it up the way I did. Borup: Okay. Okay. Thank you. Does that clarify somewhat? Zaremba: Okay. So, we have the issues of alignments have been satisfied or agreed to. I'm thinking of the -- Borup: The property line. Zaremba: -- sloughs and drains and property lines and piping and not piping, those -- fencing, those things have been satisfied. Are we satisfied with the answer of how Granger Road cuts through the corner of -- or goes off property? Are we satisfied with this roadway? Yes. Thank you. Right there. With the roadway easements and stuff there? Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 39 of 83 Borup: I am If Becky's statement is correct, if that's an existing roadway easement. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: If it's in existence, that's kind of not much to say about that. Zaremba: We are thinking the closure of Duane should be something that allows emergency and pedestrian access only and the only people that can request that that be removed are the homeowners association of -- was it Perkins-Brown? Was that right? And the City of Meridian. Limit it to those possibilities. Borup: And by city you mean a city entity, like the fire department, but -- Zaremba: Yes. I would you say it should be initiated by the fire department. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, Commissioner Zaremba, I -- you know, I think it might be wise for us to just get clarification, you know, I think on that from ACHD. It sounds like there is clear agreement from those that were at the ACHD meeting, but, you know, I don't think we have the authority to change ACHD commissions -- Borup: We can restate what -- Zaremba: We can have a position of our own. Hawkins-Clark: Right. I'm envisioning you putting the applicant in a conflict between the two agencies and I don't think that's -- we need to -- a condition needs to be worded that you either give ACHD their authority or maybe it could be worked out prior to a City Council hearing. Zaremba: Okay. I'm comfortable with that. And, I agree, the wording that ACHD provided to us and to you is a lot more liberal than the audience apparently heard. Borup: Right. Zaremba: And even the applicant has agreed that they didn't hear it the way that it's -- Hawkins-Clark: I think the most important thing from staff's perspective is that the commission give very clear direction as to you do or do not want the swinging gate removed. If you don't have a problem with -- Borup: You mean presently? Zaremba: My personal thinking is that it should be removable, but I want to restrict who can ask to remove it. It needs to be usable by emergency services and removable by Perkins-Brown or our fire department. Period. That's my thinking. I don't know if I'm the only one that's thinking that way. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 40 of 83 Borup: No. And I agree. And I questioned that right when I read that. I mean it said any interested party, I believe, which was how they put it. Zaremba: And if we need to make that recommendation to ACHD, I would, not wanting to step on their toes, but -- Borup: I think we can restate what our understanding of their intention was. Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. I think we are good. If you do that and make it clear -- Zaremba: And, then, have some ACHD clarification before City Council, that's fine with me. Then, the other issue is the looping water main and I think we have got agreement on that, that at some point it is going to loop and that will be worked between the applicant and the city to make that happen. Rohm: You still have that out parcel right up here to deal with and -- Zaremba: Well, I understand the legal question, I guess, but I'm personally willing to go with precedent and ignore the out parcel. Now, not saying that the City Council won't take another tact. They often have taken a different tact than we have, but I think there are enough good things about this project to move it forward. Borup: And in this case -- and because of the size of the property, the city can annex it. Rohm: Absolutely. Borup: That can be done at any time. Zaremba: Independent of this application. Borup: Right. Rohm: And probably should. Zaremba: I personally feel the lot split, whether legal or not, has been legitimized by the fact that the separate property has been sold a couple times. You know, it hard to go backwards with that and I understand the point the staff is making and generally, A, support staff, and, B, support legality, but I think there has been some legitimization, so I would be acceptable to go with precedent and ignoring the out parcel. Borup: I think there may be an assumption of some legitimization, but it hasn't been legalized. It probably wasn't unreasonable to assume that it was a developable property either. Especially with all the history that's already taken place on this. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 41 of 83 Zaremba: The only thing that makes it a shame, it would be nice if it, actually, could be included in this, so that they don't continue to have access onto Ustick, so their access would be part of this property. I don't see that happening by force. Borup: How about the other -- you know, what -- well, okay. I was going to say about the other two parcels, the other two out parcels. And they were probably divided off prior to '85. Rohm: Let's hope so. Borup: But just looking at the configuration, I assume they were one parcel at one time. Zaremba: Well -- okay. The parcel that's identified as Block 12, Lot 1 -- Borup: Well, that's part of -- Zaremba: -- is part of this. Borup: Right. It is part of it. Zaremba: But we haven't resolved the question is staff satisfied that you have seen how that property will take access not using Granger in the future? Borup: Oh. Yeah. That was stated you had a copy of that, but we didn't get a copy in our packet, but that's okay with them. Hawkins-Clark: Yes. And the way that the condition is worded now is that they submit it before the final plat where that Lot 1, Block 12 is in. So, you know, I guess if we could just keep it at that and that they may not have chosen -- you know. I think -- but they have clearly demonstrated that it can be re-subdivided where the existing house can -- Borup: And, then, this street that will -- Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Borup: -- tie together, so -- and that was probably one of the big questions anyway, wasn't it? Hawkins-Clark: Right. Zaremba: Then, the other issue would be working with Clover Meadows Subdivision for the potential of somebody in Clover Meadows designating where a pedestrian path could connect through to East Tahiti Street. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 42 of 83 Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, if I could just make a suggestion on that. That if you -- you could also tie that one to prior to City Council to allow them to work with Clover Meadows Subdivision that if -- if Clover Meadows does not find a property owner willing to put a pathway in, then, you give the flexibility for them to not construct that pathway. Borup: Exactly. I don’t think we could do otherwise. Zaremba: Yeah. I agree with that. Having a half a path that doesn't go anywhere doesn't help, so there would have to be -- Hawkins-Clark: You would, essentially, be requiring them to provide it -- Zaremba: We could phrase it in a way that a connecting pathway would be acceptable if they work it out. Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. Maybe. Rohm: Well, it's going to be a long motion, Dave. Zaremba: Well, that's why I'm going to let you make it. Rohm: No. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: The hearing is still open. Borup: Yes, it is. Zaremba: Are we resolving the issues and -- Borup: Well -- and, then, we can still get some clarification, but do we want to start putting some things down for our motion? I mean you have gone through it verbally. Do you have it down that you can remember when you're ready to make the motion? Zaremba: I'll try and if I forget one, I can be reminded. Borup: I mean do we want to just -- Zaremba: What I haven't noted is what page of the original memo this would change. I wouldn't mind some prompting on that. Borup: And, then, did staff following going through that list? Is there anything that we have overlooked? Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 43 of 83 Hawkins-Clark: If you -- I guess two things. One, we submitted a memo dated November 24th that had about a dozen changes to the staff notes. So, I don't think you would need to go through each of them, you could just reference the memo. Borup: Right. And that's what I was assuming. And I think the applicant agreed with all of those, except for the ones that they have said otherwise on. Hawkins-Clark: Right. That would be special consideration H about the Smitchger out parcel. Borup: Uh-huh. Zaremba: That's an annexation issue. Right. Hawkins-Clark: And, then, the first bullet on the second page of the memo, item number 19, deals with the vacation of the existing right of way and there is existing -- or existing right of way easements between this subdivision and Perkins-Brown and Bruce had just suggested that we -- which is -- I think we are -- staff is in agreement that we need to just clarify that, so that they are required to vacate the right of way, even if an exchange is made, so that would just be a -- Borup: Is that an additional item or is that -- Hawkins-Clark: No. It's existing -- on the first bullet on page two of the new memo. Item number 19. Borup: And you have already done your rewording. Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. But what I'm saying is that the rewording -- and we may need to get the applicant's input, but it's, essentially, that that would not be necessary. We would leave it as it was, that the existing right of way adjacent to the west property line must be vacated. Zaremba: And delete the underlined portion? Hawkins-Clark: Yes. That doesn't, obviously, preclude them from working with ACHD and exchange, but even if there is an exchange, a vacation would be necessary, so I think -- Zaremba: Okay. Just to prove that the exchange happened. Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. Borup: Do we feel we got questions answered? Are we ready to close the hearing? Zaremba: I think so. As long as I -- if I put the issues in the right place, we will be okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 44 of 83 Hawkins-Clark: I think there was one other clarification that was not in my November 24 memo and that was on the encroachment agreement with Nampa-Meridian on that Milks Lateral that runs through the middle of the project. Item number 12 on page 14. We'd like to suggest that the -- that the last four words be omitted and replaced with prior to preconstruction -- prior to a preconstruction conference. So, it would read: Submit a copy of the encroachment agreement with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District prior to preconstruction conference. So, it's kind of, I guess, the mid point between what the applicant is asking for and what we originally asked for. Zaremba: Well, the applicant has offered to provide space for a walkway outside of the easement. Do we want to reference that? Hawkins-Clark: I think you're referring to a different -- Zaremba: I'm sorry. Okay. So, number -- on page 14, number 12, should read submit a copy of the encroachment agreement for what -- for what slough or drain or lateral. Borup: Milks. Hawkins-Clark: Milks. Zaremba: Milks Lateral. Borup: And, Becky, is that time frame workable? Hawkins-Clark: And, again, we are referring to this easement right through the middle there. Zaremba: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: Milks Lateral. Zaremba: I was thinking -- for Milks Lateral prior to -- I'm sorry? Hawkins-Clark: A preconstruction conference for the subdivision. Zaremba: Okay. Do we need to say anything about the other lateral, South Slough, or -- or is that -- the one I immediately jumped to thinking you were talking about. Borup: Yeah. I think maybe that was left a little bit up in the air. If Nampa-Meridian is definitely adamant -- staff covered that in talking about leaving -- dedicating a right of way or easement. Which one did you state? I forgot. Wasn't that what you discussed, about having -- if we are not able to build a pathway, at least have a right of way or an easement there. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 45 of 83 Hawkins-Clark: Right. Right. And the way that my November memo words it is just that they -- a pedestrian easement must be recorded prior to the first building permit issued for that phase six. Borup: So, that's already part of the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Borup: And that would -- are we adequate there? Hawkins-Clark: I think we are. It doesn't specify the location, but I think that that flexibility is necessary at this point. Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move that the Public Hearing on items 4, 5 and 6 be closed. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 4 on our agenda, AZ 03-021, request for annexation and zoning of 114. 52 acres from RUT to R-8 planned development and C-G zones for proposed Red Feather Estates Subdivision No. 2 by Packard Estates Development, LLC, south of East Ustick Road and east of North Eagle Road, to include all staff comments of their memo dated for the hearing of September 18th, 2003, received by the clerk September 15, 2003, as modified by staff memo received by the clerk November 24th, 2003, with one exception. That exception being that we will ignore the out parcel in the upper right corner. Is that everything on annexation? I believe it is. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 5 on our Agenda, PP 03-024, request for preliminary plat approval of 302 building lots and 28 other lots on 90. 29 acres in a proposed R-8 PD zone for proposed Red Feather Estates Subdivision No. 2 by Packard Estates Development, LLC, south of East Ustick Road and east of North Eagle Road and this is Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 46 of 83 referring to the preliminary plat received by the city clerk on December 4th, 2003. To include all staff comments of the staff memo of -- for the hearing date September 18, 2003, received by the clerk September 15, 2003, as modified by the staff memo received by the clerk on November 24, 2003, and, then, with the following changes: On page 14 of the original September 18th memo, Item 12 would be changed to read: Submit a copy of the encroachment agreement with the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District for Milks Lateral prior to the preconstruction conference for the subdivision. And on the memo of November 24, 2003, on page two, the first bullet on that page refers to item 19 in the quoted paragraph, the existing right of way adjacent of the west property line within Block 9 must either be vacated and the vacation approved by the City of Meridian and ACHD prior to the final plat being submitted for any lots impacted by the right of way easement. End of quote. Deleting the second and currently the underlined sentence there. Borup: And deleting the word either. Is that correct? Isn't that what you stated? Zaremba: Yes. Applicant has agreed that the fence at least along the west property line will be a vinyl fence. Have we covered everything that should be on the plat? Borup: Do you want to mention the pedestrian path to the south? Zaremba: Okay. We will add a paragraph that says that the applicant will work with the subdivision to the south, Clover Meadows Subdivision, and may, if they can provide some place for the pathway to go, include a pedestrian pathway that would access East Tahiti Street and abutting Clover Meadows Subdivision. Then, we would also recommend that the applicant work with ACHD to clarify the requirement on the Duane gate, that it be -- that Duane Street be usable as a pedestrian access and emergency vehicle access and that the only people able to ask for removal of the gate be the Perkins-Brown Homeowners Association and the City of Meridian, specifically, the fire department. Hawkins-Clark: Prior to City Council? Zaremba: That that agreement with ACHD be in place prior to this going to the City Council. Borup: Or at least clarified. Zaremba: That clarification. Yes. I think the other issues are covered. Hawkins-Clark: I think the only other item, Commissioner, is your needing to modify condition eight on page 13, which refers to Duane Drive being extended. That would need to be stricken. That was eight. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 47 of 83 Zaremba: Yes. I agree. This is page 13 of the September 18 memo. Item paragraph eight, extend Granger Street, Palm Street, into the site as proposed, deleting the words: And Duane Drive. Rohm: Has the irrigation been covered? Zaremba: Okay. Just to make sure irrigation was covered, do we need to mention the water loop? Borup: No. Zaremba: The staff request was that they work it out together and I believe that's what we agreed on. So, I think that's already -- Borup: And the applicant understands it needs to meet the criteria. Zaremba: Already in the notes. On the Clover Meadows site, applicant has agreed to place the fence line two feet north of the actual property line and to provide an easement to the Clover Meadows property owners to access that ditch. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: I believe that's the end of the motion. Borup: Is there anything that was missed for the staff? Okay. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Thank you. One more. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 6 on our agenda, CUP 03-041, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for single family residential use, with reduced setbacks, lot size, lot frontages, house sizes and increased block lengths for proposed Red Feather Estates Subdivision No. 2 by Packard Estates Development, LLC, south of East Ustick Road and east of North Eagle Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of September 18th, 2003, received by the clerk September 15th, 2003, and modified by the staff memo of November 24th, 2003. I don't believe there are any other CUP changes. I believe that's the end of the motion. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 48 of 83 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Thank you. Okay. We did get through that. Commissioners, would this be a good time for a break? I think so. We will take a break at this time and reconvene shortly. (Recess. ) Item 7: Recommendation: VAC 03-007 Request for a Vacation of three feet of ACHD right of way on each side of West Pennwood Street for Troutner Business Park Subdivision No. 2 by Mary Ballantyne – west of South Meridian Road and south of East Franklin Road: Item 8: Public Hearing: PP 03-034 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for a re-plat of Troutner Park Subdivision Lots 4-5 and 10-15, Block 2; Lots 1-3 and 5-8, Block 3; Block 4; and Lot 3, Block 5 consisting of 6 commercial building lots and 1 common lot on 17. 26 acres in a C-G zone for Troutner Business Park No. 2 by Mary Ballantyne – south of West Franklin Road and west of North Meridian Road: Borup: Okay. We'd like to reconvene the Planning and Zoning Meeting this evening. The audience has thinned out a little bit. The next item is -- and this is not a Public Hearing, it's a recommendation that our Commission needs to make. VAC 03-007. This is a request for vacation of three feet of ACHD right of way on each side of west Penwood Street for the Troutner Business Park Sub. I'd like to start with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. I just want to briefly kind of run through the vacation process again. As you stated, it's not a Public Hearing, but we'd like to discuss concurrent with the next application -- Item No. 8 on the agenda tonight is tied in with this vacation approval, so I don't know how on the record -- I mean the applicant can, obviously, speak to this, but it's not a Public Hearing, even though there are some issues that are just kind of tied in. So, specifically, to the vacation application, staff would -- Borup: Would it be helpful if we went ahead and opened up the other hearing at this point, then? Hood: That may be helpful. Yes. Borup: Let's go ahead and do that. Let me open Public Hearing PP 03-034, request for preliminary plat approval of a replat of Troutner Subdivision. So, we will open this hearing at this time and realizing that it will be acted upon differently. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Running through the subdivision and with that, the vacation that's proposed concurrently with the subdivision, this is a subdivision on 17. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 49 of 83 26 acres. It's currently zoned C-G and the proposal is for six buildable lots and one common lot. It's -- the site is located approximately 200 feet south of Franklin Road and 500 feet west of Meridian Road. The plat proposes to resubdivide lots in Troutner Business Park No. 1 showing here on the screen. It was just recorded in 1997. The applicant is concurrently proposing to vacate right of way -- vacate the right of way -- this is 3rd Avenue and the applicant is proposing to vacate 3rd in this location, as well as south of Penwood here, and three feet of right of way on either side of Penwood, both sides, because ACHD's right of way requirement has changed since this was platted in '97 at 60 feet of right of way it was platted. They can do the same -- basically, the same street in a 57 -- 54-foot right of way, so that six feet goes away. Staff is not convinced that vacating 3rd Street south of Penwood -- again, this little stub street here would be in the public's best interest. Staff believes that a stub street to the south, whether it be in the location platted as shown here or in another location, one should be provided from the property to the undeveloped parcel to the south. So, staff is recommending that this body make a recommendation to the City Council that we consent and allow ACHD to process that application. Now, ACHD is the lead agency, they will hold a Public Hearing as well and make the ultimate decision on vacation application. However, in their process, in order to go through that vacation process, they require that the applicant come to the City of Meridian and get consent from the City Council to even start that process. So, this is kind of a first step in a long line of hearings and agendas that this item will be on, but that would be staff's recommendation that this board forward onto them approval of the submitted application, with the exception of the 3rd Street Avenue South. That is pretty much the staff report for both the vacation and the preliminary plat and staff doesn't have any other concerns, really, with the -- let me show you a picture of the preliminary plat. There is an aerial that shows a submitted preliminary plat and the main difference, I guess, is that you can see the lots north of Penwood is now one lot north of Penwood with that right of way. This was the right of way that's platted that's proposed for vacation. That's all one lot now. And there are four lots along the south, with no -- that connection not being there. I believe that is the extent of the staff report and I believe the applicant would like to speak on that. That's the main thing that I believe the issue that the applicant has and I will stand for any questions. Borup: Any questions from the Commission? Would the applicant like to comment? Zaremba: Actually, I did have a question before we get to the applicant. We have in our packets two different letters from Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. One of them dated 9 October, it lists a whole bunch of easements and stuff that they think need to be dealt with and, then, another one, which was dated the 4th of November that says Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District as no easements on either side of West Penwood, therefore, we have no further comment. Is there some resolution of those two? Of course, the one that says they don't have any is the more recent one, but the one of October 9th, they have a . 03 acre lot that would become landlocked with the easement -- if 3rd Street is vacated and several easements they don't specify, several easements for a pressure irrigation system within the area. Do we need to be concerned about that? Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 50 of 83 Borup: Well, which was the -- which packet was that other letter in? I'm looking at three different letters and I'm still not finding the same one you referred to. Zaremba: Just -- well, the cover it is the transmittal. The second page is the vacation application. And, then, this is like three pages down. The front of the packet is this one for the vacation. Borup: There we go. Zaremba: They do suggest a solution, a 20-foot permanent easement, combined with an existing 60-foot easement. Borup: Okay. We will have the applicant speak to that. That would be good. Ballantyne: Mike Ballantyne. Business address 250 South 5th, Boise, 83702. Chairman Borup and Commissioners, just to speak -- I'll let Ryan Addleman speak to the item related to Nampa-Meridian, but just to give you some background real quick on the application. In 1997 -- actually, beginning in 1996, but finishing in 1997, this property, nearly 40 acres, was platted as a business park with approximately one-acre lots. Phase two, we'll call it, the property to the -- that we are proposing to replat, that was under a non-development agreement with the City of Meridian. There was a development agreement on that west half of the property, non-development on the east half. That non-development agreement has expired and so in order to be able to do any land use action, we have to resubmit the plat -- resubmit a plat. In doing that, we have determined we have a potential user for the property and so we have determined to reconfigure the property, including a vacation of 3rd Street. So, that's the reason we are before you today. We have no issues with the staff report, with the exception of the site-specific requirement number one and that is the extension of Southwest 3rd to the south. We understand that connectivity is a priority for the city. It's a priority for us as well. The reason we are moving ahead with phase two is that it's important for us to have a connection out to Meridian Road. However, the property owner to the south, as well as the property owner to the north, who is here today, have repeatedly requested that we not put those streets in -- or not put Southwest 3rd Avenue in, because primarily the property owner to the south, it will dissect his property and potentially cause significant damage to him financially. So, as we don't -- we don't need it, we will have a connection out to Meridian Road. We have Southwest 5th stubbed down to the Corporate Drive extension. We have, you know, proposed vacating that, so Ryan Addleman has copies of letters from the property owners to the north and to the south to enter into the record requesting that that be vacated. He also has a letter -- the letter that you're referencing about the easement and that just relates to the drain there, so I'll let him speak to that, if that's all right. I can answer any questions first. Borup: Any questions from the Commission? Is the – I’m assuming the property owner to the south is going to testify? Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 51 of 83 Ballantyne: He is not here. He did provide a letter to be entered into the record that requested that that road not be extended. Borup: And what are his intentions with the property, then? Ballantyne: Chairman Borup, your guess is as good as mine. He just -- he plans to develop the property at some point and certainly putting a road through the middle of it affects his ability to develop it in the future. Borup: And he has access from -- is that a street to the south of his property? Ballantyne: Chairman Borup, his property runs from here all the way -- runs from Meridian Road all the way to the line that -- what I'm showing here and includes a potential future extension of 3rd. So, he has one single parcel here -- well, one property composed of, I think, three parcels. He's already had to work with the highway district to dedicate Corporate Drive in order for them to be able to put their detention or retention ponds here and doesn't want to have to be required to split the property to connect here. Certainly 5th Street, as I mentioned before, will connect here to the future Corporate Drive extension. Borup: Okay. So, he's feeling he's got adequate access on Corporate Drive? Ballantyne: Yeah. He feels certainly with his frontage on Meridian Road and on Corporate Drive he's got plenty of access. Or future Corporate Drive. And he will be required to dedicate the balance of the Corporate Drive right of way at the time he develops that property, so that the highway district can extend Corporate Drive. Borup: And this access point will -- this isn't in existence right now, is it? Ballantyne: Chairman Borup, it is in existence. There is currently a temporary turnaround here and this is a different property owner, who owns this property, and he will be required to connect to 5th at the time he develops his property. Borup: Does he own both sides of -- this property owner? Ballantyne: This property here is owned by Troutner Business Park Development Corporation. He owns this property. And this property is owned by the Ada County Highway District, which I believe was an illegal lot split, but we don't want to discuss the illegal lot split. And that is not in the scope of this application Borup: Right. No. No. Ballantyne: Nor was it ever part of this property here as far as the application. Zaremba: I remember back in 1824 -- Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 52 of 83 Borup: Okay. Ballantyne: It has it's own set of issues. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Addleman: Ryan Addleman, Keller and Associates. Business address, 131 Southwest 5th, Meridian. I have got the four letters from the adjacent property owners I'd like to enter into evidence. And, Commissioner, in regards to the October 9th letter, is that the one you're in question about? From Nampa-Meridian? Borup: Yes. Zaremba: I think that was the one, yes. Addleman: That was something that we worked out with the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District as part of the original plat -- Troutner Business Park's plat. We have dedicated a 60-foot easement to Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. However, as part of relieving the other lots that were in part of the big lot, we had to provide access to a pump station that's located right here. There is a very small lot there where the pressure irrigation system is for the subdivision. And so, therefore, what we have done is put a 20-foot permanent easement. This wouldn't necessarily be for Nampa-Meridian, it would be some day in the future that if anybody else took over the irrigation system, that they would have that access easement to that lot. Zaremba: So, as far as you know they are satisfied. Addleman: They are satisfied, yes. Zaremba: All right. Addleman: Their biggest thing is they didn't want to be a signatory on the plat, so that's the way around it. Borup: Anyone else to testify on this? Come forward. Olson: Chairman Borup, Commissioners, my name is Reed Olson. I currently own -- or am a representative of the owners of one of the lots, one of the buildings in the Troutner Business Park. And could we put back up there the plat that shows the parcel as it's presently configured? The one just after that. No. I think you had it, but I didn't -- that will work. Okay. The parcel that I'm referring to is that one right there. And the parcel that I'm concerned about in this proposed realignment is that one right there. And the reason that I'm concerned, the Troutner Business Park was established some five years ago, as was mentioned by Mr. Ballantyne and I represent the owners of the parcel that's located on the west side of Southwest 5th near the entrance of the business park. My understanding of the proposal is to begin the process to allow a Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 53 of 83 mobile home park to be established in this parcel and I'd like to register my opposition to that use for this parcel. The covenants for the Troutner Business Park states that it's the intent of the park to be one of the premier business locations not just in the state of - - or not just in Meridian, but in the state of Idaho. And five years ago we built a building that fulfills that vision. At this point we will have an upcoming annual association meeting and in that I will be requesting that the developer not use the lots that are currently along Southwest 5th, which would be that one that I pointed out second to be a part of this realignment, thus, maintaining the integrity of the business park concept along the street of Southwest 5th, hoping that that would segregate the parcel that's possibly become a mobile home park from the business park. And what I'd like to ask the Commission to do is defer a decision on this matter until after the association meeting takes place, which I believe is next week. Hopefully, in that meeting we can discuss things with the developer and come to some kind of an agreement that will be satisfactory for all sides and we don't need to bother the Commission about my concerns. I can take any questions if you have any. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Okay. I had two. It appears to me that the other two plats we have that -- that line actually comes right down this direction and over. Olson: Yes. Borup: So -- is that correct, Mr. Ballantyne, that these lots right along here are not part of the application? Okay. Olson: That's correct. It's that one that's kitty-corner from my lot. Borup: Right. So, this lot right here is the only one that you've got question about. Olson: Well, I mean -- Borup: Well, the whole thing, but -- Olson: The whole thing. Borup: But especially that one. Olson: Because it's kitty-corner to my -- to my parcel. Borup: So, if this, indeed, did become a mobile home park, they are probably going to have access onto -- Olson: Yes, sir. Borup: Okay. Maybe we can get some -- maybe we can get some comment from Mr. Ballantyne. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 54 of 83 Olson: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else? Mallea: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Ken Mallea. Like Mr. Olson, I have a lot in the project and we have put a building on it. The Troutner Business Park, Members of the Commission, is a subdivision. It was approved by the City of Meridian as a subdivision in 1997. The common scheme and design of the subdivision was for office buildings through the project. Now, not all of the lots have been sold. Mr. Ballantyne and his family still retain those and they retain these lots that are within this application for a replat. But the application represents to you and it says that the CC&Rs, the covenant, conditions, and restrictions, are in place for Troutner Business Park. That is true. The application also represents to you that all lots within the replat will be subject to these conditions. Well, Members of the Commission, the covenants and conditions -- which I know the city does not get involved in. You are not here to listen to me talk about what covenants mean or provide. I understand that. But when you are told in this application that the replat will be subject to them, I think it's permissible to talk to them. Well, what you have not been told, no one has, is what the anticipated use of the replatted property will be. Well, it will certainly not be what the original subdivision plan called for, which are commercial developments in the project. Now, the information that we have -- and the owner has never spoken to us about it, but the information that we have is that the plan is for an RV park within the replat. Well, I cannot believe that the Commission would approve a replat without being told what the purpose is or the intended use, when the common scheme that the Commission approved six years ago -- the city approved, called for commercial development, with access -- dedicated right of way on 3rd -- for all of that to be abandoned, to unilaterally and without the consent of others who have purchased in the project. I don't believe that this Commission or the City will do that and I urge you to deny it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Borup: Questions? Do you have concern that the CC&R's are going to be modified or changed from -- Mallea: If the applicant intended that, I'm guessing that that would be part of their representation to this Commission. That's not mentioned. All that is mentioned is that the replat would be subject to the covenants. Well, the covenants prohibit any trailer, any temporary structure, and have very rigorous design standards for any development within this subdivision. Borup: That's what I was wondering. So, if that's the case, then -- Mallea: Mr. Chairman, there are rigorous architectural and design standards. Borup: Okay. Then, where is the concern if you have rigorous requirements? Are you concerned they will ignore them, you mean? Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 55 of 83 Mallea: Well, what you are being told is that they are subject to them. Obviously, they must intend the complete abandonment of whatever those covenants provide. Borup: Okay. That's your concern, that they will be ignored? Mallea: Abandoned and modified. Mr. Chairman, if I could draw a parallel to the previous application that you heard for three hours. We have half of that project that was before you, comes back to you in six years, and this fine lady that represented the developer and this gentleman that spoke to you, they come to the conclusion that the size of lot was no longer marketable. Borup: Well, no, I see where you're going, but I don't think that a comparison to any residential and commercial really apply, but -- but I can see the point you're making. But would that be any different if an owner went in and bought whatever -- six original lots or whatever they were and, then, decided to -- and, then, came in and went through the same process on his own? Mallea: Well, Mr. Chairman, certainly, as your staff has mentioned, the proposed abandonment of 3rd Avenue is a serious issue. So -- I mean that's one issue, but -- Borup: Well -- and also -- and that's something this Commission doesn't do. Mallea: And I understand that. Borup: I mean ACHD would have to do that. Mallea: I understand. But I mean it causes me pause and I hope it will this Commission, for a 40 acre project to have a common scheme and approved and now they have half of it pulled out of that scheme when others, like myself and Mr. Olson and others who are not here, in reliance on it, purchased and built and now all of that is abandoned. It's a discretionary call for this Commission. Borup: But you're assuming it's going to be abandoned. Mallea: No. Oh. I have lots of confidence in that. Borup: Now, would you have a concern if a single large office building went in there on that parcel? Mallea: None whatsoever. That would be consistent, I believe, with what the city approved, what the city's approved and planned development for this area was. Borup: Okay. Mallea: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 56 of 83 Borup: Thank you. Zaremba: I would probably ask staff for a clarification. I'm looking through Chapter 8, the zone schedule of use control. We are talking about a C-G zone. I do not find in any zone an RV park as being allowable. Under residential I see mobile home parks and subdivisions, which are not allowable in a C-G zone. Am I missing something? Can an RV park go in a C-G zone? Powell: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, you're absolutely right. And, actually, the applicant did come to us and they haven't been secretive about what they want to do there. But before I tell you all the conversations we had, you should -- and I'm sure you realize that the use on that property is not in question tonight, it's just a matter of the preliminary plat and the vacation. So, how they want to use that property would come back to you at another time. It won't be a principal permitted use. So, I will tell you they are looking at an RV park. An RV park is not similar to a mobile home park, it's more like a hotel on wheels, so -- Borup: Like the one up on Overland and Locust Grove. Powell: I'm not familiar with that one, but there is nods around the -- Borup: That's the only one I know about in town, but -- Powell: And it's -- so what we have told them is that they need to come to us, because it's not a listed use. What the zoning ordinance says is that you need to -- they need to come to us as a Conditional Use Permit for anything that's not a listed use. If we haven't considered it, it's not considered prohibited, it's just -- you have to come through the conditional use process. We can encourage them -- normally we encourage people to come in altogether as a bundle. In this case we encouraged them to get moving on their right of way vacation, because it is such a painfully laborious process, I think would be fair to say. It really does take a long time to get through that vacation process and we did encourage them to start that right of way -- right away. I think I'm getting a cold. Anyway. So, they have not tried to deceive us or anything on this property. They came in and said we want to do an RV park, you know, how do we do it. So, they are just following the -- kind of the sequencing that we gave them, but it is not a listed use, so it would have to be a conditional use, it would come back before you in that manner. Borup: Could there be some -- I'd like some clarification on the non-build agreement on this parcel that was made reference to. I wasn't sure that that -- Hood: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I believe what -- since the Penwood right of way and the 3rd Street right of way of have not been constructed yet, the final plat has been recorded, ACHD put a non-build on this, because the roads aren't in. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 57 of 83 Borup: Oh. Okay. Hood: So, until the roads get put in, they can't build anything. Borup: Okay. That's what that was referring to. Do we have anyone else? Mr. Ballantyne. Ballantyne: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, to give you a little bit of background, the nondevelopment agreement, when -- ordinarily and customarily now as you enter into a plat, you enter into a nondevelopment agreement with -- or a development agreement with the city. A nondevelopment agreement is just the opposite, it says that until such time that you put in the infrastructure improvements, you cannot hypothecate, sell, or do anything with the lots and so we, basically, signed that with the city, you know, can't do anything -- and the other agencies. But our intention is not to build a mobile home park here. Our -- we have been approached by a group that does want to purchase part of the property to develop an RV park and whether that happens or not, it's our intention to replat the property. In the six years that we have owned the property we have sold eight lots, about eight acres, and -- or developed about eight acres and two of them have been ourselves, so there is not a great deal of demand for these large lots. It's our intent -- we really want to get this Penwood through and based on the current configuration, we would have to build 3rd as well, and so I have already got about 15 lots here that I can't sell, so I really don't want to build about 15 more lots that I can't sell. So, we have been approached by this party, we are under contract. This portion of the property is not included in that contract. If you go back to the approved plat, you will see that this -- any of them, you will see that this line takes a jaunt and the reason was these lots were getting so thin here at the back when they were platted so as to not be usable. The problem is that this lot in its current configuration is very unwieldy. We have done a number of layouts of buildings and because of this narrowness here, you can't circulate the cars the way you want. So, what -- our intent there was just to make this property line up here, move this line this way, we would still have over an acre buildable lot here and this would square up this property. It just made sense. There will be no access here. There is no -- Borup: And that was what I was going to ask. Ballantyne: There is no dedication of right of way. This would not be part of it. Certainly, you know, what's under your purview today is whether or not we can -- your recommendation on vacation and whether or not we can replat. Borup: So, why doesn't your replat design show this line going straight through, then? Ballantyne: Why does it? Borup: Why does it not? Ballantyne: It does. It does, sir. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 58 of 83 Borup: Oh. Ballantyne: The new one -- this is the old plat. If you go to the new one you will see what we have done is straighten that line to square this off. Borup: Okay. Okay. That does go through there, but this lot was just included in with the -- because that affected that lot. I understand. Ballantyne: Basically, our situation with the members of the association, the property owners in the park, is it did not make sense for us to approach them about the potential use of this property until we knew whether the city and the highway district would support a vacation of the road. If they wouldn't to vacate the road, we couldn't sell it, redevelopment it, and so it would be a moot point. We scheduled the meeting for next week, so -- after this hearing, so we would know what the opinion of the city was, so that we could, then, go to the property owners and say the city is allowing us to do this, this is what we'd like to do, this is the use, show them the design, that type of thing. So, there was no intent to deceive or -- I mean as your director -- Planning and Zoning director will say, we have been up front and trying to make sure everybody understood that. In terms of the CC&Rs, I know it's not part of your purview, but certainly this property would not be consistent with the CC&R's here, this property would, and we would need to, as an association, determine how to handle that. Most likely it would be to amend the CC&R's to have a separate use here. That's if we go with this RV park. If we don't and we leave it as one single use, we will probably just leave the CC&R's in place and sell this one single parcel. Does that answer -- Borup: Yes. That answers my -- Ballantyne: -- the concerns that were raised? Borup: Anything else? Rohm: I think it's safe to say that the vacation of the right of way doesn't necessarily support the development of any new project. It would still have to come before the board as a Conditional Use Permit and so by vacating doesn't say, yes, you can do what is being proposed at the next stage. Ballantyne: Certainly. Absolutely. We recognize that there is many steps we have to go through and before we can get anything done. If It was an RV park, for instance, we would have to come back to this body and to the -- actually, do we come to body or go directly to City Council on a CUP? Go to this body first? Borup: Yes. Ballantyne: And, then, to City Council to get anything that was done there approved. So, this is just to make sure we can actually vacate the street and re-layout the lots. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 59 of 83 Borup: And I don't know that I'm still comfortable with the stub street to the south. I mean, you know, I realize that that property owner may not be interested, but how do we know that -- how do we know that now? I mean are we planning properly if we ignore that? Ballantyne: Certainly, Mr. Chairman, that would be, you know, up to ACHD with your recommendation, but I would point out that this stub here this stub mere were certainly not extended because of the desire not to have connectivity and there is a possibility that this -- Borup: And that's residential over here. Ballantyne: Yeah. Exactly. But it's possible that the use would be such, even if it was closer, that you wouldn't want the road to go through. You might, certainly, and if you don't and we stub it in, you and I could drag race, I guess, on that little segment or -- I don't know what I would do with that little piece of ground. Come back later for vacation, I guess. Borup: Well, yeah. Yeah. But Penwood is going through right now to 5th and so there would be access? Ballantyne: Correct. 5th and then through the Commercial Tire Subdivision we will extend Penwood to Meridian Road. So, this will connect to Meridian and this will connect, if and what Corporate ever goes through, sooner, hopefully, rather than later. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Would you index the pictures back to one that shows more of the -- I think there was one that went all the way to Meridian. Borup: There. Zaremba: Yeah. That one. Borup: This is going through to Meridian. Ballantyne: Penwood will connect there to Meridian. We currently have an easement through the property. There was a plat, because this was an illegal lot split -- I don't know if you have ever experienced that before, but that Commercial Tire had to replat this into a single lot. As part of their approvals they had to extend the road to our east property line. As part of this, I guess they had a little -- they got the plat all done and didn't record it; is that right? So, they are coming back, I guess, in January to fix that and as part of our Penwood extension we will extend that road through. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 60 of 83 Borup: Well, I'd like, Mr. Hood, maybe to comment on -- I'm a strong advocate of continuity between areas, but I'm wondering, since this is a single owner, he has good access from here, and there is still access from this road down to Corporate, that it's not really greatly affecting the traffic through that area. I'm wondering how strong staff feels about that. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, let me just kind of walk you through my thought process when evaluating this application. I guess kind of similar to what the applicant just pointed out, if we vacate this right of way now, it's recommended that ACHD vacate this right of way, the opportunity is lost for that road to go through. If the stub is provided, it could be T'd if that property owner further to the south doesn't want to build the road all the way through to Corporate Drive. They do have a lot of frontage on Corporate. The other reason that I think that the stub street makes sense, without knowing what's going to develop on that parcel, is it allows future tenants in this subject development another access point to what will in the future be a signal at Meridian and Corporate, rather than having to go out Penwood, which won't be signalized, or back around and out to get to -- it just allows the interconnectivity and allows another way to get to a signal -- future signalized intersection. Borup: Well -- and that was the point that I thought made a lot of sense, but they do -- I mean it's a few hundred feet down, but they have access by coming down to here and over to Corporate, which is not a great hardship. Hood: Mr. Chair, that isn't a done deal either. Fifth Street isn't extended all the way to Corporate. So, if that doesn't develop for another 40 years, that -- you know, that connection is not there today, so depending on the timing of the property directly to the south or the other extension of 5th Street to Corporate, depending on which one goes first -- I imagine they won't go together, so one of them is going to be constructed first and maybe one of them is not connected at all, but if we lose the 3rd Street, then, we rely on 5th Street to go through. Borup: Right. One or the other needs to go through. I think you would agree with that. Ballantyne: I would agree. So, I need to build another, just in case the other one that I already built doesn't connect through? Borup: Well, you built this one down to what point? To here? Ballantyne: To our property line. No. To here. So, it's got about 50 feet to go. Borup: Oh, you're clear down to here. Ballantyne: Fifty to seventy-five feet. You know, I understand Mr. Hood's logic. I mean we want connectivity. We want people to be able to get in and out of the park, but I have already built a connection to the future Corporate Drive extension that -- you know, and I have spent money for it to connect and so I have got to build another one Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 61 of 83 just in case the one that I built, that you told me I had to build, because Corporate is going to be connected, just in case that one doesn't connect I got to build another one. Do you understand my logic? Like somebody has got to build Corporate Drive. I could build three or four more there and if nobody builds Corporate Drive, I mean it's just -- so, we would very much like to built Corporate Drive. Our intent -- and these gentlemen, I think, will concur, is we have been told two or three times that Corporate Drive is a matter of months from being, you know, moved ahead and the whole reason we are trying to get Penwood through is we are doubtful that Corporate Drive will happen within the next five years and we want these folks to be able to get out to Meridian Road without having to go back to Franklin. Borup: So, do you know what the intentions of this property owner are at all? Ballantyne: This property owner brought application to the city a few years ago for a preliminary and final plat. The preliminary plat was approved with some conditions, which weren't acceptable to the applicant. They were going to work to amend the conditions. The applicant had a heart attack and put the property up for sale. The property is currently for sale. The preliminary plat I think just expired a few months ago, so they have to go through the process all again. Prior to that, this property here was illegally split off and deeded to the highway district as part of the Meridian Road improvement. The highway district ran a drain line here for an infiltration bed in order to meet the Clean Water Act. Borup: Yeah. I remember that. Okay. Ballantyne: And this is classified, I think, as a collector; is that right? Hood: Mr. Chair, that has, actually, changed and that's something that has changed since -- I think on the 20-25 map it is no longer designated as a collector roadway, it's only a local commercial street -- a future local, I think, commercial street and I think that just recently changed. Ballantyne: Was that because of the redesign there, I think? Originally, the intent of the highway district was to eliminate any access point here on Penwood, to cul-de-sac Penwood and bring all traffic from this area up through Corporate, as well as traffic out of the Mallard Landing Subdivision, I believe, as well as Troutner Business Park through Corporate. They amended that and replanned this and brought this road -- or intended to bring this road here. So, that's probably why they downgraded it from a collector to a local -- Hood: Local commercial. Yeah. Ballantyne: -- local commercial. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Questions from any of the Commissioners. Thank you. Commissioners, discussion? And probably, specifically, on Item No. 7, the vacation. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 62 of 83 Zaremba: Well, the vacation along Penwood is easy. I don't think there is any problem with that. Penwood? Is that the -- Borup: Yes. And how about north of Penwood? Zaremba: Well, Southwest 3rd Avenue -- I don't think that would ever connect to Franklin. The only option would be to curve it and come -- and connect it back over to 5th. That's probably not likely to happen either. So, the only person this really makes any difference to is the current applicant, who is asking for it to be vacated. So, going north I don't have too much problem vacating that. Going south, it's kind of a toss up, but Corporate is going to have to go through sometime and if they have already put in a drainage line, that alignment probably isn't going to change, it's going to go right where it's indicated. And I think the south -- the property owner to the south has enough access and, again, within his own property he doesn't mind giving up that access, he has enough frontage on Penwood. I probably could go along with supporting everything the applicant is asking for on the vacation. I agree with staff's concern, but I also agree that Corporate, eventually, is going to have to be there and I think that will solve the concern. Personal opinion. Borup: Well, I think it looks like connectivity concern is answered. The connection here is a lot shorter also. Rohm: As long as that goes in. Borup: Well, it's going to go in if that property ever develops. Zaremba: Eventually, it will have to. It's just -- it's a matter of timing, I suppose. And I can't see that it's going to go anywhere else, because they already have their drain or pipe or whatever -- they already have that right of way established. It's not going to suddenly make S curves and go off somewhere else. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: So, let's see, we still have the Public Hearing open on the other part. Do we need to close that first? Borup: Yeah, but -- no, let's go ahead and -- let's go ahead on No. 7 and, then, we will close -- or I guess you could close it. Zaremba: Let's do that. Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on Item No. 8, PP 03-034. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 63 of 83 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Another thing that has already been stated -- and I just realized, you know, we are making a recommendation that's going to go to City Council and it's really going to go to ACHD, who is the one that needs to make the decision, so maybe we are spending a lot of time on something that we don't have a lot of way on. Zaremba: Well, on the vacation part I'm comfortable with offering our support to the applicant. So, I would move that we forward to the City Council and thereafter to ACHD Item 7 on our agenda, recommending approval of VAC 03-007, request for a vacation of three feet of ACHD right of way on each side of West Penwood Street for Troutner Business Park Subdivision No. 2 by Mary Ballantyne, west of South Meridian Road and south of East Franklin Road, with the knowledge that the application also requests vacation of their portion of southwest 3rd Street and to include all staff comments, with the exception of -- this is from staff's memo for the hearing date of December 4th, received by the clerk December 1, 2003, with the exception of on page two, paragraph three, under special considerations -- that's not, actually, a condition, it's just a discussion. In that case, no changes. Borup: It is part of their recommendation, though. Zaremba: Okay. Then, I would say that -- Mathes: Are you doing the vacation? Zaremba: This is the vacation. This is a special consideration under vacation. Okay. So, continue with the motion. On page two under special considerations, paragraph three, I would delete. Borup: You'd delete the whole paragraph? Zaremba: I think so. It only talks about -- Borup: Yeah. Yeah. That's -- okay. Zaremba: Well -- okay. Since this is only a recommendation, do we want to say we recommend deletion of that paragraph? Borup: I don't know if it matters either way. If we are -- if you recommend approval of all staff comments -- did you already say that? I think you did. Zaremba: I did and -- Borup: Then, you wouldn't have to delete that one. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 64 of 83 Zaremba: And if staff objects, they can mention that it was a condition. Before City Council staff can mention it again. Borup: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. So -- Borup: I'm sure they probably will. Zaremba: -- let me restate the motion from the beginning. I recommend that we forward to the City Council and thereafter to ACHD a recommendation of approval of VAC 03-007, request for a vacation of three feet of ACHD right of way on each side of West Penwood Street for Troutner Business Park Subdivision No. 2 by Mary Ballantyne, west of South Meridian Road and south of East Franklin Road and noting that that also includes a request to vacate the applicant's portion of Southwest 3rd Street, to include -- Borup: I think it's just South 3rd Avenue. Zaremba: South 3rd -- the south portion of West 3rd Avenue. Borup: No. It's just south -- Zaremba: Well, the street is West 3rd Avenue and this is the south portion of West Third Avenue. Southwest 3rd Avenue. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Okay. To include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date December 4th, 2003, received by the clerk 2001 -- 2003, with the exception of page two, paragraph three under special considerations is deleted. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Okay. Item 8, which was the Public Hearing. Zaremba: We did close the Public Hearing. Borup: Yes. Zaremba: I guess for discussion I would say on the face of it I have no problem with the replatting, with the knowledge that anything in the C-G zone that is not listed in the C-G Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 65 of 83 zone, would have to come back to us for a CUP anyhow, the issue of the use really isn't before us, but if it's not something that's clearly a C-G, we would get to hear it again. Borup: That also gives the opportunity for the association to get together, as they discussed. Zaremba: And either agree or -- Borup: And we have also been told that that one lot on 5th has not been included. Zaremba: And make their point that they don't care to have the CC&R's changed, whatever they have. Rohm: Can we make it a condition that anything that's brought -- proposed be required to go the CUP route? Borup: It's a little late, but -- well, maybe since we are -- no, we are not changing -- there is not a zoning change before us, it's just a replatting. Rohm: Well, with it being a replat and changing the lots to accommodate other uses, then, what was proposed in the -- Borup: Well, the lot's not necessarily to accommodate other uses. At this point it's C- G uses. Zaremba: As long as it's a C-G use. Borup: And a larger lot probably accommodates it better. Did you have a -- Powell: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, to my knowledge this was not a planned development to begin with, so there is no development agreement, so there is really no mechanism for you to require a Conditional Use Permit and just to clarify the record -- and this is complete nitpicking and, I'm sorry, it's not that any use not listed in the C-G would have to come to you, because some of those would be prohibited. It's that a use not otherwise listed in the schedule of uses would have to come to you as a CU or if it's listed as a CU in the C-G zone. Zaremba: Thank you. I think I actually understood it that way, but I misstated it when I was making my comments. That being said, Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 8 on our agenda, PP 03-024, request for a preliminary plat approval for a replat of Troutner Park Subdivision, Lots 4, 5, and 10 and 15, Block 2; Lots 1 to 3 and 5 to 8, Block 3; Block 4 and Lot 3, Block 5, consisting of six commercial building lots and one common lot on 17. Twenty-six acres in a C-G zone for Troutner Business Park No. 2 by Mary Ballantyne, south of West Franklin Road and west of North Meridian Road, to include all staff comments of their memo regarding PP Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 66 of 83 03-034, for the hearing date of December 4th, 2003, received by the Clerk, December 1st, 2003. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 9: Public Hearing: AZ 03-030 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 2. 8 acres from R-6 to L-O and C-G zones for Southern Springs Subdivision No. 2 by The Land Group, Inc. – south of East Overland Road and east of South Meridian Road: Item 10: Public Hearing: PP 03-036 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 5 commercial building lots on 2.8 acres in proposed L-O and C-G zones for Southern Springs Subdivision No. 2 by The Land Group, Inc. – south of East Overland Road and east of South Meridian Road: Borup: Thank you. The next item is Items No. 9 and 10, Public Hearing AZ 03-030, request for annexation and zoning of 2.8 acres from R-6 to L-O and C-G zones for Southern Springs Subdivision No. 2 by the Land Group. Accompanying that is PP 03- 036, request for preliminary plat approval of five commercial building lots on the same 2. 8 acres. I'd like to open both Public Hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. This -- Item No. 9 is the annexation and zoning request. The acreage is identical to the next item. Annexation and zoning and plat are the same. Southern Springs No. 1, the City Council approved just a couple of months ago. That's zoned C-G to the west. The Ten Mile Creek runs here along this east boundary and if you recall, a pathway, a public multi-use pathway, was quite a big part of the discussion on this project, running along the creek and so that does not affect this parcel. That was all contained on Southern Springs No. 1. The project is surrounded with Country Terrace Subdivision and Running Brook Estates. There are six or seven lots that, actually, touch the parcel. Gold's Gym, as you know, is located across the street. Here off of I-84 ACHD has a new storm water lot. This is an existing house in Ada County immediately across the street on several acres that has not been annexed and, of course, Meridian Ford is in the area. So, they have requested a rezone to two different zones. They are proposing to split zone the property. This is their boundaries on their legal description for their rezone, essentially, L-O adjacent to existing residential and C-G adjacent to Southern Springs No. 1, which is also C-G. Staff is recommending approval of the annexation. As I outlined in the staff report, it is designated for medium residential on the future land use map, so we do feel that even though the map doesn't explicitly support the proposed zone change, there are text policies that support a movement of the commercial, nonresidential uses, into this area. Probably two of the main ones are Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 67 of 83 the fact that they do have the existing commercial uses immediately adjacent and it is the same developer, Mitchner Investments, and the Overland Road really is not conducive to single family detached housing, particularly adjacent to the future retail here in Silver Springs One, so, we -- or Southern Springs One. I'm sorry. So, we feel like there are adequate policies in the Comp Plan to support it. As I pointed out, there are two other instances in the last couple of years where the city has approved similar situations. Hark's Corner on Linder and Franklin, as well as Office Jet Subdivision on Locust Grove were both designated for residential and they were approved for Comp Plan -- I'm sorry, they were approved for offices without a Comp Plan amendment. So, we don't take these lightly. We do look closely to whether or not it's justified and to not require a Comp Plan amendment. Unlike Stapleton Subdivision near the wastewater treatment plant, which, if you recall, that -- that's still -- we did required a Comp Plan amendment on that. So, we really just try to look at all the surrounding area to make that determination. So, we have recommended approval on that Item No. 9. On Item No. 10, the preliminary plat, they are requesting five different commercial building lots. Again, the L-O lots here on the east and south and, then, there are two commercial C-G lots. All of the thoughts in the subdivision are -- they range in size from .46 acres to .62, so they are all below two-thirds of an acre in size. Their application projects about 7,600 square feet of new commercial retail on these two lots and, then, about 15,000 square feet of office on these three L-O lots. They are proposing a private street that would extend from Overland Road and curve toward Southern Springs No. 1. They are proposing to construct a bridge across the Ten Mile Creek that would connect into their private commercial driveway system. Private streets are required to be approved by the City Council. Other than that, the code really gives us very little guidance as to when and where private streets are allowed. I pointed out what I think is the only other instance in the entire ordinance where private streets are talks about and it's really not even explicit, it just states at the beginning of the subdivision ordinance that generally all new streets in Meridian should be dedicated as public. So, really, these private street issues come up when -- usually the street's self contained within a single project and there is no existing stub streets around to use, as well as where they possibly want to have a little more control over the use of the street, the maintenance of the street. In this case it would clearly provide a -- really carry quite a bit of traffic, so we have made recommendations to you that the street be designed carefully and no parking, but provide curb, gutter, sidewalk, so it would, essentially, function as a public street. The right of way proposed is 29 feet. I mean a 42-foot right of way, a 29-foot street section. Borup: Was that the reason for the private street request, because of the right of way width? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, no reason was given in the application specifically, but -- Borup: Maybe we will find out later. Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. Borup: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 68 of 83 Zaremba: The bridge across the canal would include sidewalks? Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Yeah. It would connect to the future pathway that we hope goes somewhere someday. Zaremba: Well -- and, of course, it connects to Overland, but on that other end of it it connects to private property anyhow, owned by the same applicant, but that's justification for this being private, because it goes to private. Hawkins-Clark: There is also a question of street frontage and the -- well, I guess -- I take that back. They really could -- they could meet the minimum street frontage in the L-O. The C-G does not have a minimum street frontage in the zoning ordinance. The L-O does. So, if they just did a common driveway through here, they would have to flag these L-O lots out to Overland in order to get frontage on a street. We have considered frontage to be deemed acceptable on a private street in the past. So, I think there is -- the Commission and later Council, you know, really, should review these on a case-by-case basis in terms of the private street request and make the finding that you think that it is a situation where a private street is acceptable. The highway district simply stated their -- you know, their standard condition that you got to provide 30 feet of improved surface, you know, back from their Overland Road right of way and they have to, obviously, provide the sidewalk and curb and gutter on Overland Road, which, actually, I believe is already completed as part of the Overland Road widening project. We have received in the record two letters from adjacent property owners, Jeffrey Rowe and I believe the last name Gauge, stating that they are in support of the project. We did ask the applicant to contact all of the adjacent property owners, since this does -- this was designated for medium density residential, asking them to get the specific support of the adjacent property owners. I think Mr. Koga, the applicant, can address that further in terms of where he's at with those contacts. Other than that, I think the standard conditions are -- have all been discussed with the applicant, I think in general agreement with them. There is -- we have asked for a temporary turnaround to be constructed if Southern Springs No. 1, the northern portion is not constructed. When this bridge is built, we would, obviously, need the emergency turnarounds on the east side of Ten Mile Creek for emergency services and I will just show you a slide that shows both projects together and how they connect. The one comment that we got from a special consideration from the highway district was they had concern about the alignment of this bridge coming across the Ten Mile that it should not be in direct alignment with the drive -- with the driveway curb cut onto Meridian Road, State Highway 69. They had a lot of concern about cut-through traffic through this private street going out onto Meridian Road. You know, they are backed up on Overload Road westbound and they would use this to cut through a subdivision, so they did send an e- mail today stating that as long as the city's comfortable, basically, with the placement of these buildings and us working with the applicant when these come through to make sure that there is not a cut-through opportunity, that they are less concerned with that. I don't believe that the Idaho Transportation Department has made a final decision on Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 69 of 83 Southern Springs No. 1 and where their curb cuts would be. If you recall, that was somewhat up in the air when it came through and it's still undecided. Borup: But that configuration showing here and here right now? Hawkins-Clark: That's correct. Borup: The two -- Zaremba: It looks like the proposed -- what's proposed by the application wouldn't align anyhow. Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Zaremba: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: We have asked that the private street include a left turning bay onto Overland Road to -- it might require a little bit of a flair for -- to provide a reasonable stacking depth there, probably of 100 feet or so, for -- so it doesn't back up eastbound traffic and we have also recommended that the street be signed for no parking. We did ask for a site plan to be submitted for this L-O lot, which is -- has somewhat of a strange configuration, but here is the proposed layout that they submitted that shows putting the office building in this flag portion of that lot number three, taking access here. There is a hundred foot wide easement from Nampa-Meridian Irrigation on this and so they have unbuildable 50 feet and as you can see they have just shown parking in this Nampa-Meridian Irrigation easement, so the structure is well outside of that. I think that's all I have at this point. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward? Staff is recommending approval, so I think we would be interested in anything that you have got that concerns that. Koga: Will do. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is David Koga with the Land Group at 128 South Eagle Road. I'm going to try to not be redundant on what Brad already went over on the project. I think he did a really good job explaining some of the good reasons why this site should be annexed and rezoned. The project - - I'd like to explain, in general, though, the intent on this -- this project was -- number one, is for providing access and improvement of access from Overland Road to Southern Springs No. 1. The reason why for a private street on there versus a public is per ACHD is that street, if it is a public street, it does not connect to any other public roads, so the other option is we'd have to provide a cul-de-sac which didn't make sense to provide a public street and a cul-de-sac, plus a bridge. So, instead of that, we decided it would make more sense to ask for -- through City Council for a private street to provide access to the bridge to Southern Springs No. 1. That was basically our reason for -- Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 70 of 83 Borup: And was one of my questions. So, you're saying if that were a public street, you would have to cross the bridge and, then, have a cul-de-sac? Koga: There would be a cul-de-sac before you go over the bridge. Borup: Oh, before the bridge. Koga: Yeah. Borup: So, then, it would be private from the cul-de-sac on if you crossed the bridge. Koga: Correct. Yeah. For example, Mr. Chairman, if we do not have a bridge, it makes sense to have a public road with a cul-de-sac there. But with some type of bridge to continue down there, it just didn't make sense, so that's why our request is for the private road. Borup: Okay. Koga: Secondly, the rhyme and reason for the split rezoning for L-O and C-G, because of the small site, it doesn't make sense to do any type of development for single family. The other option could be something like apartments, but we are trying to be sensitive with the neighbors, so we thought the best use for the land for some type of buffer is having an L-O zone and use the L-O for office single -- or single level office buildings as a buffer for the neighbors. Up to the northwest with the C-G we feel that ties better with the other Southern Springs No. 1 and with the good buffer from the L-O zone we feel it's -- have enough mitigation buffer to the neighbors. Regard to the neighbors, I'd like to talk a little bit further. You do have two letters from John Gauge and from Jeff Rowe, who do support the project. Since, then, we have -- early we put together a community -- asked for a neighborhood meeting. Excuse me. Only two people came. And so we were kind of disappointed. Just recently we went back -- I went from house to house along both -- along Country Terrace Road and put additional letters into their mailbox and I did receive two more phone calls this morning. Excuse me. One from Mrs. Voss and the other one from Mr. Harmon and they live -- Mr. Harmon lives right here, Mrs. Voss lives right here. Excuse me. Mr. Gauge lives right here. Both Mrs. Voss and Mr. Harmon on the phone have supported this development. They felt it was a good use of the land. They understand that housing -- or typical housing would not work and at the same time they do not care for any type of apartments or that type of development. So, they support the project. As a matter of fact, they thought it was a good idea, because they wanted to get some type of development to that land, it's somewhat -- it does not match with the environment, that area. And the other letter you have is from Jeff Rowe -- Jeff Rowe in this area right here. I also have a letter right now I'd like to submit to you from John Bolvet and we have -- let's see if I can -- these two particular lots are somewhat special. Case in point, all of these lots along here are higher in elevation than our development over here, so everybody -- all the neighbors here feel pretty comfortable with a requirement of a fence and landscape will take care of the buffer for them. These two residences are lower -- a lower area and Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 71 of 83 so they look up north towards Southern Springs area. So, we spent an extra time on site with those few owners to come up with an agreement to improve the buffer and, Brad, do you have that one section? We came up with an agreement -- and you will notice on both of those letters that they do support that we put together a berm and this berm would be anywhere from five to seven feet tall. We are limited on the height by the width of our landscape buffer, but we feel comfortable we can get anywhere from five to seven feet height on the berm and on top of our berm we will also provide a six foot vinyl fence. So, from the neighbor's site, they basically have 11 to 12 foot buffer on their side. So, we will provide this berm, we will come with an agreement between the developer and the owners to encroach and provide the berm on their side also, provide the fence, and the conifers. And, like I said, in the letter they support development and that -- that buffer. Zaremba: While you're on that subject, we have a copy of Jeffrey Rowe's letter. Koga: Yes. Zaremba: -- in which he identifies five things that you have agreed to. You're in agreement that he states those correctly? Koga: Yeah. The developers and the owners are negotiating privately on improvements on their side and Mr. Oldfield is very similar to that. The bottom line is the developers agreed to provide the berm and the finish grade and, then, they do all -- whatever they damage on their side, such as sod or sprinklers, that they will provide material for replacing. I guess the only other option I'd like to consider, we have, basically, complied with all the site specifics. There was a list at the very end that staff has put together, called recommendations to discussion. The first one regard to annexation per Comprehensive Plan, I think we have already talked about that. The second one has to do about whether a development agreement is needed on this project. My client feels that the development -- they really kind of question if a development agreement is needed for this project, particularly because of the uniqueness of the site. If there was a development agreement, it's probably -- discussion probably about the C-G zone, but the buildable area on that is so small we basically have -- between the two of those lots less than a half an acre of buildable area. Most cases, because we are restricted because, once again, the 50 foot irrigation easement from Nampa-Meridian Irrigation. So, we feel that the site and the restriction of the site will dictate what will be -- could be built in the area. I think we have covered all the other specifics on recommendations. I'd answer any questions that you might have. Borup: Would you anticipate that this would develop after number one? Koga: I think what will happen is this road will be built at the same time. Borup: At the same time. Okay. And that answers the questions on the turnaround, if that wasn't -- Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 72 of 83 Koga: Right. I just want to mention one other item that Brad had mentioned about ITD. We just received a letter from ITD yesterday where District Three has just forwarded our application to the headquarters with no -- no specifics on their letter. So, I contacted District No. 3 yesterday what their recommendations are to headquarters and they, for some reason, would not let us know exactly what their recommendations are to headquarters and so since, then, we have fired letter to them specifically asking for what direction they are going and as of right now we have not received anything from ITD. Borup: But you would have no problem with requiring a turnaround if this did develop before -- Koga: Correct. Borup: -- number one. Koga: Correct. Correct. Borup: Okay. Questions from any of the Commissioners? Okay. I think you have done good with a difficult site. Koga: Appreciate that. Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else to testify here? Come on up. I'm assuming that's what you waited all night for. Thacker: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I own that piece of property. My wife and I have lived there for 18 years. We raised kids there. When we first moved there, we were surrounded mostly by cornfields, other than Country Terrace. Powell: Chairman Borup, we need the gentleman's name. Borup: Oh. I'm sorry. Yes. Thacker: Oh, excuse me, my name is Pat Thacker. Borup: Okay, Pat. Thacker: Sorry. I'm not used to these -- Borup: I should have caught that -- Thacker: Sorry about that. Rohm: Address? Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 73 of 83 Thacker: I live at 4560 Willow Creek Road now in Eagle and this land -- that house is currently -- has been a rental, which the neighbors haven't liked and I don't blame them. And since we have lived there, this place has evolved beyond residential property and it's just not -- it's not a good place to live anymore and I know all the neighbors and I know they are supportive of it, because it will give them a permanent buffer. If you ever spent a night in that house, now that the road has been improved and that intersection is going to get busier and since the high school and everything else has gone in, there is really no other suitable use for it, other than something commercial. And I know the neighbors don't want a bunch of four-plexes there either. So, I think it's a great project, I think it's a good use for that, and if you were in my shoes I don't know that you would see any other alternative for it either. I think it will beautify the neighborhood. It will clean the place up. It's really not something you'd want to try and rebuilt or fix up either, because it's not going to be resalable as a residential property. So, anyway, if you have any questions or -- Borup: Thank you. I think that makes sense. Thacker: Thank you. Borup: Anyone else? Are you, sir, for -- okay. That concludes the testimony. Zaremba: I think the applicant has made a good case that this should never be residential and staff has provided their support for that theory. Borup: And the only residential would be multi-family and we have heard many, many times how neighbors feel about that. They'd much rather have office buildings. Zaremba: Well, I'm certainly in favor of multi-family housing some places, but I think the C-G with the L-O buffer around it is perfect for this particular location and application. I'm not sure I even would have supported multi-family there myself. So, I'm in favor of their idea and in favor of the bridge over the canal to connect the two projects and I commend the applicant for spending time with the neighbors that makes life so much easier for us when you do that. I think that's great. Borup: Okay. Are we ready to close the hearing? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close public hearings on Items 9 and 10. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Let's see. Staff has asked us to make a couple discussions. I think we are substantially in agreement with what lies behind the Comprehensive Plan for this area, Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 74 of 83 even if the Comprehensive Plan does say residential. I would find that this complies with any sensible development for that area. Borup: Yeah. And staff did a good job on that. A couple things I underlined was the Comprehensive Plan says it's a guide, a general way. It's how the community may develop. Zaremba: I don't think we are -- I'm actually looking at page 12, whether or not a development is agreeable -- I think the applicant has shown that they have no intention to do negative land uses and their cooperation with neighbors, but I would be comfortable with no development agreement if staff can go along with it. Do we have any real issues that need to be put into a development agreement? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, the only reason we typically raise this is on, frankly, C-G property that doesn't have any proposed uses, which is the case that's here, and -- Zaremba: But the C-G is buffered by the L-O, plus landscape buffers, so -- Hawkins-Clark: Right. Borup: Plus size restriction. Hawkins-Clark: And size. And I think that's probably the main -- yeah. You know, the potential negative use. You're just not going to see those go on to a 6-acre lot, such as a truck stop or something like that, so we just simply wanted to raise it for your discussion. Zaremba: Okay. I, personally, am comfortable without the DA there. The preliminary plat, the proposed private street, I think that's a good solution and with the bridge connecting to the other section, as long as there is a sidewalk along all of it, including the bridge, I see no problem for it being private. Configuration of buildable area of Lot 3. The only comment I have on that is whenever something comes before us there needs to be a cross-access agreement with what I think was Lot 2, since it does show Lot 2 using Lot 3. I realize it's a conceptual, but Lot 2's only access is through Lot 3, so just a reminder that at some point there needs to be a cross-access agreement. Does that need to be on the plat? Hawkins-Clark: Yes, it would. Zaremba: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. Potential temporary turnaround. I see no need for a permanent turnaround and the only reason for a temporary would be if there is no connection Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 75 of 83 through subdivision one. I'm sorry. Was it ACHD that asked for the temporary turnaround? Hawkins-Clark: It would be us, but I think if you just accept as written, it states that if Southern Springs One does not provide, you know, a fire rated base, then, they are going to have to provide it on that side. Zaremba: Okay. And they have stated their intention to provide a fire rated base on the subdivision. Okay. I think those are all the issues. In that case -- we did already close the Public Hearing? Borup: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 9 on our agenda, AZ 03-030, request for annexation and zoning of 2. 8 acres from R-6 to L-O and C-G zones for Southern Springs Subdivision No. 2 by the Land Group, Incorporated, south of East Overland Road and east of South Meridian Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of December 4, 2003, received by the clerk November 26, 2003. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 10 on our agenda, PP 03-036, request for preliminary plat approval of five commercial building lots on 2.8 acres in proposed L-O and C-G zones for Southern Springs Subdivision No. 2 by the Land Group, Incorporated, south of East Overland Road and east of South Meridian Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date December 4, 2003, received by the clerk November 26, 2003, and adding on page 12, at paragraph 11 that says there will be a cross-access agreement between Lots 2 and 3. Does that need to be shown on the face of the plat? Hawkins-Clark: Yes. And, also, if I could add the two commercial lots show a shared access as well. So, that's Lots 4 and 5. Zaremba: Okay. And that there be cross-access -- also be a cross-access agreement between Lots 4 and 5, both to be shown on the plat. End of motion. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 76 of 83 Item 11: Public Hearing: AZ 03-026 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5. 11 acres from RT to C-G and I-L zones for Cortabitarte Annexation by Jack Cortabitarte – south of East Fairview Avenue, and west of North Eagle Road: Borup: Thank you. Are we ready to go home or shall we do one more? Okay. The next and last item is Public Hearing AZ 03-026, request for annexation and zoning of 5. 11 acres from R-T to C-G and I-L zones and open the Public Hearing at this time and start with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will stand for any questions. Zaremba: So moved. Siddoway: Okay. You should have our staff report with December 4th hearing date and transmitted November 25th. This is a proposed annexation for the Cortabitarte parcel. Actually, a lot, which, I guess, is an important designation in this case. It's an existing five-acre lot on the south side of Fairview. The proposal is to annex it to the city. It's currently contiguous with the Treasure Valley Business Center along its eastern boundary. The front lots along Fairview are currently vacant in Treasure Valley Business Center. These rear two are occupied by the Food Services of America project, which is proposing to expand its parking lot onto the rear portion, although that proposal is not specifically involved in this application, it does factor into the reason why we are recommending approval, even though there are not currently water and sewer services -- particularly sewer services to this property today. But the expansion of the parking lot for Food Services of America would not require sewer services. They are proposing a split zone on the property. The rear 3.4 acres is proposed to be I-L, which would match the I-L zone of the Food Services of America lot. The remaining portion in the front is proposed to be zoned C-G. There are three special considerations that I want to point out on page six. The first is that there is an existing residence on the front portion of this property where the C-G zone is proposed. A little difficult to see in this aerial photo, but it sits up in the front portion right up in here. When writing the staff report I was under the impression from the applicant that it was -- the house was currently vacant. Based on a phone call today, apparently, it's not and that's going to be the main issue that we need to discuss tonight. Upon annexation and zoning of the property to C-G, the residence will become a nonconforming use, if it's continued to be used for a residence. So, the staff recommendation was that the residential use should be abandoned upon annexation, so that we are not creating new nonconforming uses in the city. I know the applicant, based on the phone call today, does desire to continue residential use of that property for a time and I'll just ask the applicant to address that to the Commission. The second issue is the sewer service. There is no sewer service currently available to the property. We may have Bruce point out where the sewer is and how it will be sewered here in a moment, but the -- that commercial frontage that they are proposing will not be developable until that sewer service is extended to the property. Therefore, we are recommending a development agreement as part of this Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 77 of 83 annexation. That allows for the parking expansion that's proposed on the rear, but makes the commercial frontage undevelopable until the sewer service is available. The third item is the split zoning. We usually don't recommend a split zone on a single piece of property. To rectify that situation, the applicant has submitted and is in process, a lot line adjustment that shifts the lot line for the Food Services of America project over to the proposed zoning designation boundary. That would make all of the rear portion of the proposed lot a portion of this Lot 4 in Treasure Valley Business Center. In talking with the city engineer, he's never done a lot line adjustment between two different subdivisions. Both of these are platted subdivisions, so it is, technically, eligible for a lot line adjustment. He's looking into any issues related to the lot line adjustment and has agreed to put in writing a memo prior to the Council meeting. If, for some reason, the lot line adjustment cannot be approved, the development agreement should be require a plat on the property in order to split it at the location where the different zones meet. I have four site-specific comments. All of the things that would be conditions of approval appear in number three under the development agreement that we recommend. Those would be the conditional use process being required on any use on this property. That's required through the Comprehensive Plan, if you read through the findings, this is a mixed use community designation and, as such, requires a conditional use for any use on the property. The applicant will address the second one about the existing residence being abandoned or not. The third point, that the C-G remain undevelopable and, then, any other conditions deemed necessary by this Commission. With that, I will stand for any questions. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Zaremba: Yeah. I do have one and it's, actually, whether or not you might agree to combine two of those thoughts. If the C-G portion of it is not going to be developable until there is sewer available, could we say, instead, that the existing residence shall be abandoned when sewer is available, so that it could be rented as a residence until it can be used otherwise? It currently can't be used otherwise. Can we say something like that, that the -- Siddoway: I know that's what the applicant would hope for. I don't know that it's hurting anything. It does create a nonconforming use situation. Zaremba: Until such time as there is sewer available and, then -- it's not going to be an ongoing nonconforming use, because at some point there will be sewer available and, then, we say it must be abandoned as a residence. Siddoway: As soon as -- as soon as the sewer is available to the property; is that what you're saying? Zaremba: Yeah. Whether or not they hook into it, as soon as it is available it must be abandoned as a residence. But until it's available it can't be used for anything else, so it seems a little unfair to say it's got to be abandoned tomorrow, but there won't be sewer for six months or two years. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 78 of 83 Siddoway: I would be fine with that. Zaremba: Is that acceptable? Siddoway: Sure. Zaremba: Then, I guess this has to do with a decision about whether lots in separate subdivisions can be adjoined, but the I-L portion of this would be landlocked unless there is some easement or access agreement, which I assume we want to attach to Lot 4 of the other subdivision. But can we put that as part of the development agreement, that there would be an easement or access from Lot 4 of -- Siddoway: I don't know if we can require an easement on Lot 4, since it's not part of the application. I do see what you're saying. If the lot line adjustment becomes not feasible for some reason and has to be platted, we are creating a landlocked lot, so -- Zaremba: With no access anyway. Borup: But that may not be so bad, because there is no sewer to it. The only part that could access it would be the owner that owns the other two lots. So, someone else couldn't develop it, which is probably what we are trying to accomplish anyway, isn't it? Not having other development back there? Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Does that make sense? But maybe having that restriction would be prohibit anybody else from doing anything on it, except for what's proposed. Zaremba: Just not provide access, unless it works out with Lot 4 separately, but we didn't require it. Okay. I can go with that. Borup: I was just thinking out loud. Mr. Brown, anything you'd like to add to that? Okay. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission -- Steve, do you have a -- kind of an overall -- just -- the question from Mr. Brown was to try and find out where we currently have sewer. Currently, of course, this development is served. We don't have anything that extends over -- I have got sewer to this point right here in Fairview. It flows back to the west. And then we have sewer, of course, down on what would be the Pine Street extension we have a main trunk line. We also have sewer at this point right here that flows back this direction. I did not look at my -- my facility plan map before I came, but I believe that the line that this would sewer to would be either the line in Fairview or this one if it comes across, you know, future development of those parcels in there, so it could be some time. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 79 of 83 Borup: Mr. Brown. Brown: Thank you. Kent Brown. 1800 West Overland, Boise, Idaho, is my business address. Grateful to be the last one and enjoy all that goes on and learn about that luckily we are a legal land division, so we don't have to worry about that, but we don't want to do a subdivision. We want to do a lot line adjustment. Other jurisdictions that we deal with do allow other subdivisions and I know that that's new ground for Meridian, but other jurisdictions allow us, if we are doing a lot line adjustment, to go from subdivision to subdivision, so we are hoping that that's the case. The issue -- and I think you have pretty much resolved them -- is that we want to continue to use the residence while we can, at the same time offering it for sale and hoping that someone wants to extend the sewer down Fairview. That's been our anticipation is what they'd have to do and I believe it's on the north side of Fairview. I know that the other properties on the south side and some of the ones that are even annexed are not connected to sewer, but we don't plan on anticipating or changing the use until such time as we have sewer and we are agreeable with that. Zaremba: Would it be acceptable to say that the residence had to be abandoned as soon as sewer is available, whether you're ready to hook up to it or not? Brown: Mr. Cortabitarte is here and he would like to speak to you about the residence, so I will let him speak to that. If I was to make a recommendation is that we eliminate special condition one on page six, that we modify the sewer service to the last sentence, but make the new commercial frontage undevelopable until sewer is available and, then, on site specific comments eliminate the second item, the existing sewer, and go along with your suggestion of how to word that for the development agreement. And I think that that takes care of our concerns. Zaremba: I would ask one other thing and maybe staff would chime in on it, too. The front portion of this being C-G and a fairly narrow property -- first, I guess, would you be willing and, second, can we ask that whatever design you have for the C-G property include access to the neighboring properties without off-street access, in other words, so that we have a continuous way for people to travel from property to property without going back onto Fairview? Brown: I guess I would hope that we would do that at the conditional use time and not at the annexation. That would be my hope. Zaremba: That may be the more appropriate place to put it, as a matter of fact. Brown: We'd know what the site plan is and we will be working with the neighbor at that point. To me, that's a more appropriate time. Borup: And I hope that they'd understand that that's what we would expect, you know, at that time. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 80 of 83 Zaremba: I saw a nod. I think staff may be agreeing with the way you put it. Brown: Okay. Zaremba: As opposed to the way I put it. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I recommend addressing the access issue at the conditional use stage. If there was not a conditional use required, we would probably need to address it now, but the fact that a conditional use would be required for any use in the future, that gives us the opportunity to address the stubbing of access to other properties at that time. We can also deal with the idea of -- if the lot line adjustment for some reason is not allowed and we end up needing to plat this property, which may not be necessary, we can -- we just checked and there is no frontage requirement for I-L, so we could create this as an I-L -- the lower portion as an I-L lot with a cross-access easement over the front portion, if it comes to that. But I recommend just leaving that out of this motion at this time and we can deal with it at City Council, if necessary. Borup: Assuming that we will get the lot line adjustment approved. Siddoway: Yeah. Because the lot line adjustment is submitted and I did verify that the city engineer has it, but seeing as how this -- the boundary adjustment is between city property and county property, they can't do a lot line adjustment until both properties are in the city, so he's holding it until -- you know, pending the outcome of this application. Borup: Okay. Okay. Does that answer it? Except for the question on the residence and -- sir, you were going to address that? Cortabitarte: Mr. Chairman and Commission Members, my name is Jack Cortabitarte. I live at 3115 Crescent Rim Drive, Boise, Idaho. The residence was owned by my uncle, who passed away three years ago and three years prior to that I took care of him and put him in a nursing home, so the home has, actually, been vacant for six years and our intention is, if we get this zoning that we are asking of C-G, that we will put the property up for sale and when I saw the staff's most recent considerations on the existing residence, to say that it should be abandoned immediately, it is now. But we have a problem and why I'm asking and requesting your consideration to remove that contingency that it be abandoned. It recently was burglarized, vandalized, and I'm working with the Ada County sheriff's department on the property. We are doing two things as a family. We are improving the landscaping around the property, so it doesn't appear to be abandoned and vacant, which it currently does. And, second of all, our family would like the option that if the vandalism continues on this property, that we can put a family member or someone in the residence to watch the property until such time the property is sold. And by having this consideration that the property immediately has to be abandoned and the reality that we may not sell this property tomorrow, we are asking for reconsideration of that on the residence. We would be more than willing to have a time zone or if you say until we sell it or until sewer comes, if I understand that Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 81 of 83 correctly, we are open to all of that. Our intent is not to do anything other than have the leeway to put someone in that property if we have to keep it safe. Borup: Questions? Zaremba: Well, yeah, it sounds like you're reasonably comfortable with my off-the-wall suggestion that it be abandoned when the sewer is available and not before. It's not really usable -- even if it's rezoned C-G right now, it's not usable as a C-G until the sewer is there. Cortabitarte: Yes. Zaremba: And I agree with you being able to continue to use it as a residence, but would that timing be acceptable to you, say that when the sewer is there, then, it needs to be abandoned as a residence? Cortabitarte: Yes. Zaremba: At that point it's salable and -- Cortabitarte: Yes. Zaremba: -- developable as a C-G, whether you sell it or develop it yourself, it can really be a C-G as soon as the sewer is available. So, that would be an acceptable -- Cortabitarte: Yes. Zaremba: -- compromise? Cortabitarte: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: I'm surprised you never had someone in it before now. That's a -- Cortabitarte: So are we after what we have -- but it's pretty bad. It's kind of brutal. Tore up a lot of things and -- Borup: Yeah. It makes sense to at least have a little bit of -- Cortabitarte: And it's exposed, you know. It's right on Fairview and very bold and -- so, anyway, any other questions? Thank you. Borup: That answered it, I think, didn't it? Okay. It sounds like your idea would work there. If not, are we ready to move on? Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 82 of 83 Zaremba: Yeah. I just -- Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Yeah. Siddoway: When you're making the motion about abandonment upon sewer coming to the property, we would like to make sure that that is clear; that it doesn't necessarily mean that the structure has to be demolished and that we are just talking about a residential use because the building could be adaptively reused as an office or some other use. Borup: That was my assumption, too. Zaremba: I will phrase it that the residential use of it must be -- Siddoway: Yeah. Zaremba: Okay. That sounds good. And in that case, Mr. Chairman, I move that the Public Hearing on Item 11 be closed. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 11 on our agenda, AZ 03-026, request for annexation and zoning of 5.11 acres from R-T to C-G and I-L zones for Cortabitarte -- I should have practiced that before I got there. I'm sorry if I did it wrong. -- annexation by Jack Cortabitarte, south of East Fairview Avenue and west of North Eagle Road, to include all staff comments of their memo dated for the hearing December 4, 2003, received by the clerk November 25, 2003. With the following change: On page six, under site specific comments, paragraph three, the second bullet, the existing residence may continue as a legal nonconforming use until such time as sanitary sewer service is available to the property and at that time the residential use of the building shall be abandoned or should I say it shall cease. No other changes. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Thank you. Well, we got through Item No. 11. Our agenda had 17. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 83 of 83 Zaremba: Well, we pushed off a couple of the others. Borup: So -- and the Commission did a good job, again, of taking a shortened agenda and expending it out to fill the time. Zaremba: Yeah. And, actually, I would like to add one more issue, if I can. I think we all received a copy of a letter from Carla Eberhart to Planning and Zoning and clerks, thanking us for changing Glacier Springs from R-8 to R-4 and, then, giving a list of names of individuals that she wanted to notified if anything on Glacier Springs or Calderwood Subdivision ever came up. I would like to suggest that there be a response to this letter. We, actually, did not change it from R-8 to R-4, we left it R-8 with a development agreement and it has since passed the City Council in that form. Powell: They changed it to R-4. Zaremba: Oh, did they? Powell: Yeah. Zaremba: Oh. Okay. So, it's thanking us for doing something the City Council did. Powell: Yeah. Zaremba: The minutes they sent us said approved and didn't show the change. Okay. So, then, that really did get changed. But my other question would be whether we want to get into keeping records of individuals that want to be notified on random projects and I still would write them a letter thanking them for their interest and saying we publish it in the paper, we put signage on the property, we notify everybody that lives within 300 feet, beyond that we are not able to notify individuals of -- Borup: I felt exactly the same way. Zaremba: And I guess I would direct staff to compose such a letter and send it. Powell: It sounds like a good one for the clerk's office. Zaremba: Okay. That's fine. Well, it was addressed to the clerk as well, so -- Borup: And especially with larger projects and the size of the signs that are up there, I mean that's a lot of notification. Zaremba: But we should write them a letter thanking them for their interest and explaining that we can't do that, notify individuals on projects. Borup: Individuals beyond the normal notification. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 84 of 83 Zaremba: Beyond the normal notification. Powell: Thank you for raising that. I didn't know that that letter had been written. I'm sure the clerk's office would have addressed it. They are very good about addressing all those things. Zaremba: All right. That being said, I move we adjourn. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second to adjourn. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: We adjourn at 11:48. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:48 P. M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. ) APPROVED ______________________________ _____|_____|_____ KEITH BORUP - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: _____________________________________ WILLIAM G. BERG, JR, CITY CLERK