Loading...
2003 03-06Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting March 6, 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 Jerry Centers, Commissioner David Zaremba, Commissioner Leslie Mathes, and Commissioner Michael Rohm. Others Present: Bruce Freckleton, Steve Siddoway, Jill Holinka, Jessica Johnson, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call ___X___ David Zaremba ___X___ Jerry Centers ___X___ Leslie Mathes ___X___ Michael Rohm ___X___ Chairman Keith Borup Borup: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We'd like to begin our regular scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission. Start with roll call of Commissioners. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda. Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Approve minutes of February 6, 2003, Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting. B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AUP 02-12 Request for an Accessory Use Permit for a Family Day Care for five or fewer children out of home in an R-4 zone for Carrie Herteux by Carrie Herteux – 2948 West Gemstone Drive: Borup: The first item on the agenda is Item No. 3, our Consent Agenda. Any questions or comments on that? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I have some comments on the -- Borup: Item No. B -- or A? Zaremba: A. Minutes of February 6, 2003. On the cover sheet, the second page of the cover sheet, item nine, Public Hearing PP 02-030, request for preliminary plat approval of 125 building lots and we changed that to 13 other lots. It was not 15, it was 13 other lots. That was the measure that we recommended approval on. On page one of the actual minutes, near the bottom, I made a motion, Commissioner Mathes seconded it, Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 2 of 94 and I am here given credit for taking the vote, but you, Mr. Chairman, took the vote. On page three, the very top sentence where I am speaking, I would like to add some punctuation for clarification. I say just: Just for clarification, I'm sorry, Steve, that parcel is not being rezoned. Period. Correct? Question mark. Not corrected, but, the word correct with a question mark and a period after rezoned. Those are my only changes. Borup: Okay. Any other comments? Do we have a motion and -- motion would be on all the items. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we accept the Consent Agenda with the minutes of February 6 as modified. Centers: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 4: Public Hearing: AZ 03-001 Request for annexation and zoning of 10.006 acres from RUT to L-O zones for Central Valley Baptist Church by Central Valley Baptist Church – east of North Ten Mile Road and south of West Pine Avenue: Borup: Item number -- the first Public Hearing is Public Hearing AZ 03-001, a request for annexation and zoning of 10.006 acres from RUT to L-O zones for Central Valley Baptist Church by Central Valley Baptist Church. This is east of North Ten Mile and south of West Pine Avenue. I'd like to open this hearing at this time and start with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The subject property that is proposed for annexation is at the northeast corner of the railroad and North Ten Mile Road. You can see the existing character of the ground in the air photo. A large lot, rural residential, county parcels, and this is the subject property here. They did submit a proposed site plan with the annexation request, so that the Commission and Council could get a feel for their intent in annexing this property. It is for a church campus for Central Valley Baptist Church. You should have a staff report dated February 13th from Sonya and Bruce. It is just over ten acres in size. The requested zone is Limited Office, which a church would be a permitted use in, and there are some notes under G on page three about adequate public services, saying that we find that they may be served adequately by all essentially public services and they will either have to construct a temporary lift station to get sewer service or participate with developers of adjacent lands to get service to their lots, but that it can work under one of those scenarios. I believe that's all I need to go over right now. Staff does recommend approval of the annexation and zoning request. The recommendation at the end incorrectly states an R-8 zone. It is L-O that they are requesting. And with that correction I will stand for any questions. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 3 of 94 Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Zaremba: I have one. My reading the list of surrounding properties, they are all Ada County. Do we have any contiguousness with Meridian city limits anyplace? The southeast parcel? Siddoway: The southeast parcel and the railroad tracks up to this point are annexed, so though it's surrounded, really, on three sides -- well, on four sides, all the way around by county land, it's point of contiguity is along the railroad tracks at the property's southeast corner. Zaremba: We have accepted smaller corners than that before. That's my only question. Borup: Any other Commissioners? Does the applicant have a presentation they'd like to make? Houst: I'm Doug Houst with Olson and Associates Architects. We have Pastor Clint Henry in the audience and we also have the chair of the building committee Tommy Moser in the audience. We would be happy to answer any questions that you have. Borup: Apparently, you have no -- Houst: We have no -- Borup: But no questions on any of the staff comments and you're in agreement with everything? Houst: We are in agreement. Borup: Okay. Any questions from any Commissioners? Centers: Mr. Chairman. Just one. You have read page five and the requirements -- the site-specific requirements of the staff comments? Houst: I'm sure I have. I would like to get to that page. Borup: Commissioner Centers, are you referring to the sewer service? Centers: Well, all the conditions required by the staff. I just wanted to make sure the applicant agrees. Houst: Yes. Centers: You're in agreement with everything? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 4 of 94 Houst: We are. Centers: Very good. Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? Seeing none, Commissioners? Centers: I would move we close the Public Hearing, Mr. Chairman. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Centers: I don't find much need for discussion. I think it's very -- is everyone agreeable? All right. Mr. Chairman, I would recommend approval on Item 4, AZ 03- 001, request for annexation and zoning of 10.006 acres from RUT to L-O zone for Central Valley Baptist Church by Central Valley Baptist Church, east of North Ten Mile Road and south of West Pine Avenue, including all staff comments from memo dated February 13th . And, as stated, it's L-O zone. Rohm: I will second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 5: Public Hearing: RZ 03-001 Request for a Rezone of 6.95 acres from L- O to L-O and C-G Zones for Mallane Commercial Complex by The Land Group, Inc. – north of East Fairview Avenue and west of North Eagle Road: Borup: The next item is Public Hearing RZ 03-001, request for a rezone of 6.95 acres from L-O to L-O and C-G zones for Mallane Commercial Complex by the Land Group. This is north of Fairview, west of Eagle Road. I'd like to open this Public Hearing and start with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I spoke with Russ Hepworth, the applicant's representative today, and he said that he had submitted to the clerk's office a request to be continued tonight, because the property was not posted on the correct date. I also found one other minor issue, which they can get resolved and a new legal description to us by Monday, and that is that the description submitted states that the property to be rezoned does not include the lot that is adjacent to the existing homes and that the lot would remain limited office, so that the uses would stay less Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 5 of 94 intense and be better neighbors there. In spite of that description in the narrative, the legal description submitted was for the entire parcel. So they are going to amend that. There may be people here to testify on it, so we may still need to take testimony, if no one can come to the meeting at which it will be continued to, but I would recommend that it simply be continued to the March 20th meeting two weeks from tonight and we should be able to have the correct legal description approved and the posting taken care of at that time. With that I will stand for any questions. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Zaremba: I do have one. On the staff comments, page two, item D, delta, there is a sentence in the middle. It says the city has recently completed construction of a new police station within this subdivision. Is that true? Siddoway: No, it's not. Zaremba: I didn't think that was where it was. Siddoway: Yeah. Zaremba: So we can delete that sentence? Borup: Delete that sentence. Yes, sir. Zaremba: Okay. And the first sentence is still valid. Siddoway: Yeah. It is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan does show this parcel as commercial and so the rezone would be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan under the new comp plan future land use map. Centers: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: If I recall, March 20th is -- my little box at home is full. Borup: It's full. I mean it's -- well, we have a couple of large projects. Centers: Right. Borup: It depends on how they do. Centers: I guess, you know, if the applicant is desirous to continue it, it should be at a meeting in which we can handle it. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 6 of 94 Borup: Shall we go ahead and see how -- what public testimony there may be first and, then, decide? Centers: Yeah. Borup: But, yeah, I agree, I don't know that we -- do we have anyone here that would like to testify? Please come forward. Knighton: Cheryl Knighton, 2580 East Clarene Court, the second cul-de-sac up on the purple. This was not very well publicized, as Steve has pointed out. No one was notified and all there was, was a little 11-by-17 notice that the hearing was tonight. But I have talked to some of the neighbors and we do object to this being changed to commercial and, especially, in light of the fact that we still do not have a light at Hickory and Fairview. With the added traffic from the car wash, from Louie's, the church will be -- Capital Christian Center has proposed to put a school in their facility and we just feel that at this time changing that to commercial from light office will impact the traffic even greater than it already has been impacted. We are the exit for three subdivisions, Dove Meadows, Packard Estates, and Chateau Meadows, and this would just cause even more traffic concerns for that area and if there is a school being proposed at the church, I feel that's a safety issue for them. Thank you. Centers: Ma'am? Knighton: Yes. Centers: One question, please. Would you say that you live within 300 feet of the project? Knighton: No, I don't. I'm on the second cul-de-sac. Centers: Okay. That's the code, that we have to notify homeowners -- or property owners within 300 feet. Knighton: Okay. Those two little purple lots on the first street going to the left -- Centers: Yes. Okay. Knighton: -- I talked to the lady that lives in the second house over and she was not notified and I realize now that after the comment's made that they will put a buffer there between the back of that house and the lot, but she was not notified. Centers: What's her name? Knighton: I don't know. Centers: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 7 of 94 Borup: One of those that testified previously. Yeah. That zoning was not going to change on that lot, for those -- for those. That was staying as it is. Knighton: But the other -- the rest of it towards Fairview will change; right? Borup: That's what they are proposing. Knighton: Okay. Well, we still feel that that's a negative impact on the neighborhood, both for safety and additional traffic. Borup: I might just mention 33 notices were sent out. Knighton: Okay. Well, she did not receive one. Borup: What's her name? Knighton: I don't know. I'm sorry. Borup: Well, then, we can't verify that without her name. We have got names of 33 individuals that it was sent to. Knighton: Okay. And this will be continued when? Centers: We don't know yet. Zaremba: We haven't decided yet, but we will. Knighton: Okay. Zaremba: You might be interested to note that whoever develops this and however they develop it, there are separate hearings at ACHD and one of the subjects was the signal that you asked about. Whoever develops this will be required to give a 3,200 deposit -- 3,200 dollar deposit into a trust fund for putting a signal there. So they intend to have this happen and this developer will pay a portion of it, whatever they develop. Borup: Anyone else like to come forward? Zaremba: I take it the applicant is not here. Borup: Is that correct? The applicant -- oh, I'm sorry. Would you still like to make a presentation, even though you have asked to be continued? Hepworth: I don't care to make a presentation. I think staff has covered it as well as can be. But I just wanted to state that the reason that we did request a continuance, because we were negligent in posting that property the seven days prior to this council Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 8 of 94 meeting and so we felt to be fair to the surrounding owners, or whoever wanted to be here, that we should continue it. As far as comments for the stop light, this developer has met with ACHD and tried several times to expedite that stop light, that he is more than willing to contribute to the installation of that and has tried to push that. However, ACHD has commented that it's not on their five-year plan, so, basically, there is nothing that they could do. I mean he's more than willing to work with the surrounding neighbors to do whatever that needs to be taken care of to that intersection to provide that -- a safe place. He realizes that it is a dangerous intersection and he is willing to do what it takes to make it a safe location. Borup: And what do you mean by willing to do what it takes? Hepworth: Well, he's willing to -- Borup: Short of installing it himself? Hepworth: Yeah. Short of installing it himself. He's gone to two or three Ada County Highway District meetings, has met with them numerous times trying to see what he can do to get this stop light installed, and he's always ended up with a block there, that it's not on our plan as of yet, in the five year plan, and so he's paid into this fund once, I believe. With new conditions on the property he's probably going to have to contribute again and I think he's done his fair share to try to get that light installed. He realizes that it needs to be there. Borup: Okay. The parcel is retaining the platted lots as they now are; is that correct? Hepworth: Correct. As approved on February 4th . The final plat was approved by City Council. Borup: Okay. And, then, you will have a new legal description next time? Hepworth: I can have a legal description by tomorrow, but -- and I have my surveyor preparing that now. Borup: Okay. Would that also -- would that also include a plat showing which lots were staying as presently zoned and which ones were -- Hepworth: Oh, it certainly could. Yeah. I could -- Borup: I would like that. I don't think our packets have that now. Hepworth: Yeah. I could provide a copy of the final plat with that. Borup: Okay. Questions from any of the other Commissioners? All right. Zaremba: I do have one. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 9 of 94 Hepworth: Okay. Zaremba: In ACHD's comments on their page four, item H, they ask you to provide a recorded cross-access agreement, so that surrounding properties can use your driveway to access Fairview. Are you agreeable with that or in the process of making that happen? Hepworth: Yes. That will be a condition, I believe, attached in the CC&R's, with the final plat application. There are cross-access agreements between those two lots and through the subdivision and also it will be required as part the final plat that we have a cross-parking within the development also. So we are completely in agreement with that. Zaremba: No problem with that? Hepworth: No. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Hepworth: Thank you. Borup: Was there anyone else that would like that come forward? Okay. Commissioners, for your information, on the 20th we have two subdivisions. One about 40 acres and the other one a fairly large multi-use subdivision. Besides those two, just a couple of small items and both of them in Old Town. A child care and a rezone. So mainly it's the two subdivisions. Zaremba: I will abstain from expressing an opinion, because I will be absent that date. Centers: Well, I guess I don't have a problem if you don't, Mr. Chairman, continuing it to the 20th. Borup: I think we have a full agenda. Don't know that it's going to take a lot of time, though, on this item. Centers: So, what are you saying, do you -- Borup: No. I think that would probably be -- Centers: Well, I would so move that we continue item five on our agenda to our hearing on March 20th. Mathes: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 10 of 94 Zaremba: Before we vote, I thought of a question I would ask the developer, if I may. Would you be amenable to having a small neighborhood meeting? It sounds like there may be some objections in the neighborhood that you could workout before you come back for the Public Hearing. Hepworth: Yeah. I'm certain that the owner of parcel would have no objection to that. Zaremba: And get this lady's name and number. Hepworth: Okay. Yeah. He's -- he's more than willing to try to workout any complaints or disagreements with the neighbors, hence, his leaving that lot that's buffering or next to the homeowners as L-O. He does -- you know, he feels that's right -- Borup: Well -- but I believe that was one of our requirements last year. Hepworth: Not to leave that lot L-O. Borup: It was discussed. Hepworth: It was -- we were just denied the whole rezone to a commercial site and, then, we -- after talking with staff, they recommended, you know, perhaps leaving this one lot to L-O as a buffer to that, you know, and he has no problems with that and I think he would be willing to work with any neighbors. Zaremba: I just wanted to suggest that before we move on to the next item. Hepworth: Okay. Zaremba: I call the question. Borup: All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 6: Public Hearing: AZ 02-034 Request for annexation and zoning of 5.0 Acres from RUT to R-3 zones fro proposed Bleak Subdivision by Kent And Nancy Bleak – 4920 West Cherry Lane: Item 7: Public Hearing: PFP 02-005 Request for Preliminary/Final Plat Approval of 1 building lot and 1 other lot on 5 acres in a proposed R-3 Zone for proposed Bleak Subdivision by Kent and Nancy Blaek – 4920 West Cherry Lane: Borup: The next project, Items 6 and 7, Public Hearing AZ 02-034, request for annexation and zoning of five acres from RUT to R-3 zones for the propose Bleak Subdivision by Ken and Nancy Bleak. Is that -- that's not the address, is it? 4920 West Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 11 of 94 Cherry Lane? And Public Hearing PFP 02-005, request for preliminary/final plat approval of one building lot and one other lot on five acres in a proposed R-3 zone. Same applicant. Open both these public hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Mr. Bleak is proposing annexing the current two parcels that he owns into the city and creating a two-lot subdivision. The location is at the intersection of Cherry Lane and Black Cat in the configuration you see outlined. If you look at the aerial photo, you can see that the existing house takes access off of Cherry Lane, thus, the address 4920 West Cherry Lane. The proposed preliminary plat would create two lots in a new configuration, one running from Cherry Lane back to the north and the remainder of the parcel being 1.2 acres going out to Black Cat. A very simple plat, thus, the ability to be submitted as a preliminary/final plat combination. This is the final plat. And you should have a staff report, dated March 6th -- March 6th . No. Received March 4th . I think it was just printed out late. But from Wendy Kirkpatrick and Bruce Freckleton. It is two building lots on 4.8 acres. The requested zone is R-3. This is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, which designates the land as low density residential or less than three dwelling units per acre, so it matches that. The parcel is currently unsewerable and would require a septic system. Just so you know that this arrangement is acceptable at Public Works. However, when the sanitary sewer service becomes available, the owners of each lot will be required to abandon those septic systems and connect to Meridian sewer system. On page six there is one additional consideration, that is, that the plat has a note restricting the minimum house size to 2,600 square feet. It's recommend that the note be deleted or modified to the R-3 zone per code. It already has a minimum house size of 1,500 square feet. That is reflected already in site specific comment number four as revised plat notes and, then, the first change mentioned that, so that's already covered in the site-specific comments. The only other one that I'd like to point out is number seven on page seven, which says to revise the plat map to reflect the existing right of way, I believe what's shown on the plat is 43 feet of existing right of way -- or a future right of way. Excuse me. Let me back up. Part of number seven says you need to show a portion of the transportation corridor, additional right of way that will be -- to be dedicated with the plat in the future. ACHD is not purchasing the right of way today. We would like to have it preserved. It's a minor tweak that needs to be made. It's actually 48 feet from the center line that needs to be shown, instead of the 43. That will just have the effect of shifting the 25-foot landscape buffer in slightly on both Black Cat and Cherry Lane. So we would just like to have that modification made, but with that one tweak it's in compliance and we would recommend approval with the conditions noted in the staff report. Borup: Okay. Questions? Centers: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Centers. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 12 of 94 Centers: Yeah. Mr. Siddoway, why -- if he wants to leave it at 2,600 feet minimum, do we care? I think I know why he wants to do it. When he sells off the other lot he doesn't want a small house in there. That's my opinion. Siddoway: He still can with his CC&R's, but I think if the city -- we should have the plat state the ordinance minimum house size. If he wants to go beyond that with the CC&R's, he may. Centers: Okay. Borup: And I had the same question. So you're saying you just want the plat notes to -- Siddoway: Reflect ordinance. Borup: Yeah. Siddoway: Yeah. Borup: Any other questions, Commissioners? Does the applicant have anything? If you'd like to come forward, sir? Bleak: My name is Kent Bleak and I'm the owner of the proposed subdivision. I have just a couple of comments. We would have no problem with the 1,500 square feet designation. That's fine with us. Borup: Are you planning to have covenants? Bleak: There would be some covenants, but -- Borup: Okay. Bleak: -- really limiting that. That was a number that we just thought was a good number and it wasn't anything that was cut and fast and a hard rule. Borup: Okay. Well, your covenants can state any size you want, so -- Bleak: Okay. Borup: -- you would have control over that. Bleak: Very good. And, then, the other comment I wanted to make is that we have in the past had some domestic animals on the property and we'd like to continue to do so in the future. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 13 of 94 Zaremba: Is that permissible in an R-3? Borup: Comment on that? Siddoway: Yeah. The code addresses that and I asked Mr. Bleak to go on the record tonight with the fact that he has existing horses. Livestock is technically prohibited in the residential zones within the city, unless they are there at the time that it's annexed, in which case they can be continued, but if the use is abandoned for a year or more, then, the right to have animals on the property goes away. And you cannot increase the number of animals from what's there. Zaremba: Would you tell us, sir, what animals you do have? Bleak: Horses. Well, there are no horses on it currently, but as of November we have had some on there. They are off the land right now, but there would be -- we have had as many as five horses on the property. Usually, it would probably be more like four. Borup: So that would be your intention, to keep horses on the property? Bleak: Right. Zaremba: Limited to five horses? Mathes: Is that on both pieces of property or just the one he's going to be on? Zaremba: Between the two. Bleak: One thing we had considered is either selling that one -- the little L -- top of the L shape off, or also keeping it ourselves and if we can't -- or well, if we wanted to, you know, be able to preserve that ability to have animals on that as well, and build a house on that, instead of -- not have any other house. Zaremba: Would we, then, want to say a maximum of five horses in the subdivision? Siddoway: I think that would be fine. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Mr. Bleak, anything else you would like to add? Bleak: No. That's all I have. Borup: Thank you. Same as anything else. The same as anybody else with horses. Zaremba: We now have a compliance officer. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 14 of 94 Borup: And, you know, a lot of them are enforced by complaints from neighbors, if it's a nuisance type thing or if it's real blatant, then, I guess the city would be -- Rhom: I'm curious about one thing. If you limited it to five horses and, then, there are no horses placed on the property for over a year, does that, then, preclude their right to bring them in at a later date? Borup: That's the way it's written now. Rohm: Okay. I just wanted that to be so stated, so in case they don't have any horses, then, at some point in time that right would be relinquished. Borup: So he better get horses there for at least one day a year. Rohm: Bingo. Centers: Well -- and what if he wants a couple steers? You know, a cow? Zaremba: We are going to specify horses. Centers: Which he's probably had in the past, maybe before him. I don't know. Borup: He said before him there were cows on the property was the applicant's statement. So it sounds like he's okay with the horse. Anything else, Commissioners? Did I ask -- was there any additional testimony? I'm sorry. Come forward, sir. Law: My name is Brent Law. I own the piece of property that basically the little L is going right around. That's 4888 West Cherry Lane. My concern with what's going on here is -- I understand where the home is going would not be affecting my property as far as my animals. Right now the home is not lived in. There was a fire in it approximately a year ago. It's being -- it's almost to the point where it's being finished. Our intentions will be to move back out there, which would be probably in the next -- we are hoping two, three months, but -- Zaremba: You're talking about your own home? Law: Yes. Borup: Your own home had the fire? Law: Yes. Uh-huh. The home there at 4888. We will be having -- I do have horses. I own them. I will be moving them back out there. The renters that were in there had horses. I don't know if it specifies, the code, as far as we are talking animals, do these animals have to be owned or is it okay to use the property, let somebody else basically lease or even just use the property as far as the animal situation being on the property? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 15 of 94 Borup: You're talking about on his property, not on yours? Law: Right. Uh-huh. Borup: Maybe we can get some clarification. My understanding is just animals period. Doesn't matter who owns them. Is that correct? That was the way I interpreted that. Zaremba: I think we have been through this before and boarding animals is acceptable, as long as it doesn't go over five. However, if this lapses at anytime, then, the only thing he can have is family pets. Law: Okay. The other -- you know, the other thing I'm concerned with -- I'm kind of -- my property is kind of getting boxed in here. At this point my intentions are not to be annexed, my intentions not to be developing or anything of that nature at this point, but, who knows, everything changes. In a matter of six, eight months it could be a whole different situation out there. But my concern is right now, currently, the services are not available, so as far as developing, I -- my personal opinion, I feel like maybe we are a little too early in getting the jump on this. At first my concern was safety. Of course, when I saw the zoning and the ability of going three homes per acre, if that acre of property -- or basically acre and a half behind me, if that sells, if it goes -- if they put three homes in there -- Borup: They can't right now, because it's one lot. Law: Right. But I mean in the future if it does get -- Borup: Well, they'd have to come back and have another Public Hearing and be replatted and resubdivided and a new subdivision created. Law: Okay. Well, the concern right now, the home just to the north of even his -- of Kent's property, they currently have horses there also, so it's still kind of a -- you know, there is still some of us out there that enjoy pets and animals and, I don't know, it really shouldn't be a safety issue, but the real concern I have is the services aren't available yet. Borup: Water is available. Sewer is not. Law: All services aren't available yet. The idea of covenants -- and I don't know -- I don't get into trying to develop property or anything like that, but my concern is on -- if we start putting covenants on that property, how is that going to affect my property? Is it going to be anything that in time could run over into mine? Borup: No. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 16 of 94 Law: Okay. Well, that kind of pretty much answers mine. Are there any intentions -- are there plans at all as far as development out that way as far as the city is concerned? Borup: The city doesn't do any developing. Law: It's just pretty much whoever comes in and asks for whatever -- Borup: Yeah. That's all done by private individuals, so -- Law: Then, it's up to them to get you to -- or try to convince you to approve it? Borup: Right. Zaremba: Well, the Comprehensive Plan does give guidance as to what is approvable in an area, so there are some -- there are decisions that have been made about what the city would like see happen there. The city doesn't take an active part in making anything happen. Law: Okay. Borup: Other than sewer lines, but mostly it's after the fact. Law: Okay. That pretty much answers -- I was -- Borup: Do you understand that they are, essentially, just splitting off that one parcel, which would allow one home to be built if they so choose? Law: Right. Borup: One additional. Law: The situation is where the home is -- that property used to be all owned by one property owner. Currently, if I had the records -- and I don't, because this home was built probably 50 years ago, where my home is, the actual septic system for my home does go across into that other piece of property. Borup: The property to the north? Law: No. To the -- Borup: West? Law: Yeah. Right there. That's where my septic system goes. Centers: Currently? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 17 of 94 Law: Uh-huh. As best I can tell. I have -- in fact, there is an irrigation ditch runs down there now. My septic pipe -- and we have found it in that ditch, in the irrigation ditch. It's gotten dug deep enough to where my pipe is actually exposed a little bit and Kent is currently filling that back in and putting pipe in there and everything to make it a lot nicer, but the concern is -- and, honestly, I don't know exactly where that septic goes. Centers: Excuse me. This annexation and a plat of two lots do not affect that situation. You have that situation whether we act tonight or not. Law: Well -- Centers: But the property line is still right there. Law: Right. But -- Centers: And if your septic system -- it has nothing to do with that. Law: But if it's approved and they go in and start digging another septic hole or when they come in to put in the water or the sewer line -- Centers: The city is not going to -- they will have to comply with Central District Health regarding the septic tank, but not the City of Meridian. Borup: They can do that with or without this annexation. Law: I'm saying this wrong. It's not my septic. That's actually the drain field. Centers: I figured that's what you meant. That's going to be there whether we act tonight or not. You have that situation to resolve with your neighbor. Law: Okay. Centers: And whether we act tonight or not, you have the property line there and if you're encroaching on neighbor with your drain field, that's something you have to work out. Borup: If there is a new home built, it would be on this parcel up here to the north. Law: Well, I thought the home was being built on the other piece -- Borup: No. Law: -- over towards Cherry Lane. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 18 of 94 Borup: No. Not the way it's platted now. This whole parcel here is staying one lot and, then, this -- and, then, this is the other lot right here. So all he's doing is -- Law: I misunderstood. Borup: Right there. See, he's just splitting off this lot right here from his property. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, the red lines that were shown on the previous map were the existing property lines as they exist today. Borup: Oh. Freckleton: Mr. Bleak's property is two separate parcels. Borup: Oh, it's two parcels now. Well, he's not doing much more than a lot line adjustment. Centers: Exactly. Freckleton: Essentially. Borup: Other than it's a replat, but -- he has two parcels now, he's still keeping two parcels, it's just this one got bigger and that one got smaller. Law: Okay. Maybe I mis -- I thought the building was actually going on over towards the Cherry Lane side. Borup: No. No. That's staying the existing house that's there now. Law: Okay. Borup: And at this point he stated he doesn't know if he will sell it or use it as pasture, but he has the option. Law: Right. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, if I could just maybe address the drain field issue just a little bit. Borup: Please. Freckleton: Do you currently have an easement on your neighbor's property for your drain field? Law: I couldn't tell you. Honestly, I don't know. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 19 of 94 Freckleton: Your concern that you have regarding that thing getting dug up in the future, it might be a good idea to look into getting one, if you don't have one. That would protect you for that future situation. Law: Okay. Okay. Thank you. Borup: Did that clarify -- Law: Yeah. I was under the impression the home was being built in the other area. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Law: Okay. Zaremba: Question for staff, I guess, and maybe the applicant. The property to the north and I think maybe to the west does have animals on it. The property across Black Cat is often farmed. Would it be appropriate to add a Right To Farm Act note on the plat? Siddoway: It's already -- it is note number two on the plat already. Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else to testify on this? Centers: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for staff. Where is the city right now? Right here? Siddoway: Everything with a color on it is city. Centers: Okay. Borup: So this would be the contiguous area there. Centers: Thank you. Borup: Okay. We have no more testimony, Commissioners. Centers: I would move we close the Public Hearing. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 20 of 94 Zaremba: Well, the applicant has agreed that the plat can state the ordinance house size. I think the only note we need to add is the five horses. Borup: And maybe the highway right of way. Zaremba: Is that already in the notes? Siddoway: That's already in there. Maybe just to reiterate for the applicant, we would like to receive a revised plat that incorporates those ten days before the Council hearing, but I think that's -- that's already in there as well. Zaremba: The applicant understood that. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 6 on our agenda, AZ 02-034, request for annexation and zoning of 5.0 acres from RUT to R-3 zones for proposed Bleak Subdivision by Kent and Nancy Bleak, 4920 West Cherry Lane, to include all staff comments, and would it be on the zoning on the plat that we have the note about the horses? Zoning, probably. Siddoway: Probably zoning. I would do it here. Zaremba: Along with a note that -- in line with other provisions of the ordinance, if he continuously keeps animals, he may have up to five horses. That's the motion. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 7 on our agenda, PFP 02-005, request for preliminary/final plat approval of one building lot and one other lot on five acres in a proposed R-3 zone for proposed Bleak Subdivision by Kent and Nancy Bleak, 4920 West Cherry, to include all staff comments. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 8: Public Hearing: PP 03-001 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 15 Building lots, 1 existing house lot, and 2 other lots on 9.996 acres in an Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 21 of 94 R-4 zone for Setter Cove Subdivision MKH Development, Inc. – east of North Locust Grove Road and north of East Ustick Road: Borup: Next item is Public Hearing PP 03-001, request for preliminary plat approval of 15 building lots and one existing house lot and two other lots on approximately 10 acres in an R-4 zone for Setter Cove Subdivision by MKH Development. This is east of Locust Grove and north of Ustick Road. I'd like to open this Public Hearing and start with the staff report at this time. Siddoway. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The proposed Setter Cove Subdivision was earlier at one point known as Yukon Subdivision, Hollister property. It is just on the southeast corner of the Charter High School site that's currently got the Charter High School along Locust Grove and recently approved an elementary school up in the northeast corner of the property. It's also surrounded on the south by Summerfield Subdivision and the proposed Parkstone Subdivision, which was before the Commission last month, is on this subdivision's east boundary. You can see the existing Charter High School in the aerial photo, as well as the existing house that exists out there on the property. The proposed plat is for a larger lot subdivision. Not quite as large as the one we just considered, but, still, they are in the neighborhood of a half-acre, plus or minus. They do have 15 single family building lots, one larger lot for the existing home, and two lots for landscape buffers along the public road that's being constructed as part of the Education Campus Subdivision. You should have a staff report from David McKinnon and Bruce Freckleton. I have just a couple things to point out. One, on page two, conforms with the Comprehensive Plan, note that is in compliance. I would just like to note on the record that, technically, the Comprehensive Plan is -- shows this as medium density. This is low density. However, there is the provision on the map that says that the density is allowed to go up a step or down a step without a Comp Plan change. So, that is how it is able to go in at a lower density than what the actual Comp Plan land use map shows. I think the major issue to be discussed tonight is the additional consideration at the bottom of that page regarding the pedestrian pathway. The staff report recommends adding in a pedestrian pathway between Lots 4 and 5 to line up with the pedestrian pathway connection that was required by this Commission of the Parkstone Subdivision. That would need to be -- to be added. I know that the applicant does not wish to do so and will probably bring that up tonight. The only other ones that I need to bring up -- item two on page three, there is a discrepancy in the stated acreage. The application states 9.996 acres. The preliminary plat states 10.384 acres. We'd like to resolve that discrepancy tonight. Item number seven. We do require that a variance request be submitted for the block length. There is an incomplete sentence at the end of that statement, which I'd probably just strike. I'm not sure where he was going with that. There are really no places for this to connect, but still a variance will be required for the block length issue. And, then, the last one would be item 12, where we ask the applicant to explain the purpose of the existing irrigation and access easements that are shown on the subdivision's south and west boundaries. It's not clear if these easements are encroachable and may have to be excluded from the lots and put into a common lot if they are not encroachable. And I believe the applicant's been aware of that and he came prepared tonight to address Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 22 of 94 that. Upon resolution of those issues, we would recommend approval with the conditions in the staff report and I will stand for any questions. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Mathes: Yeah. I have question. Part of the property goes that way. What are they doing with that? Siddoway: There has actually been a land swap. My understanding -- and the applicant may be better to address this than me, but my understanding is the long sliver that went out to Locust Grove has been given to the school district in exchange for some land at the north side of this boundary, which you can see -- that boundary, I believe, is right here and, then, the landscape lot that goes off at an angle is additional land that was swapped to them from the school district. The configuration still shows like this in the assessor's data base that we use, which is why it's still showing up like that, but we will have the applicant address the lot and the land swap there. Centers: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Siddoway, you last spoke about the irrigation and access easement, et cetera, and, then, the Settler's Irrigation District mentions item four, development must supply irrigation access to all lots within Setter Cove and you might want to be thinking about it, should that be a note on the plat itself for future buyers? Which I found a little interesting with -- I guess every irrigation district is different. Siddoway: We will read through that and let's come back to that after we hear about the easements from the applicant. Centers: Yeah. Right. Borup: Okay. Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Tealey: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Pat Tealey. My office address is 2501 Bogus Basin Road in Boise, Idaho. I'll take the -- try to take the points of discussion in order. If you can go back to the original, Steve? Go back to the original layout. That was the layout that was 9.96 acres and because the applicant is pretty sharp, we ended up with 10.2 acres in the land swap, so we got a little more land than what we gave away, basically. And that land is, in fact, along the north edge of the subdivision in those landscape lots adjacent to the road that's being built as part of Education Campus and that's where our access will be taken. The applicant has made arrangements for a pressurized irrigation system. Previously, we had a well and an easement down in the southeast corner of the subdivision. It's sort of hard to see on that map. Down in the southwest -- right there. And we have -- in conjunction with the school district, we have moved that well up to -- right next to the access road in that common area and that's where we will pressurize the irrigation system from, so that we don't have to have the access down in the east line of the subdivision. That was a trade-off there. I'll come back to the micropath, because that's probably where most of the discussion is. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 23 of 94 Zaremba: Let me clarify that, if I may. I'm sorry to interrupt you. But you're saying that what is -- what is shown as an easement along here can actually be abandoned, it doesn't make any difference if that's within people's lots and fenced across it and -- Tealey: No. That's an easement for Summerfield Subdivision. That's where they get some of their irrigation. That won't be abandoned and it's piped right now. It's not an exclusive easement, so we can encroach upon it. But the owner just gave them the use of -- of that easement to transport their water. Actually, the developer of Summerfield Subdivision wasn't able to get access for pressurized irrigation originally and the owner MKH Development gave them that easement to get -- transport his irrigation water. So it is encroachable. It's not an exclusive easement. And as stated before, I guess to clarify, the well, again, that was down at the southeast corner of the subdivision, has been moved up to the northeast corner of the subdivision and it will be shared with the school district. Centers: Settler's will be maintaining your pressurized irrigation? Tealey: That's correct. Centers: Okay. So they will need access to every lot? Tealey: Yes. Centers: Okay. Tealey: Where ever their -- for maintenance of the line, if they are broke or whatever. And, basically, go in an easement at the back of the lots. The real point in question is the micropath. We don't see any benefit to our subdivision for that micropath. We have got lots that range in size from 16,700 to 30,000 square feet, but with the lot on the -- on the existing home being 73,000 square feet. We feel that the open area on these lots, after the house is built, is enough for these people and if they do want to get to a park in Parkstone, which I understand -- I don't have a plat that's dimensioned, all I have got is the traffic study that we got from the staff. The one public lot is close to a quarter mile away. The benefit to Parkstone isn't there. If they were to come through -- between our two lots and walk up the street to get to the campus school and the open area that will be there for the school, it isn't any longer or shorter than walking up their own road and going down the sidewalks that are provided along the roads. Does that make sense? Borup: Yeah. That -- that does. I think that was -- that comment was made last month. The reasoning for that from the staff was it would be of benefit to this subdivision to allow them access -- Tealey: The developer and owner of the subdivision do not see it as a benefit and he's willing to market his lots without that, quote, unquote, amenity. That benefit is solely for Parkstone, the way I see it. And, again, the walking length is no different whether you Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 24 of 94 go through this micropath -- which would, then, force people along a sideline of a house and it's just not desirable. The other point is that -- I don't know if staff's got it or not, but I don't think the alignment with the lot lines in Parkstone is going to line up with our lots in Setter Cove Subdivision, which would force us to change lot sizes and lot dimensions -- I don't know if you have got that or not, Bruce. Borup: I was wondering the same thing. Tealey: And looking -- I got the testimony from the application for Parkstone and it appears that there was some discussion on it by McKinnon and Borup and, basically, they said, you know, we don't care, you know, it was not important to them to get it and I think some of the same points were brought up at that time by the Commissioners of why we don't want this subdivision and I think what they are doing was -- it doesn't bother us, let's not make this a point of discussion, let's get our subdivision approved. You know, it may not have been a sticking point, but I can see that as a -- as a concession they would make, because, again, we don't even know if the lot lines line up and we really don't want to change the lot lines that we have on this subdivision. Centers: How about if they did line up? Tealey: We still don't want it. Centers: You know they are going to have a six-acre neighborhood park there. Tealey: Yes. Over in the Campus. That's correct. Centers: No. No. Tealey: Over in Parkstone. Centers: In Parkstone. Tealey: Yes. We just don't feel -- and from a marketing concept -- and the owner of MKH Development is here and maybe if he wants to throw in a few words, but we don't see that as a benefit to us. These 17 -- basically 17,000 to half-acre lots and the mix with Parkstone is -- what are those, Bruce? Eight thousand? Siddoway: Yeah. There is a mix of lot sizes. About 8,000 square feet, probably, average. Borup: At the north end. Tealey: Yeah. So, you know, even if they did line up we wouldn't be agreeable to a path. So, I guess that's the point of discussion. And if we do have the discussion and decide that a micropath isn't needed on number eight, third bullet there, as a requirement for the plat, note for fencing of the micropath, so we'd like -- if you decide to Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 25 of 94 grant our request that, that also be deleted for the staff recommendations. If there are any questions I would be glad to answer them. Zaremba: I think a question for staff while you're still here on the subject of the micropath. The thought was -- this is an extremely long block length. Is a micropath usable as a fire access, to give a second access to this property? Siddoway: Well, they can be. They have had requirements placed on them in other subdivisions to be constructed such that they will support a fire truck and et cetera, et cetera. I don't think that that condition was put on the -- on the Parkstone side of this pathway, though. Tealey: That would also require a minimum of 20 feet for that micropath for that access. Siddoway: Yes. Tealey: And in all truth -- and we had discussions with staff. This discussion of a block length is just a little hard to understand. We did apply for the variance. We don't understand it. Basically -- Zaremba: You are applying for the variance in the block length? Tealey: Yes. Yes. Because our application wouldn't go forward without it. What happens when you measure the block length with a subdivision that doesn't have an outlet, you measure the total frontage of all the lots. Zaremba: The whole exterior square. Tealey: Right. And it just doesn't make sense. I mean those -- from cul-de-sac to street is about 750 feet. So I think using the block length as a requirement for the micropath just doesn't really make the sense that you might think it does on paper. Borup: And I have the same problem with the block length. There are only 16 lots here. Even though you measure around the perimeter it is over a thousand feet, but those are really short streets. Anything else, Mr. Tealey? Tealey: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else that would like to testify on this? Come forward, sir. Epps: Commissioners, my name is J. R. Epps, I'm an adjacent landowner just south of Block 6 on the plat here. What I'm looking for -- maybe staff can help me -- is clarification on the overhead power lines. The map I have shows them to be going along the south boundary of that and I don't know if that's correct or not. Borup: You mean you think there are going to be new power lines put in? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 26 of 94 Epps: Yeah. I was just going off the map I had that shows the legend and the -- Borup: Sir, we need to get any testimony on the -- you want to repeat that for us? Epps: Basically, the overhead -- from what you said, the overhead power line is going to the well on the northwest side -- or southeast side. So it would not affect that Summerfield Subdivision. Given that, I bought my property looking out over that field, hope that Mr. Hollister wouldn't develop as quickly as he did, but what -- with what they are proposing, two things. With the discussion tonight, I agree with the developer that the micropath wouldn't be an added benefit as far as I'm concerned, living right behind them. And the second thing is I -- from what they are proposing, I think it's a good thing for me as an adjacent property owner and I like what they are doing with the larger lot sizes and I think it's going to help my property values and the surrounding property values and my recommendation to the Commissioners, as someone testifying here, is that it gets approved. Borup: Thank you, sir. Who would like to come next? Anyone? Okay. Commissioners, maybe a little discussion on the pathway would be appropriate, before we close the hearing, in case we want to perhaps talk with the applicant. Zaremba: Well, I think I participated in the previous discussion on the other subdivision and my feeling about the portion of the pathway that was put on the other subdivision was that it really didn't do them that much benefit. Anybody trying to leave that subdivision walking to the schools would follow the roadways. My thinking in requiring it of the other subdivision was it was going to benefit this subdivision -- Borup: I agree. Zaremba: -- as a secondary access as a way to access the parks. I can easily be swayed by the applicant's comments that these lots are so big enough that the occupants won't need to be seeking a park. I could happily go either way. Centers: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, I -- I wouldn't want to force it on them if they don't want it. I think the big point is it’s going to match up with the lot line and, you know, they have extremely large lots there for the area and if they don't want people from that other subdivision walking through, I guess I can't blame them. They are going to market their lots without the micropath and that's their choice, in my opinion. Zaremba: And, then, retroactively let the other subdivision know they don't need to do it, if we don't do it here. Borup: I was going to ask that. The other subdivision wouldn't be required to put that pathway in, then. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 27 of 94 Siddoway: It will be required unless Council changes it. It's a condition already in a formal written recommendation from this body that it go forward, so -- Borup: Can you notify the other applicant to let them know -- well, I guess we need to make a decision here first, but -- Centers: Mr. Chairman, there is -- it could be noted when it goes to Council that -- what we did on this subdivision and that could be noted to the Council and to -- so they could remove it if they wanted to. Siddoway: Yes. The recommendation has already gone to Council without that, but it could be done verbally at the hearing. Centers: Yeah. If it hasn't gone to hearing. Borup: Mr. Tealey? Tealey: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, we have already had discussions with the applicant -- applicant's representative and they don't have a problem not having it. Borup: The other subdivision? Tealey: The Parkstone Subdivision. That's correct. Borup: Right. We -- Centers: Well, we know that. Zaremba: What I'm saying, though, is if we delete it as a requirement here, somehow we want to get the word to the other applicant to bring it up when he has his Council hearing. Tealey: I will guarantee you we will be in touch with them tomorrow. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: I would accept that as a path of communication. Mr. Chairman, I move the Public Hearing be closed. Centers: Second it. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 28 of 94 Zaremba: Did we resolve to staff's satisfaction the question on page four, item 12? Borup: Yes. I believe so. They said that it was an easement -- well, I guess I should ask staff as to their satisfaction. The applicant testified that it was, but do we need some more information there, Steve? Zaremba: Maybe I closed the Public Hearing too soon. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'm a little bit vague on the easement. It's an easement, from what I understand, for access to the -- to the well that is being moved? There is a head gate down there. Centers: Summerfield. Borup: I don't know about the head gate, but there is an existing piped ditch. Centers: The way I heard the applicant was that there easements for Summerfield Sub and their pressurized irrigation system. I see this. Meaning a nod of the head. I guess the applicant has stated for the record that they are encroachable, which answers your question mark on the staff comments. Freckleton: It's a private easement for Summerfield's access. Mr. Chairman, would it be appropriate to have the applicant come over to the table and we can talk about this a little bit? Borup: Yes. Maybe both of you -- it sounds like you had some information, too, sir. Zaremba: I moved to close the Public Hearing prematurely. Borup: Oh, but they can work that out. Any other discussion we may have, if we are -- a proposed motion? Are we leaning towards deleting the requirement for the micropath? Centers: I am. Borup: So, then, that would also -- so that would -- item number six would be deleted and eight, third bullet point. Centers: Well, I was going to ask them if they had decided -- Mr. Siddoway, if they had decided on a note on the plat that Settler's Irrigation would have access to all the lots. I think it has to be on there, because they're going to be running the pressurized irrigation for the homeowners association. Don't you think? Siddoway: You're talking about just in an easement; right? Across the -- Centers: Just an access agreement. I guess it would be an easement. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 29 of 94 Siddoway: I'll let Bruce address it, because this is the same easement that he's been talking about. Centers: Okay. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, it's clear now. Basically, what this easement is for that goes across the southern boundary of the Hollister property and up this side is for pressurized irrigation pipe for Summerfield Subdivision. It's no different than the pressurized pipe that runs down the middle of this block. It's properly a three or four inch pipe with taps coming off of it to serve these lots. At the time Summerfield was built, evidently, this was an oversight, they didn't get it put in and so they approached Mr. Hollister to get an easement to put it on his side of the property line. So, we don't have a problem with it. It's no different than a pressurized irrigation line running down the middle of a block. The lots in this subdivision, Hollister Subdivision, will have an easement across the back of the lots anyway to cover public utilities, drainage, and irrigation. So I have no issue with it. Zaremba: But -- so what you're saying is they don't need to be separated from the buildable lot and put into a separate common area? Freckleton: Correct. Correct. Zaremba: They are fine the way they are? Freckleton: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. So we delete item 12 entirely or do we need to rephrase it? I think we can just delete it; right? Freckleton: Staff would be fine with just deleting that comment. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Centers: Well, getting back to -- getting back to the supply irrigation access to all lots for Settler's Irrigation, you want a note on the plat or what do you want? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the way I interpret that comment is that each lot in the subdivision shall be supplied irrigation water from Settler's Irrigation District and the applicant is going to be doing that via a new pressurized irrigation system through Settler's Irrigation District. So I think -- I think it's covered. Centers: Did you read their letter? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 30 of 94 Freckleton: I did. Are you interpreting it differently? Centers: Well, maybe, maybe not. It reads -- have you found it? Number four? Okay. Because it says access. Doesn't say must supply irrigation. It says irrigation access. Freckleton: Commissioner Centers, Members of the Commission, each lot will have easements on their lots. Typically, you will have a ten-foot easement across the back of your lot and a five-foot easement up the side and ten foot across the front for public utilities, drainage, and irrigation. This is pretty standard stuff here. Centers: Okay. Freckleton: I don't read into it anything more than just standard access to irrigation and provision of irrigation water to each lot. We are still learning on Settler's. Centers: Okay. Borup: Thank you. Do we have someone ready to proceed? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 8 on our agenda, PP 03-001, request for preliminary plat approval of 15 building lots, one existing house lot, and two other lots on -- the correct acreage is 10.284 acres in an R-4 zone for Setter Cove Subdivision by MKH Development, Inc., east of North Locust Grove Road and north of East Ustick Road, to include all staff comments, with the following changes: On page three, site specific comments preliminary plat item two, the discrepancy has been resolved. It is 10.284 acres. Paragraph six may be deleted. In paragraph seven, the partial sentence that the variance is denied by the City Council may be deleted. In paragraph eight, the third bullet, add a note to the face of the plat requiring fencing, et cetera, is deleted. We are now at page four where that bullet appeared. On page four, paragraph 12 may be deleted. That's the motion. Centers: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 9: Public Hearing: CUP 03-002 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for An additional public school classroom building in an I-L zone for Meridian Academy by LKV Architects – 2311 East Lanark Street. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 31 of 94 Borup: Item No. 9 is Public Hearing CUP 03-002, request for a Conditional Use Permit for an additional public school classroom building in an I-L zone for Meridian Academy by LKV Architects. This is at 2311 East Lanark Street. I'd like to open this Public Hearing at this time and start with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This staff report has a couple of errors in it that I need to correct for you as I go through. But this is an application by the school district. It's a Conditional Use Permit for a 15,448 square foot classroom building. It is -- there are seven existing modular classrooms that will be removed. Turn to that now. The site location is on Franklin Road at the end of Lanark Street. Even though it does have Franklin Road frontage, it is, actually, accessed off of Lanark. Existing zoning is Light Industrial. Here is a site photo. You can see the existing building here and the surrounding seven modular classrooms. Those are the modulars that will be removed and this is the location that the new building will be built. See, if there is – okay. North is to the left now, just to get you a little more confused. So Lanark enters the site over here. Franklin Road is off the screen to the right. This is the existing building and the modulars wrapped around the property this way. This is the location of the new building to be constructed and that new building is not a new use, it is the same use that was in the modulars, they are just getting the actual building built at this time. The subject property was approved in 1992 as a private school for the Meridian Academy. It's also been used as a high school, later as an intermediate middle school. I believe it is now a charter school. I will let the applicant describe the use. That main thing that it is needing is to have some resolution -- I believe it -- is the parking. There are references in here to 112 spaces and 120 spaces. I need you to strike those numbers and I'll tell you what's actually there. Under site specific requirement number one -- if you just skip to where it counts on page four. It says the proposed use requires 120 spaces, but only 120 spaces are provided. Borup: So that's accurate, then. Siddoway: No. Borup: Oh. Siddoway: The original plan actually had 101 spaces and showed 12 classrooms. Now the parking requirement for a school like this is ten spaces per classroom, which would -- based on 12 classrooms, would have been the 120 spaces. One of the classrooms is not a classroom, it's, actually, a library, so we, actually, have eleven classrooms. So, for the eleven classrooms, which, I guess, is the accurate description, ten spaces per classroom will be 110 spaces required. They did a revised plan, which I don't know if the -- I believe the Commission received copies. I believe they were stamped March 3rd by the clerk's office and ours are stamped March 5th by our own office. But they went in and put in compact parking stalls to try and comply with the parking requirement without a variance. Those parking stalls are only seven and a half feet wide. In talking with -- and about 38 percent of the overall parking would be in that seven, seven and a half foot wide parking. We, actually, prefer to have the full size parking stalls and grant Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 32 of 94 a variance. We would rather have the full size stalls and support a variance, than to have most -- you know, a large share of the parking all be seven foot stalls and very crowded and unusable for large vehicles. We understand there is not an existing parking problem on the site and given that the use is not changing, we don't expect that to create a hardship. So, the recommendation would be to follow through with the variance as stated in the staff report and to do full size parking spaces. I have talked with the applicant's representative. They are in agreement to do that. The second thing is the landscaping. There is a little bit of confusing language in here where it states that the east side needs to be brought into compliance, so these should be placed along the west side. The western should be struck and east should be inserted there. And I believe the applicant has with him a plan that accomplishes that. I believe that the -- that those tweaks to the parking spaces can be made prior to Council. We do need to get the variance to allow that to go through, but the variance could go through with it to Council. The other -- the other site specific requirement -- I don't know that there is any in contention, so I will stop there and stand for any questions. We do recommend approval of the project with those modifications. Borup: Any questions from any of the Commissioners? Zaremba: Yes. I got lost in the parking lot numbers. If they go to full size vehicle spaces, how many spaces would they have? Siddoway: I don't have a straight answer. They had 101, but they have added some parking in another area that wasn't originally shown, so they are probably going to pick up an additional five, nine -- I don't know for sure. Let's see if the applicant knows and, if not, we can -- Zaremba: But what we are aiming for is 110? Siddoway: One hundred ten is the required number without a variance. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Okay. Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Marshall: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'm Scott Marshall, LKV Architects, and we don't have any issues with the staff report and I've reviewed all of the comments and we are in agreement with all the requirements. If I can clarify the parking for you. Can you go back to the aerial -- would you go back to the aerial view? You can see how the property also encompasses the Meridian -- the Meridian maintenance shop and – yeah. That's the Meridian maintenance shop and there is also parking there. Initially, on the count that the Planning and Zoning did, is they included that strip of parking to the right-hand side of the building -- just a little bit farther over -- in their initial count. I have excluded that. Without those counted as parking, there is 88 spots. If you do count those as parking, there is 101. I have revised it and compacted some spots along the -- where the baseball field is, I picked up some spots Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 33 of 94 there, and also added some spots right as you turn in there – yeah. Right there. Added some spots there and over on the other side, to hit our 111. Now, this is kind of a unique situation as far as the parking goes. There is the bus barn that's also directly kitty corner to that. Those employees use the parking as -- and for -- you can see the bus barn over there. Those employees use the parking in the Meridian Academy parking lot. The bus barn is being relocated next year, so they will pick up about 12 spots there. The way that the students get to the school is this is a -- it's an academy building, it's where all of the students that need special considerations as far as teaching goes, so each student that goes there has a home high school -- they pull from Centennial and from Meridian High and the way they do it is they go to that school, then, a bus goes and picks them up and brings them here. So the number of students driving is very minimal. I had a conference with the principal and she only -- there are 20 spots open, usually. There are only 60 -- there are only 40 students that drive and there are 20 staff. So we are below what the requirement is for a high school, but we have a unique situation. And completion of this building will not add to the enrollment, the enrollment is capped. So is there any -- was I clear or confusing? Zaremba: Yeah. Would you be willing, then, to -- the spaces that you compacted, to put them back to full size? Marshall: Sure. Zaremba: And just apply for the variance for the short number? Marshall: Sure. Zaremba: That sounds to me like it would be granted pretty easily. Marshall: Yeah. That's fine. Zaremba: Okay. Rohm: Mr. Mayor, may I ask -- how many full size lots are you going to end up with? Would it be that 88 number, then? Marshall: Correct. Well, can you go back to the -- I have added some compact spots and those would be retained. There is four there. There is three right across. And, then, over to the right-hand side at the base of the hill there is another four and we would retain those as compact. So we would add -- it would be like 95. Siddoway: I would, actually, recommend that they go full size, so -- I believe you had four additional ones here; is that right? Marshall: Correct. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 34 of 94 Siddoway: So if you go full size you would probably get three there and if you have three here, if you go full size you would probably have two. So three and two is five. You could still probably get the four here even at full size, couldn't you? Marshall: Yeah. Siddoway: So that would be nine -- nine additional on top of the 88. Is that right? Marshall: Correct. Borup: That's 97. Centers: Ninety-seven. Rohm: Yeah. The point being staff's recommendation that you retain full size spaces, as opposed to the compact would be preferred. Marshall: Yeah. And that would be preferable for the school district also. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Zaremba: I do. It's kind of a side issue. Can you go back to the aerial view? I vaguely remember that there is a pretty significant grade change in this. Are there any plans for using that part of the property? Marshall: If you go to the -- back to the landscaping, you can see the contours on the right-hand side and it's pretty steep and the school district doesn't have any plans for that currently. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Do we have anyone else that would like to testify on this application? Seeing none, Commissioners? Centers: I think we could move to close the Public Hearing. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: I have a feeling we have discussed most things. Does staff have any further opinions we haven't covered? Siddoway: No. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 35 of 94 Zaremba: In that case I will make a stab at it. Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of CUP 03- 002, request for a Conditional Use Permit for an additional public school classroom building in an I-L zone for Meridian Academy by LKV Architects, 2311 East Lanark Street, to include all staff comments, with the following changes: On page four, site specific requirements, paragraph one, the proposed use requires -- change that to 110 parking spaces. That only 97 spaces are provided. Strike the rest of the sentence. We recommend that the applicant ask for a variance for the difference when presenting this to the City Council. Paragraph two. Landscaping. The second sentence: Trees should be placed every 33 feet -- 35 feet -- excuse me -- 35 feet along the eastern perimeter, not western. And that's it. Rohm: I will second that. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 10: Public Hearing: AZ 03-003 Request for annexation and zoning of 14.31 Acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Timberfalls Subdivision by Dan Wood – south of East Ustick Road and west of NorthLocust Grove Road: Item 11: Public Hearing: PP 03-002 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 50 Building lots and 6 other lots on 14.31 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Proposed Timberfalls Subdivision by Dan Wood – south of East Ustick Road and west of North Locust Grove Road: Borup: Next project, Public Hearing AZ 03-003, request for annexation and zoning of 14.31 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Timberfalls Subdivision by Dan Wood. This is south of East Ustick Road and west of North Locust Grove Road. And accompanying that is Public Hearing PP 03-002, request for preliminary plat approval of 50 building lots and six other lots on 14.31 acres. Same applicant and project. Like to open both of these public hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The subject property is on the south side of Ustick Road about halfway between Meridian Road and Locust Grove, surrounded by existing subdivisions on three sides, the Bedford Place, Granite Creek. The aerial photos, as you can see here, you see all the existing lots and homes built around it and this has been a -- just farmland. They are requesting annexation and zoning to R-8. I do believe all of the surrounding residential subdivisions are also the R-8 zone. The plat on the 14 acres includes 50 building lots Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 36 of 94 and six other lots. The lots vary in size from 6,500 square feet, which is the minimum for the zone, to 15,000 square feet. There is a large centrally located open space in the center that would be a -- provide the open space requirement for the lot for the subdivision. They are requesting a reduction through the alternative compliance provisions of the landscape ordinance to allow the landscape buffer along Ustick Road to be reduced from the 25 feet required by ordinance to 20 feet, which I believe matches the landscape buffers that are provided by the adjacent subdivisions. They have spoken with Brad Hawkins-Clark, the interim planning director, and he has agreed with them on that reduction. The staff report from David, Sonya, and Bruce you should have and if you go to page six you will see the additional considerations that need resolution. On the first one, simply a block length issue. Block one, which is here, is less than our minimum block length, which is 300 feet, and requires a variance. Block 2 is, then, longer than the 1,000 foot maximum, so we have one -- one too small, one too large for the ordinance. But we would just ask that they would submit a variance application for the block length. I might interject here that we have so many of these variance and -- variances on block length around the perimeter, that we are taking a look at revising that ordinance, but until that happens we need to stay consistent with these variances. But that is something that we are looking at. Both those block length issues can be combined into a single application. Item two is the landscape plan. Apparently, there were some revisions to the central block that tweaked the shape and the landscape plan doesn't yet reflect that. Apparently, it's not too major and it simply states that we like the revised landscape plan submitted with the final plat application, which would be required anyway. It also mentioned in there the support for the reduction of the landscape buffer along Ustick Road. Those are fairly easy to overcome. The next two are the more difficult ones. The Onweiller Lateral courses along the south portion of this property and has a 35-foot wide easement for maintenance along it. That lateral is already piped, as I understand it, but there is a maintenance road that runs along it as well. Currently, as shown on the plat, the lots go all the way to the edge of the property line and do not stop short of that easement or the maintenance road. We don't believe that the easement should be considered part of the lots, since -- especially the portion that the maintenance road is on. We understand that the applicant is in negotiations with Nampa-Meridian to obtain a license agreement to allow 20 feet plus or minus. I understand that it varies a little bit, to encroach into the easement, but only far enough that it doesn't interfere with the maintenance road. If the applicant is able to obtain that license agreement, then, the plat needs to be modified to place those lot lines at their proper location and place the maintenance road in a common lot behind them. If they are not able to get the license agreement, then, there would be 35 foot wide common lot behind them. But I've had indication from the applicant that they feel pretty confident they will at least be able to encroach part way. Thus, the plat -- they need to get that license agreement and, then, revise the plat accordingly, and we would recommend that the modification to the plat happen before this goes to Council. Item number four is similar. There is a waterway adjacent to the west side of the property that shows a 15 foot wide easement and we also have a question about the -- whether that is able to be encroached on or not. Currently, they encroach with the lot lines right up to the property line and, again, we need to have the applicant address the encroachability of that -- of that easement and if it's not Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 37 of 94 encroachable, we will need that one in a common lot as well. Item five deals with access into the central open space and micropaths. The ordinance as written deals with requirements for micropaths if they are provided. Staff would -- currently there are these connections in, but they are all grass and I believe there are also some stormwater swales that skirt around the outside edge of that open space lot. We would like to see some micropaths built to provide access into there on a hard surface, although I can't say definitively that the ordinance would require them. So that's kind of an additional consideration, should there be or should there not be actual micropaths. If there are, then, it comes with requirements for fencing height, which we would recommend be placed as a condition on -- around the open space anyway, so that you can have the visibility from the adjacent lots into the open space and is less likely to become a problem area for them. If you do decide to require micropaths, it would need to be included as a requirement of the annexation. Item six is the fencing adjacent to the open space lot and I already described that. So, those are the significant issues. We do feel that in general the subdivision is a good one. It's harmonious with the surrounding neighborhoods, it's in similar character, and -- but we just need to get these modifications made and corrected before approving it and, with that, I will stand for any questions. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Steve, on the recommendation on the pathway, you're just recommending access into the park just from -- the pathway would just be the length of the lots? Siddoway: Yes. I believe we specified in the report the -- it's site specific comment number nine on page nine, construct hard surface pathways a minimum of one lot in depth leading into the open space common lot in the following locations and, then, specify the lots and blocks. Borup: Thank you. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Nickel: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Commission, my name is Shawn Nickel, I'm with Land Consultants, Incorporated, 52 North 2nd Street in Eagle. As staff stated, we are asking for an annexation request with zoning from R-1 to R-8. Our proposed density is 3.42 dwelling units per acre. One point of clarification. I hope you have my revised plat in front you. I even wrote revised in red on the front there. Borup: Yes. Nickel: Good. The reason for the revision is when we were working both ACHD and Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District on establishing easements and right of way, we were required to revise our application and that's what that revision that you have in front of you is. We, actually, are down by one lot. We are down to 49 buildable lots, instead of 50, and five common lots. Those lots range in size from 6,500 to -- Centers: Five common? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 38 of 94 Nickel: Five. I believe five. Centers: You have six. Nickel: Yeah. Five. Centers: So you lost two. Nickel: Two total lots. Right. One buildable. So that did drop us down just slightly, 6,500 to 15,000 square foot lot sizes within the development. Our total open space is 1.43 acres, which is ten percent of the total site of that. The park is 1.06 acres, which is 7.5 percent. So, we do have -- a good chunk of that is usable open space. This does meet the intent of your Comprehensive Plan that was adopted in 2002 for the medium density, three to eight dwelling units per acre, which we would consider an in-fill, because as you saw on that original map, that original map up there is surrounded on three sides. Because it was surrounded, we did have three existing stub streets that we had to put into our design. That's the main reason for the block length issues and I do have those variances that will be submitted tomorrow to staff and those will be forwarded to the City Council, hopefully with your recommendation for approval of those if you so choose. And we are in favor of the staff's modification of that zoning ordinance requirement. It seems like every time we are up here we are asking for variances for block length. Real quickly, we are in favor of all of the conditions that staff is recommending. We do have some clarification we'd like to talk to you and staff about this evening. First of all, from dealing with staff over the last couple of weeks, I was under the impression that we were going to be recommended for approval tonight. I was -- just found out this evening that staff's recommending us to take care of some of those issues. The main one was the Onweiller Lateral and the lateral for the ditch that's on the western boundary. As I stated earlier, that was the one reason for the revision to the subdivision plat. We are currently working with the irrigation district, Nampa- Meridian Irrigation District on the encroachment issue on that south lateral. When we met with them and they established that 35 foot easement on there, it was obvious that there is quite a large chunk to be taken out of those south -- the south lots up against the southern boundary. What the agreement is, is a verbal agreement with the irrigation district -- was to allow us to encroach into a portion of those -- of that 35 foot easement, but to allow them up to 15 feet for their maintenance road, which exists on the site. Now, the maintenance road and the piped ditch is actually just a bit off of our property, but the easement does encroach into our property not quite the 35 feet. So our verbal agreement with the irrigation district was to get a license agreement to encroach up to the maintenance road and, then, to have our fencing be along that 15 foot boundary and, then, either -- and, then, staff had the condition to either have the homeowners association -- well, they will own it, but maintain that open space, that common area, or have the irrigation district do that. So that's part of the agreement that we will have with the irrigation district. Centers: Yes. So, Mr. Nickel, you don't have a problem with number seven on page nine, because they state unless the application provides -- Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 39 of 94 Nickel: Right. Exactly. Centers: Number seven? Nickel: The only problem I have is staff wanting us to get that resolved before you all make a recommendation to the City Council. We are confident -- Centers: No. We can make the recommend with that condition. Nickel: And what's what we are hoping. Centers: Correct. Nickel: But other than that, we are in favor of that. If, for some reason, negotiations were to break down and we would have to comply with that 35 feet, as you can see, we are going to have to do some major revisions to our plat and probably be back in front of you. Centers: Right. Nickel: We are confident that's going to be resolved. Zaremba: If I may clarify for myself, regardless of whether it's 15 feet or 25 feet or 35 feet, you will make this into a separate lot that's a common area maintained by either homeowners or an irrigation district? Nickel: Right. One more point of clarification is that staff does state that -- in number three, under additional considerations on page seven: The back of the lot shall be set at the encroachment line with a remaining 15 foot wide portion. Now because that ditch is off our property there is going to be some portions of that common lot that aren't going to be exactly 15 feet wide, they might be less. So I just want that to be clear that that's approximately 15 feet to accommodate that maintenance road. So, that was the issue on that. The same goes for that western -- that western property line with the ditch on that. We also have a verbal agreement from the irrigation district. We are going to be required to tile that pipe and it's just a matter of what type of encroachment they will allow us. That will also be part of the license agreement with the irrigation district. Zaremba: And, again, you will make that a common area? Nickel: Again, if we don't, we will meet that -- Zaremba: However wide it -- Nickel: Staff's requirement. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 40 of 94 Borup: Shawn, that ditch crosses Ustick and supplies properties to the north of Ustick? Nickel: Uh-huh. Borup: Is that what that is? Nickel: Regarding the pathways, if -- if staff can -- could you put back on the landscape plan, Steve? And staff is actually making a recommendation -- we met with your staff last week regarding the issue of pathways and we agree that we would provide a paved pathway into that -- into that subdivision at those three -- those three locations, two from the east and, then, one from the south. We aren't in favor of doing it as a micropath per se, but we are going to pave the length of -- can I use your pointer? So the pavement would be the length of this lot right here, this lot right here, and that lot right there, and, then, the rest of it will be the natural grass and it will provide people access and it will be an actual defined pathway into that park. Centers: How about that one? Nickel: Oh, I'm sorry, I -- Zaremba: There are four of them. Nickel: There. There. There, and there. Borup: You are intending to do one on the north? Nickel: I thought that was our plan. Yes. A portion of this lot right here might be used for retention, drainage retention. As you look on the plat you will see those funky lines that kind of go into it. That's where we were intending to bring the water for drainage -- storm drainage down. This property actually flows in this direction right here. So, as your staff is recommending in that condition, we will provide a pathway in those locations I described. We are also in agreement to provide -- that we will have -- within our CC&R's the requirements for fencing along the open space and that is that four foot solid with the option of the two foot lattice on top of that, so if someone has a lot and has a big dog, they need that additional, at least you will have the height to restrict the dog, but also will be able to see into the park and it adds extra protection for kids that might be in there. So we are in agreement with that as well. The only other issue I have -- and this is more of a question for Bruce. It's a question for Bruce and it's in regards to pressure irrigation and, actually, secondary irrigation. I briefly talked to him about that. It's my understanding, from talking to Bruce, that we are going to required by code to provide a secondary irrigation source; is that correct? Freckleton: That's correct. You have to have a backup, be able to supply water for the pre-season and post season. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 41 of 94 Nickel: From what I understand from talking to Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District is in this area -- if you put the colored map that had the three other subdivisions -- I guess in this portion of the irrigation district, these other subdivisions are only hooked up to the primary irrigation and do not have a secondary irrigation source and from what the developer was told by Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District is you can't isolate this system -- in other words, if we use the city -- the city system for our secondary access, that it's hard to isolate this subdivision from the other subdivisions that don't have that secondary source. So, I guess my question -- Borup: So you're tying into the existing pressurized irrigation line from the other three subdivisions? Nickel: Right. And so I almost got the impression from Nampa Irrigation District that they don't want us to use their system if we are going to be hooking into a secondary system with the city. Have you heard of that? I'm actually asking this as a question to Bruce, more than anything else. I just don't want to get locked into a situation here. Freckleton: Members of the Commission, Mr. Nickel, you know, I totally understand where you're coming from. I understand where the irrigation district is coming from. Unfortunately, at the time those subdivisions went in they didn't have a requirement for that secondary source. The biggest headache that we have is when there is not a backup source, people will dual connect. When you have dual connections, more often than not they are done illegally. Every dual connection that we have out there is a potential source for contamination to our water system and it's a health hazard. That is the main driving force for the city requiring the single point connection, is it gives us one single point to monitor for back flow. When we have a single source -- or, excuse me, a secondary source in a subdivision, we don't allow any other connection to the system at the homes. So I don't have a good answer for you right now. We are going to have to look into that a little bit. I mean I can think of ways that you can isolate it. Nickel: I just wanted to bring that up as a -- as a discussion item. I think that, Commissioners, that we can work that out with your staff prior to City Council. More than anything, I just want to get on the record that I don't want to be trapped in the specific system. It sounds like we can work with your staff and I would be willing to do that. Borup: I have got a question pertaining to that, Mr. Nickel. Have you talked with the irrigation district on -- on the volume they would require for a secondary connection point? Nickel: My developer would have and I'm not sure -- Borup: I guess where I was going to, the systems are all maintained by Nampa- Meridian. Is there anything preventing a secondary tie in that would -- that would service all four subdivisions? They are the ones doing the building anyway. Can't that extra cost be -- Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 42 of 94 Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, if I might weigh in on that. It certainly is possible. I would guess that it would require more than one connection. Borup: That's what I was wondering. Freckleton: I mean you may end up with one in Granite Creek and one over in Bedford and, then, maybe another one in Timber Falls, but -- Borup: I don't think it's tied into the Granite -- Bedford. Nickel: I don't think it is. I think it's just the one to the south. Freckleton: The point is it can be retrofitted. I mean I don't see any problem with that. It's possible. We can work it out. Nickel: And I apologize for putting staff on the spot. I wanted to just get it out there and I think it probably can -- Borup: Depending on how many points it would require, that would -- that would also prevent some potential problems in those other areas, too. Freckleton: One question I have, Mr. Chairman, if I might. Shawn, are you going to have your own -- are you going to have a pump station in this development or are you going to be just tying into existing stubs from the other developers? Nickel: I thought we were tying into existing stubs is what we were -- yeah. Freckleton: So a pump station is not within the boundaries of Timber Falls. Okay. Nickel: Correct: Borup: Which makes the secondary source a little more -- would have to be in at that point also, then. Freckleton: Not necessarily, Mr. Chairman. It could be in Timber Falls and, you know, we could valve it off where it connects it up with the other subdivisions, thereby supplying city water to the system for the shoulder season. I certainly think that probably the best -- the best case scenario here would be for Nampa-Meridian to work with us and developer and do some retrofitting for these subdivisions -- Borup: To bring them all to the current requirement. Freckleton: Correct. I think it's to everybody's benefit for that to occur. Borup: Proceed, Mr. Nickel. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 43 of 94 Nickel: Oh. And, then, one last issue, Commissioners, and that's condition number four, which is on page nine, and that talks about -- Centers: Page nine? Nickel: Page nine of my staff report. I don't know what yours -- it's in regard to perimeter fencing of the subdivision. And the second sentence says permanent perimeter fencing shall be required around the subdivision, unless the city agrees in writing that such a fence is not required. The majority of the area around our subdivision already has existing fencing. We are going to provide fencing on the south through our -- through the irrigation district and, then, along our berm on the north along Ustick Road. I just wanted to put that on the record for staff to recognize that -- the majority of that is already in place. Centers: Mr. Chairman? Well, do you have the staff report? Nickel: I have the -- I don't know that I -- Centers: Because -- Nickel: Dated March 6? Borup: Our number four is on page eight. It's just -- Centers: March 6. Yeah. Because I want to refer to page nine, item seven. That's what I have, anyway. Freckleton: Shawn, are you working off of a draft? Was it one that Dave e-mailed over to you? Nickel: Yeah. You know, I might be, Bruce. Let me grab my other -- Borup: Do you have -- Shawn, you have item number seven, though, don't you? Nickel: On what page were yours, Commissioner Centers? Centers: Well, page nine, item seven. The next to the last sentence in item seven where it says 15 wide portion. I think you referred to you'd like to see that approximately 15 feet. Would you like -- would it be applicable to have that read 14 to 16 feet? Nickel: No. No. There are some places where it could be -- Centers: Well, then, how can you say approximately 15 feet? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 44 of 94 Nickel: If you can think of a better wording that will keep us from having to make it 15 feet or something less, that's what I was getting at. Centers: Yeah. And I agree with you. Nickel: Okay. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if I might just suggest scratch 15 foot wide and so it would just read with the remaining portion. Nickel: That would be great. Centers: Very good. Nickel: Thanks. Centers: And, then, in addition, number nine on the same page. So you're in agreement that there would be four foot fencing along all the pathways that you intend to install? Nickel: That is correct. The way that reads, lot six includes all of those -- all of the pathways that I pointed out earlier. Centers: Yeah. Nickel: So that would be for that whole lot and it would be the four-foot with option of the two-foot lattice on top of that. Centers: Right. They, actually, didn't refer to the fencing along the pathways and that's why I added that there. So you're in agreement with four foot fencing along all the pathways. Nickel: Right. Centers: Of course, the perimeter, you had mentioned that. Nickel: Yeah. And the way I looked at that, all of those are encompassed in lot six and so, yes, that's fine. Centers: Okay. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, item number ten right below that is the one that talks about the fencing adjacent to the open space. Centers: We were just talking about the open space lots, though, Steve. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 45 of 94 Borup: But those pathways are -- Centers: Are all a part of – okay. Good. Good. Borup: Any other questions. Mathes: I have a question. Borup: Go ahead. Mathes: How wide are you going to make the path? Nickel: Staff made a recommendation on that. Siddoway: If I can jump in, I would say it just should conform to the micropath ordinance. It would be five feet wide as a minimum, with five feet on each side. You already have 15 feet in -- Nickel: I believe they are all at least 20 feet wide. Borup: So five feet would work fine. Siddoway: It appears that the one coming in from the south is only 14. The rest are 19, 20, and 20. Centers: And what's the ordinance, Steve? Siddoway: Fifteen would be the minimum by ordinance. Five feet for the pathway and five feet on each side. So it would be one foot difference. Nickel: And we would not have a problem making that 15 feet wide on that south -- Centers: You have got room. Zaremba: Let's see. For my question we will probably need the plat plan. That would do. Would you count for me the other lots? You're saying five other lots. Nickel: Did I count wrong, Commissioner? If I did I apologize. Zaremba: Just point them out to me, because I -- Nickel: There are six. I missed one. The knuckle -- the knuckle island in there, so -- do you want me to go to the screen and -- Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 46 of 94 Zaremba: No. You have answered the direction my question is going. If we add as a separate common area lot the southern easement and the western easement, now you're going to have eight other lots; right? Centers: Well, you'd have to come back. Borup: Actually, I only see five. Nickel: Yes. You would have eight. Zaremba: Not only the discussion of how wide they are going to be, they are going to be into separate easements into separate lots. The question questions they are struggling with are how wide they are. So there will actually be eight once you do that. Borup: I only see five up there now. Nickel: As staff mentioned, that was our original landscape plan. The little knuckle there at the top actually has a landscape island on it. Borup: Oh, you added another one in there. Nickel: The plat you have in front of you that says revised is the current plan. Borup: Any other questions for Mr. Nickel? I have got one back on the -- at the beginning you were discussing approval from Nampa-Meridian on the encroachment. Did you have a time frame when he's guaranteed that? Nickel: Commissioners, if I would have known that staff was going to make that -- if I would have known that they were going to make that recommendation tonight, I would have tried my darnedest to have something in writing from them this evening. I definitely will get something prior to City Council. Did you have a condition in here that says we have to have that prior to City Council? Borup: And you're completely -- you're completely confident you can have it prior to that? Nickel: Yes, I am. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Ten days prior. Is that one of those things that needs to be ten days prior? Siddoway: I stand on my comment that I think it needs to come back here. Council came down very hard on staff and a couple of applicants this week on Tuesday for projects that were incomplete and things coming in right before the meeting and they really do not want that. So that's my recommendation. One thing that we can't say Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 47 of 94 tonight is if the -- the encroachment is not allowed on the west side, it's likely to make some of those lots smaller than the minimum. If 15 feet is taken off, we know it will take it below the minimum lot size, but will that whole 15 be unencroachable? I don't know. And without some of those questions resolved -- I think we need to know where that line falls. Nickel: Mr. Chairman, we -- Borup: Well -- and that's why I brought that up, because that's my concern. If this project goes to City Council and it's not taken care of, not complete, that reflects on this Commission. Nickel: I do understand. I guess that we are confident, because if we don't get that agreement, not only can we go to City Council, I think we are going to have to come back here, because we are going to have to redesign the subdivision. Verbally we were told that the ditch on the west, because there is not going to be a maintenance road on that side, requires it will be piped, that we can encroach all the way to the property line on that one, so I'm confident that we are able to do that. As far as the southerly one, if we have to -- if we can't get that agreement after we have been told that we could and we have to provide 35 feet of a common area, I think we are going to have to do a major redesign of the whole subdivision and we will be back in front of you, so -- Borup: But back in front of us after it's already had a hearing at City Council, unless you ask to have it pulled from the agenda, I guess. Nickel: I do understand staff's concerns. I think we can get -- if you are uncomfortable with it -- and I heard you talk about the last -- the items a couple times before, that you're all booked up on the 20th, if that's the only issue we have on this, I would like to at least be tabled for two weeks, rather than losing a month, and that will really put the pressure on me to get Nampa-Meridian to commit to that. So, if you do feel like you do need to table us, I would request to, please, be tabled for two weeks, rather than a month, since that could be the only issue we have to resolve. Borup: We will discuss that. I didn't -- Nickel: Just keep that under consideration when you discuss you decision. Borup: Well, I know how I would feel if it was sent back to us from City Council, especially after the discussion we have just gone through. Zaremba: They have been pretty clear about wanting to have things resolved before they see them. Nickel: And, again, Commissioners, had I known tonight that we were going to do that, I would have brought it. If you look at the actual discussion of the staff report on those items -- I guess it is your page eight also. It does state -- actually, page nine. It states Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 48 of 94 in that first -- in that second paragraph, evidence of support from the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District for the encroachment will be required prior to the preliminary plat approval by the City Council. So I thought I had some additional time prior to City Council to get that agreement. So I would have tried to have it today. Anyway, I will leave that for you to discuss. Centers: That's the way I read it, too, Mr. Nickel, to be honest with you. Borup: Any other questions from the Commissioners? Zaremba: Not at this time. Nickel: Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else that would like to testify on this? Mr. Wood? Wood: My name is Dan Wood. I'm purchasing this property. I'm the one that talked with the irrigation district. I got them a copy of the plat map. That's when the revisions came about and I talked with Bill, who, in turn, has talked with John Anderson, and they are the ones that have come back and said, hey, Dan, we will go ahead and -- you will need to enter into a license agreement, you know, but I can't enter into a license agreement until I actually own the property. But what they have said is they want their 35 feet, but they will let us encroach within 15 feet of the pipe. So where the pipe is, in some cases, part is on Finch Creek, they want 15 feet, so they have room to, you know, go continue to mow the weeds and things like that. So what I'm going off of is what they had told me. They usually have been pretty good for what they say they usually stick to, so -- Borup: Is this plat accurate as far as the location, as far as you know? Wood: Yes. Borup: The way I read this, all of it is in Finch Creek. Wood: That's right. Borup: You said part of it. Wood: Well, the reason why I say that, Keith, is it zigzags so much there is spots where -- that's why Shawn was trying to deal with the 15 feet. You can see some places where we don't even need the 15 feet and other places where, because of the way the bend is, we are going to need more or real close to the whole 15 feet. And all Bill said is that they need 15 feet to maintain it. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 49 of 94 Borup: It looked like where it widens out is it would have had a box in the middle of the roadway, so it would have to be moved in that location it looks like. Wood: So it seems like we were honing in on that easement, so I figured at least I should let you know I have talked with them and that's what Bill has told me. Borup: So they are saying at this point they won't -- they won't enter into a final agreement, but will they do a -- Wood: We can get a letter from them. Borup: Saying that they will once you are in ownership. Is that what the letter would say? Wood: What the letter will say is what Bill has -- what I have just said is the fact that, yes, there is a 35 foot encroachment there, but they will allow me to encroach within 15 feet, so that they have enough room. Borup: Okay. Wood: So I can put my fences -- Borup: So, you're saying the letter would say they would allow that, they just won't enter into an agreement, of course, until you own the property? Wood: Correct. Borup: Yeah. Any other questions? Do we have anyone else to testify on this? Come forward, sir. Alden: I'm Tim Alden. I live at 3095 North Boulder Creek, which is in Granite Creek just to the east, and I understand the comments that deal with the provisions for providing fencing around the perimeter of the new development has been completed. I just -- for point of clarification, the fencing that's there is chain link fencing and does not screen from view and, of course, it would be my preference that fencing screen us from view, not only after the thing is -- after the development is completed, but while it's going on, so that out my backyard I'm not looking at the dust and noise and that sort of thing. Is that something appropriate for this group or is there another forum for asking that question? Borup: No. This would be the proper -- so the chain link fence that's there, that was put in by Granite Creek? Alden: Yes. Borup: Is that correct? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 50 of 94 Alden: Yes. Borup: And that was the type of fence they chose to put in as their perimeter fence? Alden: What that did was it kept the livestock almost all the time out of our lots. On the other side of Granite Creek where it borders other properties, it was a cedar fence that would screen from view, but it's just along that pasture land that it was chain link. That's my only question. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question? What was your preference for the fence along your property line? What type of fence would you -- Alden: I would like something that would screen the view, so that when I'm -- so it provides some privacy after the subdivision is complete and other people are living -- you have a backyard abutted right up to mine. Rohm: The lattice that can slide down a chain link fence, is that adequate, in your estimation? Alden: That would provide a screen. Of course, I'd rather have a nice cedar fence, but I realize that -- Rohm: Well, I'm just thinking of having two fences butted up against each other seems a little bit redundant, you know, so -- Alden: Yes. Yes, it does. But I don't know if there is a requirement -- and I didn't want to go to the expense of putting one up myself prior to knowing what the developer's plans were for that. Borup: Is it your understanding that that existing fence is -- well, it would be, it would be entirely in your property. Alden: That's my understanding, yes. Borup: Okay. Alden: Thank you. Borup: Thank you. I had a question, Mr. Siddoway. I was going to ask this earlier on the -- that's on the area of perimeter fencing. Does that -- how is that understood between two existing subdivisions in this case? I mean I don't see where it's that different from back lot lines on the same subdivision. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, the ordinance is not specific. We would simply -- a typical scenario is simply to require perimeter fencing to keep the trash from blowing during Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 51 of 94 construction from one property to another. We don't specifically require cedar, although that is the fence type that is usually used by developers. We have seen chain link before. It does seem a little odd to require a cedar fence to back up to an existing chain link fence. My opinion is that the existing chain link fence would meet the requirement for the perimeter fencing and if neighbors want to be screened from view from it, they could slat it. But we have -- we generally require permanent perimeter fencing in areas where it does not currently exist and that's typically cedar, but not always. Borup: But most of the time that's against unplatted properties. Siddoway: Yeah. It's -- it's even more important in our view if it's against agricultural to keep things from blowing over to the farms. Borup: Okay. Well, I think Mr. Nickel's statement I remember him saying is that most of the perimeter was fenced, so -- I don't know if we ever got a clarification on what that means. Siddoway: I think it was east and west side -- that they would be providing it on the south. Borup: Maybe we need -- at the end we could clarify that. Anyone else like to come up and testify? Come on up, sir. Mosier: My name is Gary Mosier. I live at 965 East Ustick. And -- it's the one acre at the top right at the property. Yes. There has been no mention of the fencing around that property -- bordering my property, which is barbed wire fence right now. You mention they put fencing at the south, fencing at the north, but nothing was mentioned about that little corner. Borup: Okay. So there is no fencing there presently? Mosier: Not unless you consider barbed wire -- Borup: Right. Okay. Anything else? Mosier: Well, I don't know if this is the appropriate time, so I'll just ask. I believe that there is just -- my property, maybe one other piece of property, that after this is zoned city, is -- remains county, remains county property. My question is. Is there any expectation or requirement for me to hook up to sewer and septic when this goes in? Borup: Not unless you choose to be annexed yourself. Mosier: And when I sell -- if or when I sell the property, is there a requirement there? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 52 of 94 Borup: Meridian has traditionally not annexed property without application by the owner. There is a provision under -- less than five acres it may happen, it's just never happened yet. Is that correct? Siddoway: That's correct. The city's never forced annexed property. There is a provision to allow that for enclaves. I would say there is no plan in the foreseeable future that your property would be forced to annex and be required to hook, although it is feasible that that could happen under state code. Borup: Most of the time people request that, like when their sewer system fails or something like that, then, we see them back here asking for annexation. Mosier: Now, if I requested annexation, because of sewer and septic, would it be advantageous to do it at the time that they are putting in the subdivision, rather than after? I mean I don't know where you hook up to sewer or hook up to water. In my situation is it wise for me to know ahead of time what's involved in that if I chose to? I'm not leaning that direction, but I'd like to know. Borup: That's something you may be able to discuss with the developer on having sewer line access to your property. That's something you maybe could work out with him, while they are putting this in to have a stub to your property or something. That's been done before. Mosier: Something to discuss with the developer. Borup: Right. Mosier: But not with the city? Borup: Yeah. The city would -- would not require that. Is there any foreseeable reason the city would require that, Bruce? Mosier: I'm not talking about requiring anything, I'm talking about tying into the -- Borup: Yeah. Well, that be -- the developer will be putting all the sewer lines in, so that would be something to be discussed with him. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I would invite you to come in and talk to us and we can show you where sewer water is in the area and we can -- Mosier: Well, that's why I asked if this was the appropriate time or -- Borup: It's a good time to bring it up, but to get real detailed, you need to go into the public works department. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 53 of 94 Zaremba: I would say while people are digging around you this is the right time. We would welcome you into the city if you so chose. Mosier: Okay. Borup: Thank you. Mosier: Thank you. Borup: Thank you, sir. Do we have anyone else that would like to come forward at this time? Mr. Nickel, do you have any final comments? Nickel: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, again, Shawn Nickel for the record. And that was the reason I had brought up the perimeter fencing, was because I was -- we are aware that there is existing fencing around there and it's kind of -- it seems redundant to build a fence up against another fence. However, the developer has stated that if the gentleman that talked first is wishing to have a cedar fence to block out, then, he would be willing to -- my developer would be willing to split the cost with him on that portion if he'd like. Typically, we put in the CC&R's the type of fencing that's allowed, so you have a concurrent fence all around, but typically the builders build the actual fence and in this case since there is already a perimeter on that -- Borup: Which of the two gentlemen were you referring to? Nickel: I was referring to the first one gentleman. Now, with regard to the second gentleman, I'm a little confused, because I thought that a portion of his property was chain link -- had chain link in there and I don't know if that's the case or not. We will work with him on that and if, indeed, it is not, it's just barbed wire, yes, we will be required to -- by code to have that perimeter fence put up and we will do that on that portion, so -- Borup: I could propose maybe another alternative on the chain link fence. Would you be willing to put the slats in for any of the property owners that would like that? I think that would cost you less than putting a fence up. Nickel: If they were to come forward -- Borup: Well, that's what I was saying. Well, no, I don't know -- well, that would be up to the Commissioners. But I'm saying I don't know if they necessarily need to come forward, but they have to be notified that that's an option somehow. But it would definitely cost you less than putting up a solid perimeter fence, but we realize we can't -- I don't know if we can require that, because it's not on your property. Nickel: Yeah. I would be a little uncomfortable with having a requirement for an off-site -- Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 54 of 94 Borup: Right. But we could require another fence put up. Nickel: You could, I guess, but my feeling on that is it's kind of redundant. Borup: Right. And I agree. I think -- and that's been mentioned, but I think a good alternative would be -- Nickel: You're kind of putting us in between a rock and a hard place here. Borup: Right. But I think a good alternative would be to offer the slats. Maybe some of the neighbors might not want it, but those that did, if that -- if you think that would be acceptable. Nickel: I don't really want to commit to that right now. Borup: Just thought it might save you some money. Zaremba: Well, make it a two part offer. Offer the slats or go in halves with the cedar fence, which is what you originally said. Centers: Exactly. Zaremba: Offer them both offers, you know. Nickel: Given that, I think the slats would be a better alternative. And, then, regarding the -- to get off the subject -- regarding the sewer, we will talk to the neighbor and see if he's -- you know, if he's interested in getting a sewer tap or bringing -- or having us bring a sewer tap over for him and, then, I think staff suggested that they talk to him as well. Centers: Tell him he can't hook up unless he's in the city. Nickel: That's true, I guess. I have learned that the hard way. That's all I have. Borup: Any other questions for Mr. Nickel while he's here? Okay. Did you have another question, sir? Mosier: I don't want to drag this out. Borup: Okay. We need to get you on a microphone. Mosier: There is a small section where I have a chain link fence four feet high that is not on the property line, it's back about ten feet. There is an irrigation ditch that goes between that small section of chain link fence and the pasture. Now, exactly where the boundary -- property line falls, I'm not a hundred percent sure. We have the barbed Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 55 of 94 wire fence, the irrigation ditch, another strip of property, and, then, a chain link fence that runs up against my barn. So it's not like the dividing -- it's not a dividing fence. Borup: Right. Yeah. Zaremba: The point is that fence is not your property line. Mosier: Well, my -- the chain link fence is -- yeah, it's not on the property line. Borup: No. I think they stated they would be putting a fence along your property line if there is none there now, other than the -- Mosier: He mentioned that he thought part of it was chain link, but it's not a property line fence. Borup: Okay. Mosier: I just wanted to clarify that, because if we get into this thing and -- Borup: No. We were talking about property line fencing. Have you got other comment on that, Shawn, or -- Nickel: Commissioner -- and that's why I said I don't want to argue with the gentleman, because I just don't know, but we will take care of it. Borup: But it's understood we are talking about property lines here. Commissioners, unless there is anyone else -- I thought we had finished that before when I had Mr. Nickel come up. Centers: I have got to say that I -- the 20th -- I think we need to see them again on the 20th. Commissioner Zaremba wouldn't be here. But we've covered a lot of it tonight. I think on the 20th it would be quick, so I would be in favor of the 20th . Why put them off. Every day is a buck. Borup: That would -- and that would clarify the -- either the encroachment -- Centers: Correct. Borup: And if it's more than that, if it's -- I guess they would need to decide whether it would take a whole redesign or not. Centers: Well, then, we would have a letter in our file that they have postponed. Borup: That would probably -- that would be the only -- that be the only issue that we would be addressing at that time, wouldn't it? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 56 of 94 Centers: Right. Yeah. Zaremba: The fencing issues could be decided by then and -- Siddoway: You know, Mr. Chairman, the only concern -- we will need to get the revised -- the revisions back ten days prior to that hearing, which is Monday. Zaremba: Next Monday. Siddoway: And I don't know if that gives enough time to the applicant, but -- Borup: Probably not, since they don't know if they have to do a revision. Nickel: Commissioner, Shawn Nickel again. We are hopeful -- we are confident we are not going to have to do that. If we do have to revise it, I'm assuming we are going to have to be postponed again. Siddoway: You're at least going to have to revise it to show the property lines along the encroachment. Zaremba: The two more common areas -- two additional common areas will need to be shown. Nickel: Right. And I don't -- I personally don't see that as a considerable change, because I know that if we have to do that -- other than the 35 foot, if we have to do that, we are going to have to redesign the whole subdivision, but just the 15 foot -- Borup: So you're saying you can have that by Monday? Nickel: I don't know that I can have it by Monday. It's going to depend on getting a hold of the irrigation, but I'm going to try to have it. Centers: Well, Mr. Chairman, you know, we have the special meeting on the 26th and we agreed to hear a couple other items then. Siddoway: That's less than one additional week. It's six days after that one. Borup: Normally -- that's not a normal -- what would be your preference? Nickel: My question is. Is it necessary to get that change in ten days prior if it's -- Borup: It depends on whether you want us to send it to City Council or not. Nickel: Good point. We will try. We can try to get and, if not, I guess we'll have to be tabled. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 57 of 94 Borup: Okay. Well, if you have a verbal -- I mean if you think you have got a verbal agreement with the irrigation district, you have got tomorrow and Monday to draw that on there, which is not a time consuming thing to draw that on there. Nickel: Right. I'd like to try to -- Zaremba: And the irrigation district, I think, in the past has given concept letters or something like that when they -- Borup: Well, they still -- you don't need the letter from the irrigation district ten days prior to, do you? You just want the plat showing how it would be, assuming they are going to approve it. Would that work? Or is that stretching it? Siddoway: I think it's stretching it. Borup: Okay. Centers: Mr. Wood mentioned that he could get a letter subject to his ownership and I think he intends to do that. Nickel: And that's basically what it said in your staff report, it was evidence, that not necessarily the agreement itself. Borup: Well, then, also, if they are not adjusting any lot lines or anything, other than that showing that encroachment, there is not a lot for staff to review in this situation, then, is there? Siddoway: If they are not what? Borup: If they are not making any other lot adjustments or -- other than this common lot for the -- Siddoway: No. We'd just have to recheck the lot sizes and -- it wouldn't very hard, no. Borup: The smallest lot is 8,400 feet right now. Siddoway: Along the south. Borup: Right. Right. That would be affected is what I meant. Siddoway: The question also exists for the ones on the west. Borup: Yes. Siddoway: And those are down to 75. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 58 of 94 Borup: Yeah. Those that could have a problem if they require more than what was verbally said. Nickel: And, Mr. Chairman, I wasn't going to bring this up, but -- I didn't want to confuse things, but when I was sitting back talking to the developer, he stated that our engineer told us that was actually a user ditch and might not have to have a common lot at all, it might just -- there might not even be an easement there. Borup: Didn't Nampa-Meridian state that on there or did they? Nickel: I didn't see it on there. Borup: Okay. That was just on the staff report, then. Nickel: So there is a good chance that there might not even be -- or they can put that on there, but stated it would be a user ditch, so it might not even require an easement there. So, if that's the case -- I do understand if we do have to put a common lot there, it's going to eat away at those 6,500 square foot lots. Borup: But you're saying if it's a user ditch, it can just be within an easement? Nickel: Right. I don't want to bring that back up again to confuse you. We will get that from the irrigation district. Borup: So, at this point what's your preference, the 20th or 26th? Nickel: We'd like the 20th and I think we could get something to staff. Borup: Even though -- Nickel: I will be busy tomorrow. Borup: Okay. Because if it doesn't make it to them, we may not be in a mood to put it on the 26th . Are you willing to take that chance? Nickel: Yes. Borup: Okay. Centers: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: I would like to move that we continue Items No. 10 and 11 to our March 20th meeting. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 59 of 94 Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second to continue to March 20th . All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Okay. We have got one final thing. Commissioners, are you ready to go ahead or do we need a break? About a five minute break? Okay. We will take a short break at this time. (Recess.) Item 12: Public Hearing: AZ 03-004 Request for annexation and zoning of 1.37 Acres from R-1 to L-O zones for Montvue Medical Clinic by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. – 360 East Montvue Drive: Borup: Okay. We'd like to reconvene the meeting. Any of you that are still discussing are welcome to do that out in the foyer. Okay. Public Hearing -- next item is Public Hearing AZ 03-004, a request for annexation and zoning of 1.37 acres from R-1 to L-O zones for Montvue Medical Clinic by Pinnacle Engineers at 360 East Montvue Drive. We'd like to open this Public Hearing and start with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The proposed annexation is for the 1.37 acre lot in the southeast corner of Montvue Subdivision, which does abut the St. Luke's Meridian Medical Center property, as well as the Touchmark property to the east. They would like to annex the next 1.36 acres to construct a medical office building. They are requesting L-O zoning, which does match the surrounding zoning, and also is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Here is a copy -- an aerial photo that is a couple years old. You can see that -- the first couple of phases of St. Luke's built. The most recent phase is not pictured here. This is the St. Luke's Drive. This is Montvue Drive and the subject lot. You can see the existing homes in Montvue Subdivision. I believe these are submitted as elevations of the type of building they intend to construct. Those photos are too small to see, so I'm going to skip them. And this is the proposed site plan. The site plan per se, is not up tonight for approval, but they have submitted it, as we do request with all our annexations or rezones, to show what the applicant intends to do with the property. The private road connection that's shown does run from St. Luke's private drive to south Montvue. That one piece of this is probably going to shape up to be the most significant issue of the application tonight. It has a long and proud history of debate over whether it should be public or private, some of which I will get into tonight and some of which I will save. The primary access to the medical office is intended to be off of St. Luke's Drive. It would not make much sense for this project to have its only access off of the existing access that Montvue has, which is clear up here near the intersection with Franklin Road, which is just barely off the map, and Eagle. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 60 of 94 Borup: I think that's an old plat. There is a frontage road now on those lots along -- is that correct? Those lots along Eagle have been eliminated and a frontage road is in there? It's still access off of Eagle. Siddoway: Okay. Yeah. It's still shown this way on the current Ada County assessor's data base. Zaremba: It twists down and enters someplace around here, right? Siddoway: Okay. So, the access still is off of Montvue. So, it may come off further from the intersection. I believe it's noted in here 300 and some feet -- 320 feet south of Franklin, about this point. I think it -- does it line up with this one across the street? Yeah. So, the access comes in, wraps north, and, then, back in. Obviously, it wouldn't make much sense for a doctor's office to go in at the far interior of the subdivision with that as its only access, thus the point being that they intend for their primary access to be from the St. Luke's side off of St. Luke's private drive. The applicant is involved in negotiations between the Montvue Homeowners Association and St. Luke's to allow for the new private road connection. Montvue is a public street, but St. Luke's Drive is a private road, so they have got to get permission from St. Luke's to connect to that street. The Comprehensive Plan does designate the property as commercial, as there was much discussion about during the Comp Plan hearings. The things that I would point out -- page three, item D, the second paragraph reiterates the one point of ingress and egress, 320 feet south of Franklin off of Eagle Road. That is Montvue Subdivision's only current access point. This proposed annexation would provide a secondary connection to Eagle Road via St. Luke's Drive. The traffic light currently exists at the intersection of St. Luke's Drive and Eagle Road. The ACHD report is referenced there. Pages three through six of their report details quite a bit of the private drive history. I actually have a staff report that goes even farther back in history from that, if those issues need to be discussed. I did research on this issue back when the St. Luke's CUP was coming through a few years ago. Item F on page four talks about a proposed private street connecting to the public street and noting that it will create additional vehicle trips into and out of the subdivision across the new private street. In the future it is intended that the -- there will be another connection -- let me go back to that -- to Touchmark. You can see the platted road line in here. It's currently not connected through Montvue to the road in Montvue Subdivision. However, this road is being constructed by Touchmark and stubbing to the property. Once that connection is made, it would allow for some cut-through traffic to go through to the light at Eagle Road. But it's also important to point out that that increase in traffic would not necessarily be a result of the proposed use, but just a function of the road layout itself. Under additional considerations on page six, the first one is the private road. The road driveway connecting the subdivision -- between the subdivision and the hospital is proposed as a private road and staff does not object to that. It's also proposed to have a sidewalk on one side, as opposed to two sides, and staff is fine with that as well. We would require that a cross-access agreement be recorded to allow vehicular traffic from the Montvue Subdivision to use that connection to get out to the light. And the last item there under conditional considerations is that access agreement. Currently, there is no agreement Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 61 of 94 between St. Luke's and Montvue to allow that access. There are ongoing negotiations, but as of February 25th and March 6th, there is currently not a signed agreement. Because it doesn't make sense to have this project without that access, we see that as a critical part and if you look at the recommendation on page seven it states that the staff does not feel comfortable with recommending approval if this access cannot be agreed upon. Without an agreement in place, the only access is the one off of Eagle Road. So the recommendation is to continue this Public Hearing until such an agreement has been signed by both parties, either St. Luke's and the Montvue Subdivision, or between St. Luke's and the applicant. That is our recommendation and I will stand for any questions. Centers: Mr. Chairman? What you're saying, Steve, is that this applicant -- and, of course, they will probably address it -- doesn't have a cross-access agreement with St. Luke's either? Siddoway: Not with St. Luke's, no. Centers: Which they would have to have -- Siddoway: And they are in negotiations for that. Centers: What? Siddoway: They are in negotiations for that, but it has not been finalized. Centers: Right. Because the good access, of course, is St. Luke's Drive to the private drive and no one would be cutting through Montvue if they had that right. Thank you. Borup: Any other questions from the Commissioners? Zaremba: But the upshot is that you would be connecting a public road, Montvue, with a public road Eagle, by using two private roads under separate ownership, is that -- Siddoway: Yeah. I'm not sure that's an up side, but that's what would happen, yes. Zaremba: Does ACHD even allow that, though? Siddoway: Yeah. The ACHD staff report recommends that the connection be made a private road. Zaremba: Okay. Centers: Well -- and to continue on, they don't necessarily push for the connection to Montvue; correct? I think I read that. Siddoway: I don't -- Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 62 of 94 Centers: Or the private drive to be connected to Montvue Drive. I think that's the name of it. Siddoway: It is. Centers: I mean they haven't pushed for that. Zaremba: But it should not be a through street, it should only access this one property. Centers: Yeah. And they have -- of course, the applicant will address this, too, I hope, that they are in favor of the private drive. Siddoway: Yeah. I think the residents of Montvue want to have access. Their main concern over the private drive, as I understand it -- not to presume to speak for them, but they want to make sure they have access and that's their main issue. Borup: But once this project goes in they would have access. My question would be, can St. Luke's restrict the use of that road in any way once it's built? Siddoway: That's what remains to be seen. That's why we recommend continuation until we can see that agreement. Borup: Okay. Do we have any other questions? Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Boyle: Planning Commission Members, Clint Boyle with Pinnacle Engineers, 12552 West Executive Drive in Boise. Tonight I'd like to, I guess, preface my remarks with the indication that we have reviewed the staff report with respect to the annexation and zoning request which is in front of you tonight for a Limited Office zone. Again, we are - - tonight we are in front of you to propose annexation and zoning only. In going through the staff report and looking at their findings, that this Commission reviews for the approval of an annexation request, those are listed as items A through L in your staff report, we believe that the project does comply with all of the required findings. I do want to clarify a couple of points here and, again, as Steve touched on, probably the issue that the neighbors here tonight are most interested in, and that's with regard to the development -- the future development of this piece property and, ultimately, yeah, what happens with traffic considerations around Montvue Subdivision. What I want to point out here is that there was a site plan submitted to the staff and this was through -- working with the staff they indicated that we would be -- that we would be required to submit that site plan in conjunction with the annexation and zoning request, thereby we constructed a site plan that gives a conceptual idea of how this development may be laid out. Now, with that said, there have been various discussions with ACHD, various discussions with the city staff, some discussions with neighbors as well within Montvue and the point that I want to clarify here is that with the development of this property in the future, that these developers are certainly not committed to installing a private Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 63 of 94 roadway, they are interested in working with the Montvue residents and want to have a project constructed here that will be beneficial to the Montvue residence that will also work for St. Luke's and all the parties involved. Now, with that said, there are quite a few neighbors here tonight and we have got the opportunity to talk about the project briefly with them here tonight and on several other occasions and I certainly understand their concerns. They have been working for an access to St. Luke's drive -- my understanding is for quite some years and the negotiations are very close, is my understanding, in coming to terms with St. Luke's and with all of the residents in Montvue to provide an access roadway out to St. Luke's Drive that would allow some relief from the residents of that subdivision to be able to get out onto Eagle Road. Now, with that said, I did want to clarify that the applicant -- here, again, what we are looking at tonight is strictly the annexation and zoning of the property. The site plan will go through a separate process for approvals. Again, we do intend to work with the neighbors and we will actually -- my understanding is that the purchasers of this particular property are looking to close on the property here very soon and they will also be a party with the neighbors in the discussions with St. Luke's for the roadway. I just bring that up, because I know the neighbors are concerned with a private drive extending through this project. I can understand that concern due to the extensive time that they have had to go through in their negotiations with St. Luke's to gain access to St. Luke's Drive. So, again, we are certainly in agreement with the neighbors in desiring an access to St. Luke's. Public road access would be certainly something that the developers here would support. Our discussions with ACHD have been that ACHD would not necessarily support a public road connection from Montvue and the discussion, as one of the Commissioners indicated, was that, then, there would be a link from a public road, being Eagle Road, onto the roads within Touchmark, which are public roads. They would be linked by a private road. Now, as an interesting side note to that, though, the Touchmark development currently has a public road system that enters off of Franklin Road. That private road system ends in a cul-de-sac and off of that cul-de-sac there is actually a private roadway that ties into St. Luke's Drive. So, if I'm on Franklin Road, I can gain access to Eagle Road coming through Touchmark and extending. So public road, linked by a private road, out to another public road. So, ACHD has certainly allowed that access in the past. And in this instance, again, ACHD's comments were strictly geared towards the annexation and zoning of the property, which is, again, why we are here tonight. This annexation and zoning request is in compliance with the land use map of the Comprehensive Plan, it's how the city envisions this area to transition into a commercial and/or office area and I believe that the Montvue residence -- and they can correct me if I'm wrong -- also envision this area to transition into a commercial area eventually. And so we are coming in compliance with those goals of the city to transition this. Now, the discussion tonight -- again, staff is -- my understanding Meridian staff is supportive of the annexation and rezoning. We don't believe that the city should necessarily become involved in the private agreement between the Montvue residents and St. Luke's Hospital. What happens -- what is the detriment to the city if this property is annexed and rezoned and access agreements cannot be formalized for whatever reason, again, you would have a piece of property that was within city limits, had a Limited Office zoning on it -- from a marketing standpoint, it does have street frontage on Montvue. The question was, you know, Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 64 of 94 traffic may eventually have to come through Montvue. Realistically speaking, that project probably wouldn't go forward until the Touchmark connection entered Montvue, which would be here. I mean there are various options for connection to allow this property to develop in a way that wouldn't be adverse to the neighborhood. Again, other options would be in the future, as this neighborhood transitions into commercial, then, you know, obviously, the considerations for traffic and trips through the neighborhood would become more beneficial to developing that piece. But, again, tonight, as far as the traffic considerations, ACHD has reviewed the annexation and zoning request, they have approved the annexation and rezoning of the property, we, again, are in front of you to also request your recommendation of approval on the annexation and zoning. The site plan -- the area is proposed to be developed as a medical office. We have provided a site plan at the staff's request that demonstrated the layout of the facility. The roadway, again, is an issue that will be resolved among the parties involved, which would be the Montvue residents and St. Luke's Drive, but, again, it is a private agreement that is not necessarily a finding that we believe that the city should be involved in reviewing an annexation and rezoning request only. With that said, I believe that that is somewhat the main issue tonight. I'll stand for any questions. We also have Joanne Butler here that would like to address the private road as well, as soon as I wrap up my comments. Thank you. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Mr. Boyle, on -- would your -- is it your understanding, then, if this property is annexed and zoned, that it would be able to get a building permit without any other public hearings? Boyle: The request tonight, again, is for the annexation and zoning. As far as the interim process, again, we are -- we would be under the understanding that the process that we would have to go through from our discussions with staff would be the zoning certificate process. So, again, that's -- Borup: That would not be a Public Hearing. Boyle: Correct. Correct. So, again, what we are requesting tonight is something that the city envisioned, they envisioned this area to transition into commercial, and we believe that the findings outlined in your requirements for the facts of approval for an annexation are appropriate. And let me just preface that as well, as far as the hearing on this. The development agreement is mentioned in the staff report. We are not adverse to entering into a development agreement, we just do not feel that it's appropriate to have the private agreement related to the access issue that's being worked out among the Montvue residents and St. Luke's -- we don't believe that that is an appropriate item to place in that development agreement. In other words, if this Commission saw fit that the development agreement should contain language related to the development of the property, restrictions that it be limited to medical office, the size that we have proposed, et cetera, we are not adverse to those type of conditions, we just feel that the private road, again, is not a request that we are necessarily -- Borup: Right. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 65 of 94 Boyle: -- supporting at this time. Borup: I think we understand that, but you're saying if -- if an agreement is not worked out on a private road and this property would want to be developed as a Limited Office, the access would be through Montvue Drive; is that correct? Boyle: Potentially. And Joanne's indicating that she'd like to address that. Borup: I think that would be good -- Boyle: For clarification. Borup: Any other questions? Centers: Mr. Chairman. Yes. I tend to agree with you, Mr. Boyle, and thanks for -- you know, seeing the forest for the trees. We are just talking about annexation and zoning. However -- and -- so you don't agree with number three, item number three, you don't agree with all that verbiage. I don't necessarily agree. But would you -- would you agree to development agreement also stating that access shall not be available through Montvue Subdivision? And, then, you can work on your agreements with St. Luke's, just like everybody else? Boyle: Joanne would like to address that as well, so I will -- Centers: Because, personally, I wouldn't have a problem with it, as long as you didn't enter through Montvue Subdivision, even though I know that -- I recognize a number of faces out there -- they wanted that stamped as commercial on the Comprehensive Plan. They didn't want L-O. We gave them commercial at their request and said, okay, you want it, so be it. We wanted to go with L-O on the Comp Plan. But I don't think it's fair to have a business access through a residential neighborhood. They are still using it for residential use. Anyway, let's -- Borup: Okay. Unless there is any other questions for Mr. Boyle, Joanne Butler will discuss the road -- private road issue, but is there anything else? Okay. Thank you. Boyle: Thank you. Butler: Commissioners, Joanne Butler, 251 East Front Street representing the applicant. And, Commissioner Borup, don't let fail to answer the question that you raised. I did want to address the road issues, because some of these are legal issues on access and just to make some clarifications -- and forgive us for being a little redundant. We have not -- we wanted to convey our message also not only to the Commissioners who are making the decision for recommendation tonight, but also to our neighbors, because there has been -- this issue has been bandied about a lot and we want to be very clear about it. What we really want to do here is separate the public Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 66 of 94 from the private issues. This is a request for annexation and rezone. We are asking you to make a recommendation to the City Council for that annexation and rezone. As staff has pointed out, we meet each and every one of the conditions of Meridian's code for both annexation and rezone. It is a very straight forward request in that regard. We front onto a public road. That's Montvue. The number of trips per day that would come onto Montvue are -- in no way bridge the capacity of the road. It is, again, a public road. We do know it does go through a -- what is presently used in part as a subdivision, a residential subdivision, by folks that have pressured successfully this city and the county to adopt a comprehensive plan that indicates that this will transition to commercial and office and so what we are asking for is in accord with the Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the wishes of this neighborhood group that you have been working with for many years, as I understand it. Commissioner Centers is correct, we agreed with the staff report, except for number three and number four. We do not agree -- and we have had conversations with the city attorney to this extent. With regard to a development agreement, we are willing to abide by your development agreement that says that we will make a written commitment concerning the use of the subject property and we will tell the city very directly, we will use this as an office building. We only showed the road on this plat -- on this piece of paper, because staff asked us to. This was pie in the sky. This was not this is where we have to have the road. We are not asking for that. We understand that the neighbors in Montvue and St. Luke's have been working together diligently to provide access, possibly -- only possibly, as we understand it, to this group. That may not even happen. And I think the neighbors can address that for you as well. If this road -- if there is not a private road here and that doesn't happen -- if St. Luke's and the neighbors -- and we will step into the neighbor's shoes, because we are about to close on this property and we signed closing documents today on our side and the other side is signing next week, then, we will be stepping into the shoes of the neighbors and we will be asking, along with them, to -- that there is a connection. But we don't presume that that's going to happen. But we do front onto a public street. And so, again, we take access onto Montvue, we comply with the conditions of ACHD and this city, and we are asking for you to grant that. You're going to hear from many tonight of the neighbors, maybe all of them, that if anything goes through here between Montvue and St. Luke's, they would like to see it as a public road. From our perspective, public-private -- we don't even know that the connection is going to be anywhere near this piece of property. It's going to be somewhere in the area. We have told the neighbors, through their attorney, that we will work with them in whatever way that comes about in the future. But, again, that's private between us, them, and St. Luke's. As we talked about with the city attorney today, it's not appropriate for the city to do anything other than make the public decisions that it's being requested to make. It may be that St. Luke's and the neighbors never reach agreement out there. We do know -- and I think the neighbors will tell you tonight that they are likely to be signing an agreement with weekend. I'll ask you, how many years have you been working in connection with Montvue and this area? So, we are asking the city just to make the public decisions and leave those private decisions to others. So, I think -- oh, Commissioner Borup, to answer your question. Your question was. If we annex and zone and give you this -- develop this office with a building permit without a Public Hearing, that would be correct. We could. But we could Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 67 of 94 never do the private road without a Public Hearing. So, if we went in there and developed an office building and took our frontage onto Montvue, which is a possibility, that's what would happen, but -- Borup: That's the concern. Butler: Well, but -- on Montvue, right. But if there were a public road -- a private road, we would have to come back before this Commission. If this Commission is saying that people can't take access onto a public road, if they comply with the Comprehensive Plan and they comply with all the zoning ordinance, I would very much question that and I don't think that's what the Commission is meaning to say. I appreciate that this is an area of transition, but it's an area of transition that the neighbors have asked for and the city has sanctioned. It starts somewhere. Borup: But would the applicant be comfortable if this was annexed as a conditional use? I was just throwing that out there. Butler: I would have to ask Commission Borup to help me a little bit to understand what is meant by that. I would -- Borup: That it could not be developed without having a Public Hearing for a Conditional Use Permit, even though it has the zoning. Butler: That would be tantamount be giving away the right to build -- possibly to build an office building, because by doing it -- well, let's think this through. A conditional use under the zoning ordinance is a use that is allowed, but, for some reason, the Commission has -- would deem an office use to somehow impact the area. Well, you have already decided that this should be office. In fact, I think it sounds like we are carrying out what the Commission would rather have seen, which was L-O versus commercial. So, I'm not sure I'm following why a conditional use. I can see your idea of wanting -- Borup: Because of the site design. Butler: But is it the use or the private road? Borup: It's the private road, in my mind. Butler: And so that's why I'm saying -- and I think that's -- Borup: But they go together. I don't know how you would separate them. Butler: We are not doing the private road. And if we did do a -- if we ever proposed a private road, we would have to come back for a Public Hearing. Borup: So you're asking us to consider this as the only access, that of Montvue? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 68 of 94 Butler: Correct. And the others are all -- Borup: Then, what this Commission needs to do is have the input from the neighbors, probably, to make that -- Centers: Mr. Chairman? Your comment, Ms. Butler, on -- we have a public road and we should grant -- access is demanded. Maybe not the correct word, but -- that's not in the city. It's not a city public road. Butler: No. Centers: It's a county public road. You would be the only city property serviced by county public roads and asking the residents to allow it. I understand where you're coming from. You make a very good point. You make a very good point. But, in effect, it's not the city's public roads to allow it. Butler: Commissioner Centers, it is -- this is -- it's a county wide highway. It serves all the city, it serves the county, it is a county wide public road. I don't know exactly what the neighbors are going to say. This is an office building, something that they have been promoting in this area. Centers: I agree. Butler: And so I realize this is the first annexation and zoning of this area after many years. You know, ACHD has clearly indicated by its review, if this is an office building that clearly the roads can handle the capacity and so on. I think you're going to hear from some of the neighbors that -- and as you heard from Mr. Boyle, there are connections coming to Montvue as we speak from Touchmark and, presumably, we do hope that there will eventually be access to the St. Luke's Drive, we just can't count on that. So, I think, yes, you do need to take the testimony of the neighbors, but also look at the expert testimony of Ada County Highway District, your traffic engineer that is telling you what the impact on the roads would be. And if there are no more questions, I will -- Rohm: I have a question. Borup: Go ahead. Rohm: Mr. Chairman. I wasn't on the Commission when St. Luke's went in and I'm still curious why there is a private road there in the first place. Why was it not built as a public road -- don't go there? I mean I was -- Borup: That was before my time, too. Rohm: Well -- Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 69 of 94 Butler: And, I'm sorry, I can't go there either, so I don't know. Rohm: Well, it just seems like -- well, it just seems like that would have been a more appropriate road in the first place, but -- Borup: It may have been. But, either way, that's passed and I don't know if we can do anything about it. Rohm: All right. Borup: But that's a good question. Rohm: Okay. Borup: I don't know if we want to go there or not, either, because we have no control over that in any way, so -- Butler: But just to -- and I will reserve a couple of minutes for rebuttal, but we -- as we talked about it with the city attorney, we are more than -- more than happy to do a develop agreement with the city that commits to the use, so that the city is clear that that use would go in and that we would -- if, for some reason, anybody was ever asking for a private road that involved this property, we would, obviously, have to come back for a Public Hearing, because, as staff has told me, that requires a Public Hearing. So I think that would address, Commissioner Borup, your issue, instead of having to call it a conditional use, you would get practically the same result. But, believe me, we are not - - we are just waiting on that. Borup: Okay. Butler: Thank you. Borup: Were there any other questions? Okay. Centers: Mr. Chairman, I would ask -- I would appreciate if we had one spokesman for everyone that signed up, but -- was that the plan? Borup: There was two signed up, but I did want to mention that, too. This -- we are ready to hear some input from the neighbors. But, as has been pointed out, the application before us is annexation and zoning. But it's also been pointed out the city's always requested a conceptual site plan, at least, to know how that property is envisioned to be used. In my mind, I think it's hard to separate them. In some situations I don't think it is. In other situation it is. They go hand in hand. I think this is one of them that does. So, I think we would be interested -- we don't want to have a lot of repetition and hear the same things over and I think we will control that accordingly, Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 70 of 94 but we would be interested in testimony at this time. Who would like to come forward first? Griffith: Trishia Griffith, 3295 North Montvue. And I knew when you guys seen Montvue on there, I knew you guys would shutter. Especially staff. Borup: No. We have been waiting for something to happen here for years. Griffith: Oh. Well, we thought we were going to get things taken care of. I would like to see this just postponed for awhile until we do get our agreement. We are very close coming to terms and we have worked long and hard on it with St. Luke's. If we did go back to the public road issue on that, that would probably take a week to sit down with us and go over everything, so we -- yes, we prefer not to do that. But right now I know these developers are interested in buying their property, but it hasn't been closed yet and, you know, as residents and with St. Luke's and Touchmark, I feel it's really important that we do try to get something worked out, so maybe a lot things could be abbreviated in the future. So, basically, what I'm hoping is that you guys would just, please, postpone this for awhile, because I think it's a little bit premature, and let us try to get some of these road issues and stuff worked out amongst ourselves and, then, come back and, hopefully, we have everything worked out by then. Borup: Okay. Any questions? Zaremba: Can you, for me, hit some of the high points of your discussion with St. Luke's about coming to an agreement? Borup: And maybe where the hang-ups are. Zaremba: Yeah. What's the problem? Griffith: We were close, but my mom was terminally ill and she passed away last week and so we had to postpone for several weeks. Zaremba: Sorry to hear that. Griffith: And since I'm the main person involved in this and working with the attorneys and working with St. Luke's, I could not concentrate on this kind of stuff and it was -- has nothing to do with the developers or St. Luke's or the residents or anybody, it's just because I had a personal situation and I chose to be with my mom until the last minute, so -- Borup: The location of the private -- the road that's proposed here, is that something that -- Centers: Is it just going to be in this area? Anyplace in this area? Is that what you're looking at? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 71 of 94 Griffith: Well, you know, I'm not really sure how much terms I could -- Centers: Okay. Griffith: -- release to you guys with this agreement yet, because we have a lot of conditions. The residents and St. Luke's have both given up quite a bit to come to terms and -- Borup: See -- and that's where I'm confused. I don't see why either party needs to give up that much. I don't understand why there is such controversy on this. Especially if this project went through, that private, they are going to build it. There is nothing that either party has to do, other than agree. Centers: Give up some land from -- Borup: They're not. Centers: I think that's the big thing. Borup: No, it isn't. This project right here takes care of the -- takes care of the road. Zaremba: The only issue that I could see on the St. Luke's part is -- Borup: They are just going to -- Zaremba: -- it would add additional traffic, their maintenance cost goes up a little bit, or they have to resurface it every four years, instead of every five years or something like that. Borup: Well -- but they are interested in a doctor's office right next to their hospital. Zaremba: Sure. Griffith: Right. And it took us over a year to go through mediation on this and we covered every little aspect that we think we could agree on the terms and that and so, you know, I think it would be best if we just postponed it for a little bit, so we can try to get some of this covered and then -- Borup: See, I'm still back to my question. I don't see how there can be that many areas that are in disagreement, unless someone's not being reasonable. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Yes, please. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 72 of 94 Siddoway: If I can make just an interjection. It is a -- I would just recommend leaving that agreement between the homeowners and St. Luke's. There is, obviously, some points of contention, they may not be able to talk about it, it is important and I think that we need to let it come to some resolution on the private side before making the public decisions, but I don't know that I would push for too many details here until it -- and just let them be worked out amongst private parties. Griffith: Now, we are meeting Saturday, so, you know, if you could just give us a little bit more time, then, a lot this stuff may be resolved. Borup: Now, are you opposed to having access come through Montvue Drive? Griffith: We want a public access to St. Luke's Drive. Borup: No. I mean -- my question was are you opposed if the access to this property was through the existing public streets? Griffith: One thing I can say with the agreement, it's stated that the parties will agree where the road is going to go and that has not been discussed yet. Borup: Right. But that wasn't my question. My question was are you opposed to this property being annexed if the only access was through the existing public roads through Montvue? Griffith: No. I know that our subdivision is going to develop. That's what we are planning on. You know, trying to correct all these things for the future, we know that we are not going to be around and we see that it will develop into some kind of commercial office or whatever space. That's been our goal for quite awhile. It's just been a matter of trying to get access to -- Centers: So, as a follow-up to that question -- and I was going to ask the same one. Knowing that it's office -- doctor office type space, I'm sure that would be the use, and limited traffic. The homeowners would not necessarily object or have a big objection to them coming through their sub for access? Griffith: Well, if that's the only access they have, then, they have no choice to do that. Centers: Okay. Borup: Okay. Anything else, Ms. Griffith? Zaremba: I think the thrust of the question is -- we have had other homeowners associations come to us objecting to have any commercial activity, including child care, in their subdivision and this is buried deep in your subdivision. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 73 of 94 Centers: Excuse me. You don't know the history of this subdivision. They want commercial. They want commercial. Zaremba: So this would be the first step of transition. Griffith: Right. Right. You know, if it was like 50 years ago, it would be different, but now, as much as things are developing around us, you know, it's -- you know where it's headed to. Anybody could see that now. But 50 years ago we wouldn't have seen it. Or even ten years, I guess. I don't need to go back that far. Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else that would like to add some new light on this? Come forward. Kerns: Forrest Kerns. I live at 230 West Montvue Drive. Just a brief history for you. When St. Luke's went in, ACHD did want a public road. We backed St. Luke's. We shouldn't have. We do want a public access to connect with St. Luke's. We are at a point of agreement with them. Part of the problem is where St. Luke's wants the access to come through is exactly where they put -- where they are showing a private road. In other words, they want it to come through -- if you could switch to that -- the aerial. They want it to come through at their third row, which just barely shows right there. They want it in line with that. Borup: Which is, essentially, where this -- Kerns: Which is, essentially, where they want to put a private road, we would prefer to see it public up to St. Luke's. Touchmark's road is built to the property line now. In fact, there is a little road that we can get through there occasionally. Rohm: Is that here? Kerns: Yeah. And there is a little bit of road that we can drive through and connect onto ours. So we don't get a lot of traffic through there, but some of us can get out that way. Those lots do exist on the outside. They are owned by this -- this lady represents the people over there that own them along Eagle. So those are there. The other question I had is -- I was told by one of my neighbors that on their conceptual plan they said they were abandoning the ditches. Now, my ditch that irrigates my property -- if you will excuse me a minute. Borup: Well, maybe to clarify that, they would not be able to abandon the ditches at this point. Kerns: My ditch runs here, here, here, here and, then, down into these. So, it crosses right across this property. So, that was an issue. Borup: They would be required to still have the same water delivery. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 74 of 94 Kerns: Okay. Well, that's what I thought, but I just wanted to make a note of it. Borup: They may be moving them or relocating them or something. Kerns: But, other than that, the road is the main issue and that is -- at the last point that I heard that was where St. Luke's wanted the road to be, even though we would have liked it a little closer to Eagle, so if there are no questions, I will sit down and let someone else talk. Borup: It sounds like your point was the location of the road as proposed on their site plan would be acceptable, other than you would like to see a public road, rather than private? Kerns: Yes. And someone had to give up property for the road being the way for it to be public and that was probably where it was being considered. Borup: Now, this road that's being -- is that splitting the property line? I guess you're the wrong person to ask that. Kerns: Sort of and sort of not. No, I'm not, really, the wrong person to ask, because I'm a licensed surveyor, I just happen to live in the subdivision and I know where most of the property pins in the subdivision are, so -- it does -- sort of splits onto the other lot and sort of not. It could be built either way. So, if it went just directly across this lot, it would be -- actually, probably be fine. It would align close enough that -- Borup: Is this -- Steve, is that the property line? Is that your understanding? This line right here? Kerns: A little bit -- I think the property line is a little farther to the west there. I think it's over on their -- right in there. Where my ditch line comes down through. So, it's -- but the main consideration with St. Luke's was that it lined up with their emergency exit over there. In other words, my feeling was they wanted to be able to use the road, too. If they couldn't get out their street, they wanted to go out the other way, so -- but it doesn't have to line up exactly, from an engineering standpoint or a survey standpoint. It would close enough. And I think that that's reasonably close to their access. Borup: Thank you. Centers: Mr. Kerns, what would you say about this comment. I'll read it to you. A lot of times I don't read the full ACHD reports, because they get redundant and they are pretty repetitive on the subdivisions there, but I'll read this: St. Luke's advised district staff, the ACHD, and the ACHD commission, that St. Luke's would allow access to their driveway from Montvue Subdivision for residential uses only and would provide up to 100,000 to construct a connection. The residents of Montvue Sub declined this offer and attempted convince both the City of Meridian and ACHD to require St. Luke's to allow unrestricted access to the driveway. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 75 of 94 Kerns: And that's basically what happened and since that point we have come to terms fairly close with St. Luke's. They have returned back to the point of providing 100,000 to help build the road, to last my knowledge, and we have said, okay, we will go for limited access, but it's not just for -- it's my understanding it's not just for residential, it's for future commercial, too. Centers: Yeah. And I can understand that and -- but let's cut through to the chase here. I think the reason you want this delayed is because this property sits right in the area where you want the road to go through. Kerns: I don't really care if it's delayed or not, as long as it's -- that there is -- as long as it's understood that with -- I mean I don't want to have to fight with the new owners about where -- about an easement across that piece of property, you know, when we have already about got it settled. Centers: And you feel as Mrs. Griffith feels, that if they come through the subdivision to go to the doctor at this building -- Kerns: It doesn't bother me a bit. Centers: So I don't know what we are talking about here. Kerns: Okay. Borup: Mrs. Griffith, let's see if there is anyone else that wants to come forward first. No one else, then? Okay. Griffith: Trishia Griffith. One thing I forgot to mention is that the staff report -- or I mean the report from ACHD, we did not have an opportunity to comment. We weren't told of a hearing. I don't think St. Luke's was privy to it. I don't know if Touchmark was either. Touchmark apparently was not privy to ACHD comments. So I would like all of us to go back and talk to ACHD and see if we can get this worked out with them, too. They didn't give us any kind of notice, apparently. I don't know if they had a hearing or not. Borup: Yes, they did. February 19th. Griffith: And nobody was notified of it. Apparently, they didn't have a hearing. So I think -- you know, I think they should have a hearing on something like this. At least to get comments from our neighborhood, from St. Luke's, and from Touchmark, too. Centers: I don't know for sure, I'm just guessing, but annexation and zoning only may not require it. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 76 of 94 Borup: Yeah. Maybe I read this wrong. It said it was heard. It didn't say a Public Hearing, but it may have been heard from staff to the commission, but it was heard before the commission. Centers: Because you don't have a specified use, it was just conceptual, to generate traffic and that's what they usually look at, the traffic generation. So, I don't know, I'm guessing. Maybe Steve knows. Griffith: I just wanted to let you know that we didn't have a chance to comment. Borup: Okay. Griffith: Thanks. Bensinger: Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission, my name is Ron Bensinger, I reside at 3250 North Montvue. I think you can see it form the representation of our neighborhood here. This is an issue that we are all very anxious about. We have watched our property values decline and decline and decline. This very issue is proof of the fact that our property is going to sell for commercial for more than it is as residential. And access to our property -- good commercial access to our property has been a real issue for us. Borup: You say your property has declined? Bensinger: That's correct. Tax assessments have declined as residential value. Borup: And sales in the subdivision have reflected that? Bensinger: Yes. Borup: In the last two years? Bensinger: That's documented. Yes. Borup: Okay. Bensinger: But we just -- we -- I, myself, would like to ask the wisdom of this Commission just to not lock us into more private roads and limit our options, you know, especially when we worked so hard for this agreement with St. Luke's. If you could just consider that, that's all I want to say. Borup: How about if that road was a public road? Bensinger: We would all -- I can't speak for the whole -- for everybody, but I personally -- we all want a public connection to the St. Luke's road and I don't think anybody has any real problem with where that occurs along that road. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 77 of 94 Borup: Okay. Thank you. I'm assuming that was -- concludes the public comments? Does the applicant have final comments? Butler: Thank you. Just briefly, I do have a copy of the Ada County Highway District notice provisions and I think that my understanding is what took place at ACHD is it was placed on the consent agenda, as they typically do when it's just annexation and zoning, and it wasn't taken off the consent agenda. I know that there were some neighbors at that meeting and that's just the typical annexation and zoning procedure of ACHD, to place it on the consent agenda, unless a particular commissioner takes it off just for that. I think that's -- as you can hear from the neighbors, it's very clear that they are in the midst of a very private agreement, so much so that they can't share it with this Commission or anybody else here, and so all we are asking is in the light of public to address us in this public request, acknowledging that we meet all of the conditions of your ordinances and your Comprehensive Plan -- you have taken testimony where the neighbors have clearly said that this particular public road, if no connection ever goes in over in this area, that they are not opposed to that access. Clearly, it's up before you for this public request and we can't imagine the city delaying its recommendation because somebody is waiting on a separate private agreement that has not been with a request before you and I do realize that we just respectfully disagree with staff on that on their position on delaying any recommendation. Even if you deny us -- we are asking you for your recommendation. If you do deny us, though, tonight, we are asking you to be very clear to tell us why we don't meet your ordinances or requirements as we go to the Council. And if I can answer any questions, we appreciate the deliberations of the Commission. Borup: Questions from any Commissioners? Butler: Oh, I'm sorry, Commission Borup, just one -- I just wanted to clarify something that somebody said about the location on this. I told you earlier that this private road that we showed in here was just merely because staff had asked us to show something. We -- our understanding is that St. Luke's and the neighbors, if there were a connection right in this general vicinity, they would like us to line up with their driveway to their property. That makes perfect sense to us. The reason we could never show something like that, even if we chose to, is because that would take into consideration somebody else's property, which is not our property, which is why you see what you see there. But even so, again, that's another reason why this road shown there is just pie in the sky and it shouldn't even be considered, because it just has no basis in reality. And so we will commit to that development agreement as to use, but we will not commit to any private agreement with roads. Borup: I thought I asked that four times and you didn't want to come up then. Come on up now. Come on up. And I do have a question for either you or one of the neighbors, so you may be able to answer that. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 78 of 94 Holst: As you already know, this has been in controversy for some time. Wesley Holst, 385 Montvue Drive. We are -- we asked for this to be a commercial zoning and here it's before you to be changed to I-O. So we are still wanting it to be commercial and -- Borup: The commercial designation was on the Comp Plan. Holst: Yes. Borup: And it can change. Holst: Okay. Borup: Is that correct? One step either way? Holst: Sure. Siddoway: Well, the one step is -- Mr. Chairman, is for the residential, but office zoning in a commercially designated area of the Comprehensive Plan, are in compliance with that designation. Borup: Right. But – yes. Go ahead, sir. Holst: But that's what we asked for and that's what we still feel that it should be. Borup: So you're not visualizing medical office buildings there, then? Next to a hospital? Holst: No. Borup: You'd rather see a -- Holst: A commercial -- Borup: -- Wal-Mart or something? Holst: No, Not a Wal-Mart. There are agreements of such and there are agreements that we are very near making this agreement to come to fruition. It's just the fact that it has not been signed and they jumped ahead and tried to -- and we haven't got the agreements yet and until we do, their project is not going to work either, because they need entry into -- into St. Luke's private driveway. So, it's important we get this agreement first and I have said this to the developers, that we need to hold off on this and that's what we are asking for is to hold off for this rezone until we get the agreements and, then, we can all work together on it. But right now we feel they are working against us. Borup: The developer? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 79 of 94 Holst: The developer. Borup: Of this project? Holst: Yes. Because we just don't trust their -- the way that they have gone about this and so that's why we want you to delay this, so that we do get our agreements and, then, they can come before you and we will come before you in a unified development and as a Montvue Drive, if we are all together on it, but right now we are not together on it with them. Borup: And, Mr. Holst, that brings up my question. Is if this project was approved, do you feel that it would jeopardize your agreement with St. Luke's? Do you feel that that would be a possibility of that not being approved, because this wasn't annexed? Holst: That's what I fear. Borup: Okay. Holst: I would like to delay it, so -- Borup: Is there any reason that -- any reason you fear that? I mean has St. Luke's said anything that might indicate that or -- Holst: No. St. Luke's -- we are working very well with St. Luke's. Borup: Okay. That's what I mean. If this project was approved, is there a concern that St. Luke's would not continue with the agreement that they are working with you on? Holst: I don't know for sure, because I can't speak for St. Luke's. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: If I can ask the question a different way, maybe, just for my own understanding. If you had this agreement with St. Luke's -- if Montvue homeowners association had this agreement with St. Luke's in hand, already done and signed by everybody, how would that change your relationship with this development -- with this annexation request? Holst: Because, then, we can make a -- work with these folks. But right now we don't have an agreement to work with them. Borup: Work with them how? Holst: Where the -- Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 80 of 94 Borup: Share the -- share the building of the public road? Holst: What we have always been trying to get is the right for entry and not for a placement of where the entry is going to be. The developer would make that decision when the time came. And so that's -- so that's all we want with St. Luke's is a right of entry and -- Borup: Anywhere? Holst: And we feel that if this project goes through, if the zoning is changed or if the development occurs, then, we are jeopardizing our right. Zaremba: Well, to exercise that right you're going to have to buy the strip of property from somebody, either one of the homeowners or this new -- I mean how -- how are you going to provide the space that the roadway has to go on? Holst: That will be brought back to the zoning of this committee at that time. Zaremba: Probably not us. ACHD, maybe, but you would have to replat somebody's lot to leave a space for the road, right? Borup: Or a larger development that would encompass several lots and the road would be built at that time. Holst: All we are asking for at this time is just postpone it. Zaremba: And I'm trying to see what you gain by postponing it. If at some point you're going to have to buy a piece of property to build a road on anyhow, you could approach these people and say here is what we have to buy the strip that we want. Centers: Mr. Chairman, I think what I read here is that -- depending on the development of Montvue Subdivision as a commercial development, you would like to have that developer be able to choose where the access would go. Holst: That's correct Centers: I thought so. And -- Borup: And guarantee that there can be access? I mean that's what the agreement -- Centers: Yeah. But that's none of our business, in my opinion. That's yours. Zaremba: Well -- and that's potentially very far in the future. Centers: That's right. It could be tomorrow, it could be ten years, and that's not our business, you know, that's yours as the Montvue homeowners. But we have an Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 81 of 94 application before us that meets all the guidelines, you have said that you don't mind them entering your sub, but you just want it delayed, so that your negotiations can continue. I don't think it's our business, personally. Borup: I realize hindsight is much better, but when that private road first went in the subdivision supported a private road. Centers: Well -- and the other point that I was going to make, you have been working with St. Luke's for -- correct me if I'm wrong -- a minimum of four years. More like five? Yeah. And, then, you know, how much time do you need? You said St. Luke's is very easy to get along with and -- well, I thought I heard you say that. Holst: I didn't say that. They have been very hard to get along with. Centers: I won't argue with you. Anyway, thank you. Borup: Well, I might -- maybe just a quick question from Mrs. Griffith. That was the same thing. Do you feel like your agreement with St. Luke's is in jeopardy if this is approved? Griffith: I can't answer that, but I hope not. I hope things -- Borup: Is there any reason it should be? Griffith: I can't think of anything right off. Borup: I mean they haven't indicated any -- St. Luke's has not been tying anything else into what your discussions with them have been? They haven't brought anything else into the mix? Griffith: No. We will know Saturday when we meet. Mathes: I have a question. If they buy the property, don't they -- aren't they involved in the negotiations, then, because they are part of the subdivision, then, if they buy the property. Griffith: They haven't closed yet. They haven't closed on it yet, so they are not the owners yet. Mathes: I thought it was signed. Griffith: One side. Their side, but the other side hasn't. Mathes: Okay. Griffith: So they are not the owners yet. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 82 of 94 Mathes: Right. But as soon as they are owners they can get in on the negotiations. Griffith: Right. Right. Yeah. That's -- you know, that's just amongst the property owners, we are negotiating with St. Luke's. Borup: Thank you. Did you have some pertinent information, sir? Holt: Chairman Borup, my name is Jim Holt, I'm the director of architecture and construction for St. Luke's. Borup: Okay. Holt: I was hoping to sit in the back row and be silent tonight, but maybe I can help a little. Borup: Good. We appreciate it. Holt: We would like to respect the process we are engaged in with our friends and neighbors in Montvue. We are very optimistic. We are very close to coming to terms, hopefully, here in a matter of a few days. However, if I might try and answer your question, I don't believe that a decision on this application tonight has any bearing on our negotiations and would affect anything we are trying to do here. Her other statement tonight, there is a difference between the public process and this piece of private property you have to deal with tonight and our private negotiations, our issues, so I -- again, if that helps -- Borup: It helps me an awful lot. Holt: Any impact on what happens tonight, our negotiations will continue to go forward, and I believe that's independent of how you may choose to act on this application. Borup: That's exactly the answer -- I mean that's exactly what I wanted to -- Zaremba: I appreciate that piece of information very much. Borup: Any other questions while he's up here? Holt: Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Since we have had some additional public testimony, do the applicants have anything else they want to -- Freckleton: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Yes. Anything else from staff? Yes, it looks like there is. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 83 of 94 Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I have got to vent a little bit of frustration here. I'm going to throw a few things out here on the table for you to mull over. When the application -- excuse me. Prior to the application when Mr. Boyle came into our office and we had a pre-application meeting, the item -- the issue of the private road was presented to us. It was part of the plan. The application -- the formal application was filed. Mr. Boyle's narrative in his application -- here is a paragraph: A private roadway is proposed near the west boundary of the site. The roadway is proposed as a 29-foot street section with sidewalk along the east side only. Sidewalk is not proposed on the west side in order to preserve a buffer of existing conifer trees. The sidewalk will tie into the pathway along the north side of St. Luke's Drive. Further, the sidewalk on only one side of the private roadway is similar to the street section of St. Luke's Drive, which, as a path -- which has a pathway on the north side only. Parking will not be allowed on either side of the private roadway. My point here is that this was presented to us as this is an integral part of this application. It was never ever presented to us as conceptual. Tonight is the first that your staff has learned that that this is -- this road is a moving target. I would guess that ACHD, more than likely, has the same type of application before them. I can't help but think that their decision might have been different had they known the traffic, potentially, would not be using St. Luke's Drive and that all traffic would funnel through the existing residential roadways to Eagle Road, to an already very congested access point onto Eagle Road. So I just wanted to make those points and let you kick it around. Siddoway: Along the same vein, Mr. Chairman, if I might. The applicant has pointed out that we have made the findings in -- that they -- that the application meets those findings, but, again, those findings were all made based on the assumption of that road and they may be different with that removed. If you -- if we -- if the road -- if we take the site plan out of the picture and we just say should we annex this property with the only access being what is described in the staff report as a difficult access off of Eagle Road, that's not easily accessible to vehicles traveling south due to the high number of vehicles stacked up at the Franklin and Eagle intersection and, additionally, is difficult to make a left-hand turn out of the subdivision onto Eagle Road, I don't know that we would be able to make all those findings. The findings that we made were based on the assumption that that connection was a part of the application and I'm not sure that it makes sense to annex that property with the current access. Centers: Mr. Chairman, I think the applicant would like to respond. Borup: I'm sorry. I was -- thank you. Boyle: Thank you, Chairman Borup and Commissioners. Clint Boyle again. In response to that, your -- Bruce is correct, there was a plan submitted, like we indicated before, with a private road and some discussion on that in the narrative on the application. However, what was left out of that picture was many discussions with planning staff from the City of Meridian and ACHD before we ever submitted this application, before we even had a pre-application on this application, in which it was Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 84 of 94 indicated from ACHD that they were adverse and would not accept a public road. Now, to move this application forward with that said, on the other hand, we had that issue to deal with where ACHD was saying they were not going to accept a public road connection from Montvue and on the other side of that we had Meridian planning staff saying that the annexation would not go forward and ultimately be approved by Council unless we had a site plan associated with it. So, essentially, that left us in a position that to get through your possession to annex and rezone we had to come up with a plan that we could submit that showed a development on the site, showed the size of office, the type of office, which we have indicated on there, the size, the type, a potential layout, and that's how the conceptual plan came to -- Borup: But couldn't you have designed that with just access to Montvue only? Did you say staff required you to have access to the private road? Boyle: Staff did not require the access to the private road. Borup: You could have designed it with Montvue access? Boyle: We, potentially, could have designed it with just an access out to Montvue, that is correct, but, again, at the time, the reason that the roadway was put in was because we were aware that there were negotiations and we wanted to, essentially, present a good faith showing to the neighborhood that, yes, you know, we were on board with them in wanting to provide an access into the neighborhood and into Montvue. So, that's kind of the background behind that. I just want to clarify, because there was a lot of discussion related to the road related to this site plan as well in -- preceding even the pre-application meetings on this. ACHD is very well aware of what we are doing here. I have had many discussions and I can name people down there if you'd like, with various staff members at ACHD on this particular project on the access issues on the public road connection and situation there, on their previous decisions with Touchmark. So, with that said, again, the submittal of the site plan, again, was to facilitate Meridian's process with the annexation and rezoning request. It was to indicate to the city the type of development that was proposed on the site. The agreement, again, with St. Luke's that the Montvue neighbors are working on, again, we wanted to just have a good faith showing that we are willing to work with the neighbors on that connection. However, it didn't seem to make much sense to us to show, essentially, a public road across our site, again, when ACHD was saying they wouldn't accept that. We are certainly willing to continue to work with the neighbors on that issue, in conjunction with them working with ACHD on it. So, again, tonight we do have the annexation and zoning request in front of you. The discussion has gone through ACHD and as far as the trips utilizing this development, again, if even there were no development in the future -- excuse me - - no agreement in the future between St. Luke's and the Montvue residents, there still is another entry that will likely occur in the future into this project that will provide another public road outlet. So, there are some options here. Again, we are requesting that this Commission move this project forward. We believe that given ACHD's input on this project, given their approval on the project, and given the findings, we do believe that we comply with them. Staff has indicated potentially that they feel otherwise. However, Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 85 of 94 I will say that we have had extensive conversations with Meridian planning staff on these issues, on the site plan, on the private road issue, and, again, this was a facilitation movement on our part to be able to move through the annexation process. Certainly, the developers of the project would have much rather just came to you with a blank piece of paper and just said we'd like to annex this piece of property and zone it L-O at this time and move through the process just like that without spending any time and the engineering cost putting together the site plan and the other issues involved there. However, our understanding was that we needed to present something that indicated to the Commission and Council what type of development we were proposing. It would facilitate any potential development agreement related to the use of the property by showing that site plan and thereby that's why it was submitted. Rohm: I have a question. Staff indicated that the access road that they requested you include in your plat helped them with their staff comments, so that there is access across. If you don't have that road, then, your only access to that lot is through the subdivision and they would have possibly changed their comments had you not put the road there. So it seems to me that the two are intertwined, are they not? Boyle: Well – okay. And if I could just address that briefly from the standpoint of the staff? I have had discussions on the city staff, the planning staff that drafted this report, so the staff members from the planning staff that have drafted this report, I had discussions with that very issue and my indication was that there may not be an agreement reached -- you know, we feel that from what I understood that the Montvue residents and St. Luke's were close to reaching an agreement, but there may not. What are the considerations involved if that agreement isn't reached? And we talked about a bunch of different scenarios and what we are looking at is something that fits into the Comprehensive Plan that city envisioned and we talked about that Montvue Subdivision. And, obviously, the discussion with the Meridian staff member that wrote the report was, yes, Montvue wants commercial there, we are going to see this transition, we are going to have other access points available from Touchmark. We had discussions about the potential connection to Touchmark. In fact, it's even referenced in your staff report that their -- one of the comments they made was related to the potential that there may be some cut-through traffic avoiding the intersection. So to say that the staff didn't contemplate other connections, it was certainly a point of discussion that I had with the maker of the report related to this project and that agreement with St. Luke's. So I don't know -- at least my understanding was that it certainly isn't a surprise that we are in here indicating that that agreement may or may not happen and that if it doesn't, that we would potentially take an access route through the subdivision or out through Touchmark from some other direction. Rohm: Well, just from a logic perspective, it seems to me that without the private road your only access is through the subdivision and there are, in fact, limitations of access from the southern -- trying to come in from the south -- traveling south, because you can't get across the traffic, because it's backed up all the way to the Chevron station. So I -- you know. So, the upshot of the whole deal is staff would not be able to recommend to us to annex at -- as that use without having another access point, which Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 86 of 94 would be the private road currently owned by St. Luke's. That seems like that's the logic that was incorporated into their staff report. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Mr. Siddoway. Siddoway: If I might. Two comments. First, one question for Clint. Given your discussions with ACHD and the meetings that you had there, do you believe that the -- that their report would include concerns that are not currently shown if the application had been just a connection out to -- out to Eagle Road through Montvue? Borup: Well, I'd like to address that, because that was a question I had also, if that's all right. My reading of the ACHD report, that's the only access they refer to. Siddoway: I know. Borup: Just the one to Montvue -- just the one to Eagle Road through Montvue. They make no reference to the private road. Siddoway: Okay. Borup: But I can certainly understand Mr. Freckleton's frustration when that was the site plan that was presented to you, and now you feel a little like a bait and switch. Siddoway: If that's the case, that's fine, it's an honest question is to see if -- Borup: Right. We'll now let Mr. Boyle answer that, too. Or you had two questions. I'm sorry. Siddoway: Well, no. Do the first. Go ahead. Boyle: And, again, for me to speculate on would ACHD have changed -- again, ACHD reviewed it as an annexation rezoning request and their report and the way that I remember it as well is along the lines of Commissioner Borup with the access out to Montvue Drive being the only existing access and -- Centers: Well, could I jump in? How about if there were a development agreement that specified prior to development ACHD's approval of the development and having access only via Montvue, if that were the only access at the time? Because as we discussed earlier, they don't know the use, so they are not able to judge traffic, so if you had a development agreement that had to be approved for use by the ACHD and access only through Montvue or Montvue, then, we'd see if they would approve it, in which I -- I don't know if they would. I can't speak for them, but I -- Borup: Well, they know the use was intended as L-O. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 87 of 94 Centers: Yeah. Borup: But beyond that they don't. Centers: But they didn't have specific -- Zaremba: I have two comments, actually, one a comment and one a question. The first, I think it's essential to staff to ask for a site plan. There is no other way to support what a zone should be unless we have some understanding of what's intended to go into that zone, so I certainly support the need for that. We would want to see it. We would not automatically rezone something without having a clue what was going to go there. The second is a question. If this road were to happen as a private road, what do you envision as the ownership of that road? Would the medical clinic own it, because it runs across that piece of property, or would you envision selling it to the homeowners association? Who is going to own -- Borup: The way the site plan is designed now, it would be owned by the medical clinic that's on that property. Zaremba: Is that something you're willing to do? Boyle: Yeah. I will defer that one to Joanne. It's more of a legal question for her to answer, if I might. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Well, I think Mr. Siddoway had another question. Do you still have any other questions, Steve? Siddoway: Just more of a statement than a question. Clint's referenced several meetings that he's had with planning staff, I'm assuming Dave McKinnon. I agree, they have met pretty extensively on this and revised the staff report accordingly and what it all comes down to -- and I believe Dave's feelings are clearly stated in the recommendation, that says staff does not feel comfortable with recommending the approval of this project if this access cannot be agreed upon. Without an agreement in place, the only access to the subject property will be through Montvue Subdivision, a single point of access on Eagle Road. If the property is developed without the access, it would bring a high volume of traffic into a residential subdivision and create additional congestion near the entrance of the subdivision. Therefore, staff recommends continuing the Public Hearing until an agreement has been signed, etc. I think that's the point that staff came to and I think that's all. Borup: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 88 of 94 Butler: Joanne Butler. I think Mr. Siddoway's comments underscore, again, the reason why we separate private and public in these matters. Mr. -- I don't doubt that Mr. McKinnon would have loved to encourage people to come to some private agreement during this public process and although I appreciate that encouragement, I don't think that that's a proper place for staff in this regard. Staff has said in their comments when they originally introduced the staff report was if the only access were off of Montvue, they wouldn't -- staff would not recommend approval. Not because ACHD denied approval, because ACHD did consider just that single access, but because they would prefer to see access down to St. Luke's. I don't blame them. I think we would, too. But we just can't expect it, we just don't know. You have heard from the neighbors and their comments on if the traffic comes through. So, clearly, ACHD and the people that are immediately affected would see this as appropriate. I appreciate staff's attempt to encourage that private agreement coming to fruition, but, again, I just want to say that that just underscored the fact that that's why we separate the public from the private and try not to merge them. I know it's difficult to do sometimes. So, with regard to -- let me paraphrase the question. Would -- I think you were asking about the ownership. Through the attorney of the neighbors, we tell the attorney that if this wound up being private on our property and that their agreement showed it in this location, their agreement being St. Luke's and the neighborhood as a whole, that we understood the concerns of the neighborhood, the whole -- that they had been given with one private only for a long period of time, our efforts would be to insure that access would be for the area as a whole. We even asked the neighbors' attorney to feel free to draft that easement agreement in a manner that comported with their St. Luke's agreement, so that we could take a review of it. So I can only tell you in that private arena, which is not here tonight, we have said that we would -- would do whatever it took to make sure that that access for the neighborhood as a whole, if it should come to pass, that it wound up in whole or in part on this property. I hope answered that. Zaremba: Well, I'm guessing you're saying that the medical clinic would retain ownership of that piece of property? Butler: Yeah. Zaremba: With an easement -- Butler: I mean -- which it doesn't mean that the neighbors as a whole might not form themselves into a -- if it was private, form themselves into a maintenance entity to maintain it and assess themselves so that they could maintain it. That certainly could be on the table, surely. Borup: Would the Commission like to have some discussion before we maybe proceed? Centers: I think I would propose to close the Public Hearing. I would make that motion. Rohm: I will second that. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 89 of 94 Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: What issues do you think we are facing here? Just the road? Anything else? There can't be very many other things on the annexation. Zaremba: I think they have expressed willingness to work it out, I think, however it turns out. Centers: Mr. Chairman, I -- ACHD was okay with the Montvue sub entry. Borup: Yes. That's the way their report says. Centers: That's the way it reads. The homeowners are okay with it. I don't think it's any our business on the agreement. If staff thought they were looking at a private road and, then, it flopped on them, bait and switch, whatever you want to say, I can understand their frustration there, but that really doesn't change the issue, because ACHD is okay with Montvue and the homeowners are okay with Montvue and one statement that I always read -- and I was looking for it. I know it's there. Maybe it's not with annexation and zoning. I don't think it is. Will it be harmonious to the neighborhood? The neighbors don't care. The neighbors are fine. So, staff's comments wouldn't change there, you know. So, I guess what I'm saying is I'm okay with it. But I do think this: I really think -- I don't think that that developer, when he builds that building, will build it knowing that he's going to access it through Montvue. I think he's going to have an agreement signed with St. Luke's to access on their private drive, because who in the heck would want to direct people to their office building going through Montvue Sub? It's not going to happen. The guy that builds that is going to have his agreement set to use St. Luke's Drive and I think there is probably going to be a 30,000 square foot building going up there. Is that about -- it's conceptual, but -- Borup: And you know it's going to have to have access to Montvue, because that's the only -- Centers: Yeah. But I don't think he's going to build it until -- Borup: I agree. That was one of my comments, that it's in their best interest and -- Rohm: Yeah. That doesn't insure that the subdivision will ever gain access to St. Luke's private drive, which may be essential -- Borup: Sure. Sure, it does. It may not assure they have public access, but they are going to have access through this private road. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 90 of 94 Rohm: I think the only thing that I'd like to say in rebut to what Commissioner Centers was saying is staff would not have made their recommendation to move forward with this had they -- Borup: They didn't. Rohm: -- if the only access was through the subdivision and it's only due to them showing this private road that we are where we are right now in the first place. So, there you have it. Centers: Well -- and to -- as a come back to that, they had to have conceptual. They put the private drive there. Staff knew that there was no agreement. And, you know, staff knew the history on Montvue and an agreement would be hard to get, because Montvue residents were working on it themselves, but, hey, here is a conceptual private road. They don't need that private road, this developer doesn't. All he needs is a cross-access agreement with St. Luke's to use their private drive. That's all needs and he's got good access; right? And I think that's what they are going to go after. And the private drive would be up to the Montvue residents, which is where it should have been to begin with. It's been there for five years. Borup: Well, Mr. Centers, I -- you're saying he could build the project with just access on the private drive only? Centers: Couldn't he? Borup: I don't think so. ACHD approved it with access to -- Centers: Well, it's going to have the other one, too. Borup: And they said any change in the application would -- was there -- I'm not sure which one of you -- Mr. Freckleton. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, just a couple of points. One, staff did not instruct the applicant to put the private road on their plan. That's the way the -- Centers: I didn't say they did. Freckleton: It was brought up earlier. Borup: Well, we had the impression it was encouraged. Freckleton: That's the way that the plan was presented to us. I don't know what discussions Clint has had with Dave McKinnon prior to our pre-app meeting. The pre- app meeting was the first glance I had with this project and it was presented to us in that meeting that here is their project, the road is an integral part of it, we are working Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 91 of 94 with St. Luke's to get the access point approved by them. That's the way it was presented to us. The second point I wanted to make was just a question that -- I have read this ACHD report and I don't see -- I don't see their approval of the access going solely out through Montvue Subdivision. So, if you have got that, could you point it out to us? Borup: Page three, number nine. Unless there is somewhere else? That's the only one I saw. Freckleton: Access to this site is currently provided. Borup: Well, okay. I guess that's -- that's talking about existing access. Freckleton: That's the portion of the report where they are basically laying the facts on the table for you for consideration. Borup: Yeah. And in the other areas they don't address it at all. They talk about private drives and Touchmark and everything else, but they don't ever tie this into that. Freckleton: Exactly. That's why I questioned whether ACHD drew the conclusion that the road -- or the access for this commercial project was going to be solely taken through the subdivision to Eagle Road. If this map that Pinnacle Engineers prepared for the project was present to ACHD, they probably drew the same conclusion I did. Centers: So, then, we get back to the one comment that I made. If we had a development agreement on the approval of this annexation and zoning that included the applicant's approval from ACHD on any development coming forward for access via Montvue Sub only -- you follow what I'm saying? Borup: You're saying -- Centers: They would have to go back to ACHD and say, hey, folks, we are going to enter our project through the Montvue Sub only. Borup: Only. Centers: So our development agreement could say that, that they should get that approval. Borup: So, if they get this other access, then, they wouldn't need that approval. Centers: Right. Siddoway: Well, anytime -- if they submit a certificate of zoning compliance, it's going to ACHD regardless of where the access is. So, ACHD will review it again through the certificate of zoning compliance process, regardless of where the access is. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 92 of 94 Centers: Before they build. Siddoway: Before they get building permits. Centers: Yeah. Okay. Borup: Okay. Maybe one -- and Mr. Centers had brought up all the points that I had written down, except for one, and that's -- St. Luke's has said that they will proceed and continue good faith negotiations, that this would not have any affect either way. I know previously I -- I don't believe we had a lot of detail. I know they had offered to provide 100,000 dollars for access into the subdivision, which, originally, the residents said they just wanted access for themselves to get out to Eagle Road. That was what -- originally what I had heard. Later, they change their mind and decided they wanted unlimited access for more than just private residences and I think that's where things fell apart with St. Luke's. But beyond that I'm not sure of all the details. But they have said that they would continue. Any other thoughts? Commissioner Mathes? Any input there? Mathes: I figured just annexation and zoning -- Borup: Well, once it goes -- I mean once it's annexed and zoned, we don't see it again. Centers: What I liked hearing, though, is ACHD -- it has to go back to them regardless. I will make a motion. I don't know where everyone is going here, but I'll make a motion. I would make a motion that we recommend approval for AZ 03-004, request for annexation and zoning of 1.37 acres from R-1 to L-O zones for Montvue Medical Clinic by Pinnacle Engineers, including all staff comments from their memo of March 6th -- and, specifically, the annexation and zoning conditions of approval. Strike item three and replace it -- and I will take help on this. Replace it with the development agreement shall address use of property only and include language similar to other development agreements in an L-O zone. All other -- items one, two, and four would be included. And number three amended as I just did. Are we okay with that? Siddoway: Just so I understand for the recommendation, this is just on the annexation and zoning and items one, two, and four are not changed. Item three regarding the development agreement is modified to address use of the property only. Centers: Right. And include language that you have used on similar agreements in an L-O zone. And I'm thinking across the street. Siddoway: Well, we usually tie them to a specific site plan, frankly. But I don't think you want to go there. So, that's why I'm -- Centers: Right. Siddoway: We usually do tie those developments to site plans. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 93 of 94 Centers: Similar to a -- similar to the site plan offered, other than the private drive, then. Okay? Zaremba: I will second. Borup: Okay. Motion and second. Any discussion? Are there any questions on that from the city attorney? Did that motion make sense? Okay. I asked if there was any other discussion. I think I did. All in favor? Opposed? The ayes have it. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Okay. That will go forward to City Council. I assume the applicant realizes that I'm sure staff will have the same objections at City Council. Zaremba: But it may be resolved by then. Borup: Well, yes, that would certainly help things for the applicant also if ii was resolved by then. I think that would help your presentation. Item 13: Public Hearing: CUP 03-003 Request for a Conditional Use Permit forTemporary building for Urgent Care, Occupational Medicine, and, and Administrative Office of St. Alphonsus Temporary Facility by Rocky Mountain Management and Development, LLC – east of North Eagle Road and south of East Presidential Road: Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? I believe -- Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: -- I noticed in our packet a request to withdraw Item 13. Borup: The very first item in the packet. Yeah. That's my understanding. Zaremba: In that case, we don't need to -- Centers: We can just throw that away, can't we, Mr. Chairman? Borup: They didn't -- do we need to make a motion to that effect, counsel? Holinka: Yeah. You probably better act on it just to -- Borup: Okay. Would someone like to maybe mention that and make a motion to accept the withdrawal, I guess. Zaremba: Well, is there anybody here to speak on that? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 94 of 94 Borup: I don't -- do we have anybody here on this last issue? I don't think so. Zaremba: In that case, Mr. Chairman, I move we accept the application's request to withdraw CUP 03-003. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Maybe just one final thing. The city is going to be interviewing for a new Planning and Zoning director. I don't know if there is any -- and there is a list of questions that the HR people put together, a pretty extensive list. I don't know if there is anything any of the Commissioners would like to add to that, if so, if you want to get those to me soon. That's next week they are doing this. Or if you had anything tonight, I would -- okay. Centers: And I heard that Mr. Clark didn't want the job. Well, I would -- Mr. Chairman, I would make a motion we adjourn. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second to adjourn. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:39 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED ______________________________ _____|_____|_____ KEITH BORUP - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED