Loading...
2005 04-21Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting April 21, 2005. The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of April 21, 2005, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman David Zaremba. Members Present: Chairman David Zaremba, Commissioner Keith Borup, Commissioner Michael Rohm. Members Absent: Commissioner David Moe, and Commissioner Wendy Newton- Huckabay. Others Present: Ted Baird, Machelle Brown, Craig Hood, Anna Canning, Bruce Freckleton, Joe Guenther, Bruce Freckleton, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call ___X___ Keith Borup _______ David Moe ________Wendy Newton-Huckabay ___X___ Michael Rohm ___X__Chairman David Zaremba Zaremba: I'd like to welcome everybody to this regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission for Thursday, April 21st, 2005, and we will begin with a roll of members. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Zaremba: So, we do have a quorum. Next item is adoption of the agenda and I will mention for the benefit of people in the audience, we will take these officially in order, but Items 5, 6 and 7 pertaining to Northwoods has been withdrawn by the applicant, so we will have no discussion on that. Items 11 and 12 regarding El Gato Subdivision, we will continue until May 19th. ACHD has not had its meeting regarding that subdivision and we would like them to have their opportunity first and, then, our staff will make their report after that. So, when we get to El Gato Subdivision, we will not have discussion, but we will continue that to May 19th. Items 19 and 20, Julie Subdivision, apparently, there was a failure to post that property properly noticing the meeting for everybody. So, we will not discuss that one tonight either. So, if anybody is here for those three major items, we will not be talking about them tonight. And unless any Commissioner has any other alternate, we will consider the agenda adopted. Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of March 17, 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21, 2005 Page 2 of 49 Zaremba: Okay. Next is the Consent Agenda and that is the minutes of the March 17th meeting, 2005, and I, actually, had one comment and, then, we will see if anybody else does. On page 45, the second time that I am speaking near the end, I make a statement: The jurisdiction for that is ATD and I probably was saying that with a southern accent at the moment, but it should be ITD. That is the only change that I have on the whole thing. Commissioners, any other comments? Rohm: No comment. Borup: None. Zaremba: I would entertain a motion to accept the minutes as amended. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve the minutes as amended. Zaremba: For March 17th, 2005? Rohm: Yes. For March 17th, 2005. Zaremba: Thank you. Is there a second? Borup: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Item 4: Meridian Transportation Presentation by Steve Siddoway: Zaremba: The next item on our agenda is another in a series of educational presentations that we have been having for the benefit of the general public and also for the benefit of the Commissioners, who we feel it's important to be up to date on issues of interest to Meridian as a whole and us in particular and we are very pleased to have Meridian's transportation planner Steve Siddoway here to give us a presentation about the goings on of transportation in Meridian. Mr. Siddoway. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. It's good to see you again. There are many things going on with transportation. I know we have limited time, so I do have a short video and, then, a presentation. The video is only about eight minutes long. Probably the most significant transportation planning event that's going on right now is the Communities in Motion project, that's partnered with the Blueprint for Good Growth, if you have heard those terms. The video I have is going to get into these projects a lot more and give you an overview of what they are. As this is the Planning and Zoning Commission, I thought that would be one of your primary interests in terms of what is the long range transportation planning effort that is going on and how Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21, 2005 Page 3 of 49 is it being done. This Community in Motion project is sponsored by Compass. It is -- it will be the long range transportation plan looking out to the year 2030, so 25 years out from today, and I'm going to go ahead and start the presentation with that and, then, we will have plenty of time for questions and answers afterwards. (Video played.) Siddoway: Would you go to that first slide? Okay. So, that was Communities in Motion. Just a brief overview. A huge undertaking. Six counties dealing with land use and transportation, looking beyond just transportation for Ada County, including Meridian, to schools, parks, sewer, water, all the infrastructure that is needed to support this growth. Just to repeat one of the numbers. 420,000 new residents over the next 25 years is what they are anticipating coming. That's the equivalent of adding two new Canyon counties to the system. And it's a lot to plan for. It's encouraging to me to know that everyone's kind of coming together to look at it, so that we are not faced with being 25 years from now and saying why didn't we try to plan for this growth and we are trying very hard to plan for it. Obviously, it won't be perfect, but it's good that we are making efforts to plan for that growth. Comments are welcome. They are trying -- they being Compass -- Compass is trying very hard to gather public comments on the plans. There was over 500 participants, as was mentioned, at each of the workshops -- rounds of workshops, one in November last year, one in February of this year. Just this month there has been over a hundred presentations like this done by Compass staff and other transportation people in the valley. The website is probably the best way at this point to give comments. The address -- each of you should have a copy of a paper that looks like this and if any members of the public are interested, all the papers that I'm referencing I have also on the back table. But this is their website for both projects. The Communities in Motion is really easy to remember, it's www.communitiesinmotion.org. So, anyone is welcome to go there and provide feedback. Okay. Next slide, please. I understand there was some interest in what's going on with Eagle Road. So, I have provided everyone with our Eagle Road Arterial Study update. You should have one of these. The Eagle Road corridor plan was prepared by ITD, the Idaho Transportation Department, last year and adopted and January of this year our City Council did submit a letter of support to ITD endorsing the program. So, the City of Meridian is officially supporting this. I did put out what I thought were some of the key elements. Probably the most significant item people will notice right away is the medians down Eagle Road to prevent people from just being able to go across -- pull across traffic on Eagle Road at any out points or to make left turns across traffic. It's going to be a limited access road. They will allow u-turns at regular locations, but their plan is to limit the access and cut the cross-traffic movements down to avoid some of the fatal accidents that they are having out there. It's also got a strong emphasis on beautification. Those medians are intended to be landscaped with trees, with lighting. They are proposing detached pathways along the side, so that the sidewalks aren't butted right up against Eagle Road. They were proposing new signals and coordination for those signals. The -- what you might think of as the first phase, there is a real need to handle some of the access issues right near the freeway on Eagle Road and all of you should have a diagram that shows Eagle Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21, 2005 Page 4 of 49 Road from the I-84 off ramp to Franklin Road. Their intent for this year, 2005, is to put in a median there. I don't believe it's going to be landscaped this year, but the median will go in and an additional lane of traffic on the east side near -- along St. Luke's, that will continue all the way down to Franklin Road and become a free right onto Franklin Road to help some of the traffic stacking that goes on there. Any questions about that before I move on? Borup: About Eagle Road? Siddoway: Yes. Borup: Just questions on further north. What's -- do they have a policy on future access points? The median will solve, I assume either -- well, solve any left turn conflicts. Do they have any policy on how many other access points would be allowed? Siddoway: We are -- we are committed to -- Borup: And, then, along with that, I guess, would be are they still looking at frontage roads? Siddoway: Eagle Road is pretty much a goner for frontage roads, but we are trying to learn our lessons from that and apply them to Chinden. There is a Chinden -- a US 20- 26 access study that is going on right now to limit the access along there. We are working with them on all the state highways, including 69, Meridian Road south of town, to limit the access points on there. They do have to allow for access. They don't have right of way or money to go in and build frontage roads directly right now, but their policy is to limit direct access to the half mile and to try and get the frontage or back-age roads to provide the access to those points beside them. Now, there are -- as things develop, they have to grant temporary accesses here and there until those roads develop, but the policy is to limit that access and we are supportive of it. Borup: We are still undeveloped, essentially, from Fairview to Ustick on Eagle Road. Siddoway: Uh-huh. And we have -- there is more work that needs to be done, is probably all I can say for sure, but there are ideas for a back-age road system, specifically along there, particularly on the east side of Eagle Road where it truly is undeveloped right now. The east side -- or the west side already has quite a bit of development, but one of the new signals that is proposed is there at the River Valley Elementary intersection, where school buses have such a terrible time getting in and out and that would be at the half mile location and, then, that would continue east and, hopefully, we can get a back-age road system along Eagle Road into that mile. In alignment -- we did get a similar road at the back of the Lowe's property north of Ustick, so the idea would be to continue that south. Borup: So -- and, then, how far north was the median -- I forgot previously. Was that to go passed Chinden? Just all the way to Chinden? Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21, 2005 Page 5 of 49 Siddoway: What was -- Borup: The raised median. Siddoway: Oh, the raised the median -- Borup: From the freeway to Chinden? Siddoway: It's all the way along to Eagle. Borup: Clear to Eagle? Siddoway: Yeah. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Siddoway: Yeah. Okay. Next, please. I know there is a lot of interest in what's going on with the Ten Mile interchange. We are very thankful, frankly, that the GARVEE bond legislation passed in the state legislature a couple weeks ago. The governor did come to Meridian and sign the bill last week. I did attend the hearings at the house transportation committee and testified favor of it on behalf of the city. The GARVEE bonds, for those that don't know, are a tool to bond now against the transportation -- the federal transportation dollars that the Idaho Transportation Department receives annually to build projects ahead of what they would be if we had to wait and often by decades, you know. It's no -- it's a very significant jump. That has big implications for Ten Mile interchange. We have been pushing for that interchange since the '70s and it's one of the projects that will likely be funded through the GARVEE bonding process. There is a federal access study. It was started last year. It's one of the first steps that the federal government requires for an interchange. There is a consultant out of Portland hired by ITD that's working on it. I have been involved in attending their meetings and it's nearly complete. It does show that a Ten Mile interchange is warranted and it does compare Ten Mile to Black Cat, which has had a lot of discussion over recent years as to where it belongs and it does show a more significant benefit to having it at Ten Mile. The environmental work, which the next step after the access study, has been started. It was begun this spring as part of a large corridor plan that goes from Five Mile to -- in Boise to Caldwell and so it's been begun as part of that project. It's a multiple year project and we have been interested in seeing what we can do to speed it up for the Ten Mile interchange. So, this January I prepared and submitted an application for federal appropriations, asking for 500,000 dollars from the federal government. It hasn't been funded yet. Still going through Congress. Looking for 2006 money, if possible, for the environmental analysis on Ten Mile Interchange, and we have a lobbyist in DC that's working on it for us. The federal transportation bill that's currently going through re-authorization process, I have recent information that the current draft of the bill from the house includes two million dollars earmarked for the Ten Mile interchange. The time line for it -- this is painful for me to say, because everyone, Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21, 2005 Page 6 of 49 including me, wants it right away, but even if we have it funded right away, quote, unquote, through GARVEE bonds, it's still going to take several years -- it will take probably a couple for -- to finish the environmental -- a year and a half to two years to get that through the federal government, a year for design, a year for right of way acquisition and that could -- the right of way acquisition could go faster, because we have a lot of willing participant landowners out there. And, then, a year for construction. So, somewhere around 2009 is where I anticipate seeing it. So, painful to say, but I think that's the reality check, even with -- on a fast track. Questions on Ten Mile? Borup: I have a question, Mr. Chairman. Do we still have the private developer money earmarked? Siddoway: Yes. Compass has asked if we could get -- there are verbal commitments. Borup: Right. Siddoway: There are verbal commitments to the tune of five million dollars to help construct the interchange, once it is deemed a funded project. Borup: Those are still firm? As much as they -- Siddoway: I have been talking just in the last week and a half with the Mayor about trying to get it solidified in writing, so that we can go to ITD and Compass with it and say we have this commitment, let's get it on the transportation plans. Borup: Thank you. Siddoway: Okay. Next, please. I know there is also a lot of interest in the downtown transportation plan and what's going on with that. It's been an ongoing process for about the last eight months. There has been three main public workshops with hundreds of participants and without going into too much detail, because I could spend an hour talking just about this, but the split corridor is the preferred alternative and that's the one that has the -- is a one way couplet from the freeway or Waltman and Central down near the freeway, Main Street would be one way northbound, Meridian Road one way southbound. It would continue as a one way couplet north of Franklin and, then, between Franklin and the railroad tracks Main Street would cut over in a new alignment and join Meridian Road and from that point north the -- both streets are two way. I think it's a brilliant blend of meeting the needs of both downtown revitalization and keeping downtown traffic on Main Street, to lower, more pedestrian oriented levels for the revitalization efforts that are going on and also giving through traffic a seamless way to get through town. You will see more of that in upcoming meetings. That preferred alternative has been endorsed by a steering committee, by the Chamber of Commerce, by the MDC, which is the urban renewal agency, and the majority of workshop participants, but it's not unanimous. I think it's important to know that. If there were an easy solution for downtown traffic, we would have done it 15 years ago. There is no easy solution and all the alternatives have strengths and weaknesses, but I'm quite Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21, 2005 Page 7 of 49 pleased with the -- with what the split corridor offers us. Now, we do have what's, basically, a final draft of the plan, but in the midst of preparing that final draft, ACHD came back to us with new cost estimates for all the alternatives, so we feel like we need to and want to take that information back to the public before finishing the plan. That open house -- I just received confirmation at 5:30 tonight that we can do it May 18th at 6:00 o'clock at the Cole Valley Christian School and would invite anyone to that meeting to come get more information on this project. After that -- after that open house we will finalize the plan and take that plan through public hearings, so it will come before this body. My intent is to have it adopted by the city as an addendum to the city's Comprehensive Plan. That way, as Commissioner Zaremba was saying in our transportation task force meeting this afternoon, ACHD knows that this plan is not just a flavor of the month, it becomes something that we are committed to as a city and something that they can plan for. So, any questions on the downtown transportation planning process? Okay. Zaremba: Very helpful. Siddoway: Next, please. Okay. The other thing that everyone wants to know is what's going on this year. So, what's going on this year -- there is road construction going on Locust Grove from Bentley, which is near the freeway, to Franklin, being constructed as five lanes, in preparation for the overpass, which is going to be built next year. Round of applause. We have been waiting a long time for that -- for the Locust Grove overpass and it is a funded project now for 2006. That same year or next year Locust Grove will also be punched through between Franklin and Pine -- well, all the way up to Fairview as a straight alignment, so you will no longer have to do the jog around Nola, the way you do today. Quickly, Black Cat Road is under construction. There is a major sewer project going on out there. It's being coordinated with ACHD to improve the sub grade in preparation for future widening. Franklin Road, which you know has -- was the big widening project for last year, from Meridian to Eagle Road, will be extended further east from Eagle to the Touchmark project. The intersection at Fairview and Hickory, which is near Louie's Pizza, is getting a signal this year. Ustick from Duane to Leslie, which is, basically a quarter mile each side of Eagle Road, is being improved to five lanes and that's being paid for by the developers in that area ahead of schedule. It wasn't, actually, a funded project for this year until they came to the table and said we will build it and be reimbursed later. And, then, the Eagle Road -- this is the only ITD project for us on the list, the one that I mentioned earlier, from the freeway to Franklin having the extra lane. Everyone -- all of you should have a list of these projects and the sheet is two-sided and it's on the back, if anyone is interested, but the one side is 2005 projects, these projects, and more detail about them. The other side shows all the planned projects for the next five years, 2006 to 2010. So, that -- I don't have time to go through all of them, but I -- this will show you what's in the pipeline for the next five years. The year, the project, and the cost of that project, so -- next slide, please. There are many other transportation activities I'm involved in and if I spent five minutes on each of these we would be here for another hour and a half, so I'll just let you look at it and I notice that the transportation task force isn't even up there, which is a significant one, and there are probably others that I have forgotten, but all of these have regular Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21, 2005 Page 8 of 49 meetings, they have prep work for me, they have homework for me, they have coordination efforts that I'm involved in and it's a very very busy time for -- but we have lots of transportation needs in the city and -- Zaremba: I would say the impact of that list to me -- it shows how important it is to have you coordinating all this and helping it and I appreciate that you have stepped up to this challenge. Siddoway: So, I'll stand for any questions. I think that's all. I guess on the plug, the May in Motion is ACHD's effort to encourage alternative modes of transportation during the month of May. Each of you have an invitation to the kickoff meeting and, then, an information brochure about it. And, again, there is some on the back table for that as well. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you very much. Very helpful. Okay. Now, we are ready to begin the Public Hearing portion of the meeting and let me just comment about the procedure. Our professional staff and the applicants have already spent quite a bit of time together on each of these subjects, so we will begin with a presentation from our professional staff telling us where the project is and a little bit about it and describing any issues that are remaining to be resolved with the developer. The developer will, then, have 15 minutes to give their side of the story, if they need to answer any of the questions raised by the staff and explain in more detail what is happening and that 15 minutes for the developer includes any supporting cast that they want to include, engineers or architects or otherwise to provide expert testimony. After that we will open it up for the public testimony and that's each of you and we appreciate your coming down. We do want to say if it's important enough for you to come down to speak to us, we want to make sure that we hear you. So, we ask two things. One, that you only speak when you're at the microphone, so that we can hear you and you can be recorded and, two, don't be afraid of the microphone, still speak up, even though the microphone is there, just to make sure that everybody can hear you. When you do testify -- and this is everybody -- please begin by stating your name and your address, so that the recorder can get down who you are. We limit the individual testimony to three minutes to give everybody an opportunity to be heard, without us being here until 1:00 o'clock in the morning. And for everybody who testifies, applicants and public, there is this little light system over here and when the green is on you have time to speak. The yellow light will come on when you have 15 to 30 seconds left and when the red light come one, please, conclude. We appreciate that. While you are speaking, the applicant will take notes on the things that you are bringing to our attention and after all the public has spoken that wishes to, then, the applicant will have up to ten minutes to respond and solve any problems that can be solved and, then, hopefully, if things are resolved, at that point we will close the public hearing and the Commission will deliberate and make a recommendation to the City Council, where there will, again, be public hearings. So, that's pretty much what the process is and we are ready to begin. Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from March 17, 2005: AZ 05-005 Annexation and Zoning of 32.75 acres from RUT to R-8, R-15 and C-G Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21, 2005 Page 9 of 49 zones for Northwoods Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC – 1200 West Franklin Road: Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from March 17, 2005: PP 05-007 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 147 building lots and 7 other lots in proposed R-8, R-15 and C-G zones for Northwoods Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC – 1200 West Franklin Road: Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from March 17, 2005: CUP 05-006 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for single-family residential, multi-family residential and conceptual commercial uses in proposed R-8, R-15 and C-G zones for Northwoods Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC – 1200 West Franklin Road: Zaremba: And as I mentioned earlier, we are not, actually, going to go through the whole process for the first three items. Items 5, 6 and 7, AZ 05-005, PP 05-007, and CUP 05-006, pertaining to Northwood Subdivision, we have had a request from the applicant to withdraw those and so it would be appropriate for us to first close the Public Hearing and, then, have a motion to accept withdrawal. Commissioners? Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on Items 5, 6 and 7. Borup: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Rohm: What was the second half of that? Zaremba: I would suggest that we accept the applicant's withdrawal of these three applications. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we accept the withdrawal of the applicant's -- the applications for 5, 6 and 7. Borup: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21, 2005 Page 10 of 49 Item 8: Public Hearing: RZ 05-006 Request for a Rezone of 4.65 acres from R- 4 to L-O zone for Verona Subdivision No. 3 by Primeland Development, LLP – northeast corner of North Ten Mile Road and West Milano Drive: Zaremba: All right. Thank you. Our next Public Hearing is Item 8 and I will open RZ 05-006. This is a request for a rezone of 4.65 acres from R-4 to L-O for Verona Subdivision No. 3 by Primeland Development, LLP, on the northeast corner of north Ten Mile Road and West Milano Road and we will begin with the staff comments. Staff presentation. Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My mike doesn't want to stay up tonight. All right. This is a hearing for a rezone from an R-4 to an L-O zone. This is in response to the condition of approval that we issued for Verona Subdivision No. 3 preliminary plat 04-044, in order to bring the zoning in compliance with the -- the projected use for the site, which it was originally platted under a planned development for four commercial lots, which would limit it to office uses under the original preliminary plat 02-007, which a CUP 03-007. This is consistent with what the ordinance requires. I guess -- looking at the site plan, the site plan is different from what we were discussing earlier. This is in a medium density residential district for -- the applicant has indicated that this is in an office district, but the comprehensive map indicates that just north of McMillan this is a medium density residential. There was some confusion on that earlier. There would be one item of housekeeping from page two of the staff report, which indicates that this is Quenzer Commons Subdivision, which is south and west of the site, but that is not correct. To the west of the site is Ada County rural residents, as well as Verona Subdivision in that area. Zaremba: And what is the zoning of Verona? Guenther: Verona is an R-4 subdivision. Zaremba: R-4. Thank you. Guenther: And the staff report indicates that this is a recommendation for approval with the conditions as listed. I will stand for questions. Zaremba: Just for clarification, there was a time when we consistently approved a zone for a whole area and had a use exception up to 20 percent, but did not zone it separately, and this is just making an adjustment to zone what was previously just the use exception; is that correct? Guenther: That is correct. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. We are ready for the applicant. Stiles: Sheri Stiles, Engineering Solutions, 150 East Aikens in Eagle, Idaho. I just wanted to clarify -- Bruce, is that Comprehensive Plan, is it showing as medium density Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21, 2005 Page 11 of 49 residential? And what is the office designation that's south of there? I'm sorry. Excuse me a minute. I thought this already said on the map that it was office, but I think I'm -- I must be mistaken. The reason for the rezone on this property was because the initial subdivision plat has been re-subdivided to add lots, because there was a better market for smaller office lots out in that development. Verona and Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision are all being developed by the same developer out there and we received approval for the preliminary plat and we are just requesting the rezone at the request of staff and one part of the ordinance does state that -- and it does state on the final plat for Verona that any re-subdivision of those -- of the lots will result in having to meet the ordinance in effect at the time. So, I'm sure the assessor will be very pleased to have it be zoned appropriately and that's all I have. Zaremba: Any questions from the Commissioners? Borup: None. Rohm: None. Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: Seen it previously. Zaremba: Other than Ms. Stiles we have no one signed up to testify on this, but we do give you an opportunity to change your mind if you have anything to add or comment. Well, in that case we don't require a rebuttal from the applicant either. So, gentlemen? Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on Item No. 8, RZ 05- 006. Borup: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to City Council recommending approval of RZ 05-006, to include the -- for the rezone for 4.65 acres from R-4 to L-O zone for Verona Subdivision No. 3, to include all staff comments, conditions, to the staff memo, with a transmittal date of March 17th, received by the city clerk on April 15th. Period. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21, 2005 Page 12 of 49 MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Item 9: Public Hearing: RZ 05-004 Request for a Rezone of 2 acres from I-L to C-G zone for Jacksons Food Store by Jacksons Food Store, Inc. – southeast corner of North Eagle Road and East Pine Avenue: Item 10: Public Hearing: CUP 05-012 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of a new carwash and convenience store in a proposed C-G zone for Jacksons Food Store by Jacksons Food Store, Inc. – southeast corner of North Eagle Road and East Pine Avenue: Zaremba: All right. I'd like to open the Public Hearing for the next two items, nine and ten. This is RZ 05-004, a request for a rezone of two acres from I-L to C-G for Jackson Food Stores, and CUP 05-012, request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of a new car wash and convenience store in a proposed C-G zone for Jackson Food Stores by Jackson Food Stores, Inc., southeast corner of North Eagle Road and East Pine Avenue, and we will begin with the staff report. Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This site is a recent reduction in platting requirements plat for the two acres, which is right on the corner of Pine and Eagle in this location. This is for a convenience store, which in a C-G -- the current zoning is I-L and it's for a convenience store in a C-G district, which is what the applicant is requesting. A convenience store in a C-G district is a permitted use through a certificate of zoning compliance, but the car wash requires a Conditional Use Permit, which is what we are hearing tonight, along with the rezone from I-L to C-G. Now, a portion of this is that the agreement is what staff is recommending for this site in order to assure that the developer for the entire site, which is this roughly 27 acres. I believe they did a reduction in platting requirements for I think the 34. So, that the -- this commercial district gets incorporated into the mixed-use regional comprehensive designation. So, when they actually come through with their mixed-use conceptual plan, they will include the C-G district, that would be rezoned tonight, with that calculation. That is -- with that, the mixed-use regional designation should be satisfied for this type of project. The specific site is with a convenience store center right in the middle, with the islands out to the side, as well as another larger type of service station to the south of the site. The car wash will be located approximately five feet from this property line. It is not shown here, but it is drafted into the conditions of approval. As well as a cross-access agreement would need to be entered into with the original parcel to allow access south off of the site and, then, onto Pine. This currently is showing a right-in access off of Eagle Road. If you -- what you received today was a fax from Dan Kuntz from Idaho Transportation Department, dated April 18th, which indicates that they are not going to permit that. It is also a condition of approval that this right-in access off of Eagle Road be eliminated. In the future they are anticipating a deceleration lane in this area that will come onto Pine Road and, therefore, they don't want stacking going into this site in that deceleration lane. Therefore, this will be -- drafted up as being additional landscaping. This would be a right-in, right-out on site and, then, the left turn Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21, 2005 Page 13 of 49 back to Eagle Road would be from the cross-access portion off of this side on Pine Avenue. With that, there is several issues that would be resolved for landscaping through the certificate of zoning compliance and staff feels comfortable that the applicant will address and the staff has recommended approval of this with the conditions as listed. I'll stand for questions. Zaremba: Any questions? Borup: Just a clarification. Your comment on -- you said it was presently a landscaped area. I didn't quite understand what -- Guenther: They are requesting this access, but instead of that access, their conditions of approval state that they will landscape that. Borup: Landscape which area? This area? Guenther: This area right here. That is shown on the site plan as an access point. The access point will be eliminated. Borup: Oh. Okay. So, this application is eliminated? Guenther: Yes. Borup: So, this is not the right site plan. Guenther: This is the right site plan, but when they come through for a certificate of zoning compliance, that access won't be there. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: There is, actually, two different -- Borup: Because of the deceleration lane that is going to be going in. Zaremba: There is two differences. That access will not be there and it will be landscaped and the car wash is actually five feet farther from the property line than it appears; is that correct? Guenther: Yes. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: So, this drawing is close, but it's not exactly what it's going to be as built. Guenther: That's correct. And it's detailed in the conditions of approval. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21, 2005 Page 14 of 49 Zaremba: And the conditions reflect the way it's going to be. Works for me. I had one question and this may, actually, be for Mr. Freckleton. The question is, actually, on page 12, but it's a paragraph that begins on page 11 of the staff report and it's paragraph 11 at the bottom. On page 12 there is a sentence that says: This is to insure that bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least one foot above. This is probably not talking about the nearest residences and I'm questioning whether that sentence needs to be there. Freckleton: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, that can be struck from the comment. Zaremba: The whole condition or just that one section? Freckleton: No. Just that section. Zaremba: Okay. That works for me. Freckleton: That's what happens when you cut and paste. Zaremba: Happens all the time. And the other question I was thinking to ask is this building and the car wash is likely to be visible on all four sides. Have we given any requirement as to the attractiveness of what would be back sides of the buildings or -- Guenther: The applicant has indicated that there will be -- what their elevation is estimated, that they will be consistent with the Shell logo and the Shell design, but I believe that could also be addressed through the applicant's testimony. Zaremba Okay. We will do that. Thank you. And we are ready for the applicant. Benning: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I'm Dale Benning, the architect for Jackson Food Stores. I live at 1590 Shenandoah Drive in Boise. I would just address the last comment that we have made about the appearance of the building and it's intended to be very close to the same quality of appearance on all four sides and it's typical of all the buildings out there. The gas fuel canopy on the front is equally -- has the same appearance, so there really isn't -- there is kind of a back of the store, but not really, because there is a major entrance point there for customers. That's coming from the -- from the backside of the store. There is a storefront and a canopy much the same as the front of the building has at that point. So, it's sort of the back of the store, but not really, there is still customer access there and pedestrian walkways all the way around the store. Zaremba: Thank you for that clarification. Benning: There was -- any other questions that I could -- or any other comments that I could address, I would be glad to do so. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21, 2005 Page 15 of 49 Zaremba: You have heard, I guess, and probably got a separate notice from ITD about the access on Eagle not being allowed? Benning: Correct. Zaremba: You can work with that? Benning: Yeah. Correct. We, actually, went over and met with ITD and went over the plan and discussed what they were planning with the right turn lane and how that's going to work and so we -- we got that first hand. Zaremba: Thank you. Questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Rohm. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, my question is -- and you're aware of the right-in and right-out on the -- could you put the site plan up? Zaremba: The first driveway on Pine? Rohm: Yes. And you're okay with that and you understand the right-in -- right-in and right-out only at this entrance? Benning: Yes, we are. Rohm: Okay. I just wanted to make sure that -- Benning: We also met with ACHD right in the beginning, because that's always a major issue is the access points, and we knew right from the start that that's what we would have. Rohm: Okay. Benning: Along with the access drive that goes down the required distance away from the intersection. And, then, that's a full service access. Rohm: Good. Looks like a good site plan to me. Borup: So, I assume you're fine with all the staff comments? Benning: Oh, yes, we are. Borup: Did you have any clarification on the signage? Benning: No. We haven't -- we have -- there is the possibility of two signs, one on Pine and one on Eagle Road. Or deciding which -- Borup: Are you still planning on it being on the corner? Did you read staff's comment? Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21, 2005 Page 16 of 49 Benning: Yeah. That is -- we have to determine that. That's probably -- probably the ideal location and I think it would be maybe a little better than breaking it up into two signs. But that's something that we have to determine. Borup: Okay. Benning: Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Jack Davis. Would you care to testify? Davis: I'm Jack Davis, director of construction for Jackson Food Stores. I live at 429 East Edgar Court in Meridian. And I'd just like to say in terms of the building design, we do plan to make it a little more upscale facility than our usual facility for this location and just be happy to answer any questions you might have. Zaremba: I would just say that I appreciate that. Our sensitivity as apparently is yours, is this is one of our entryway corridors and it's an important part of our city, so I appreciate your concern with that as well. Commissioners, any other questions? Borup: I have none. Rohm: No. Zaremba: Thank you. No one else has signed up, but, again, there is an opportunity for anybody to speak that wishes to. Once, again, it appears we don't really need any rebuttal or comment from the applicant. Any further comments from staff? Guenther: No, sir. Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners? Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we close the Public Hearing on RZ 05-004 and CUP 05-012. Borup: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21, 2005 Page 17 of 49 Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of RZ 05-004, to include staff comments for the hearing date April 21st and received on April 15th, with the following changes: On page 12, the last sentence at the top of the page -- Borup: I think that is part of -- isn't that staff comment under the CUP or is that under both? Zaremba: I didn't -- Borup: Okay. Excuse me. Zaremba: It was just a typo, so -- Borup: It's under both. Sorry. Go ahead, Commissioner. Rohm: We will just go ahead and include it on both motions. In any case, this -- to strike the last sentence, the one that starts with this is to insure, strike that sentence, and, other than that, accept the staff report as written. End of motion. Borup: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Rohm: Okay. Again, Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of CUP 05-021, to include staff comments for the hearing date April 21st, 2005, and received April 15th, 2005, with the following changes: On page 12, the first sentence at the top of page 12, that begins with this to insure, that sentence to be stricken. The balance of the staff report to be accepted as written. End of motion. Borup: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Item 11: Public Hearing: AZ 05-012 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 6.34 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for El Gato Subdivision by C2B Development, LLC – 701 Black Cat Road: Continue Public Hearing to May 19, 2005 Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21, 2005 Page 18 of 49 Item 12: Public Hearing: PP 05-014 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 17 building lots and 2 common lots on 5.89 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for El Gato Subdivision by C2B Development, LLC – 701 Black Cat Road: Zaremba: Okay. I will open the Public Hearing for both AZ 05-012 and PP 05-014, both of which related to El Gato Subdivision, and remind the Commissioners that we have a request from the applicant -- I'm sorry, from staff as well to continue this item to our meeting of May 19th, so that we may have the ACHD ruling and the staff report following that. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we -- close or continue? Borup: Continue. Zaremba: Oh, I'm sorry. Continue. Yes. Rohm: Continue Public Hearing AZ 05-012 and Public Hearing PP 05-014 to our regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning meeting of May 19th. End of motion. Borup: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries for both items. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Item 13: Public Hearing: AZ 05-010 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4.63 acres from RUT to L-O zone for Wyndstone Place Subdivision by Quasar Development, LLC – 1151 South Wells Street: Item 14: Public Hearing: PP 05-012 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 8 building lots and 3 common lots on 4.63 acres in a proposed L-O zone for Wyndstone Place Subdivision by Quasar Development, LLC – 1151 South Wells Street: Item 15: Public Hearing: CUP 05-014 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for a professional office complex on 4.63 acres in a proposed L-O zone for Wyndstone Place Subdivision by Quasar Development, LLC – 1151 South Wells Street: Zaremba: Okay. Next we will open the Public Hearing AZ 05-010, request for annexation and zoning of 4.63 acres from RUT to L-O zone for Wyndstone Place Subdivision. Also Public Hearing PP 05-012, request for preliminary plat approval of eight building lots and three common lots on 4.63 acres in a proposed L-O zone for Wyndstone Place Subdivision and Public Hearing CUP 05-014, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for a professional office complex on Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21, 2005 Page 19 of 49 4.63 acres in a proposed L-O zone for Wyndstone Place Subdivision. These are all by Quasar Development, LLC, at 1151 South Wells Street and we will begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The subject site is located on the northwest corner of Freeway Drive and Wells Street, just north of the westbound I-84 on ramp. The property is commonly known as Lot 19 of the amended Magic View Subdivision, which was recorded in 1983. There is an existing home on the site. You can see it there on the east side of the site. There is some outbuildings. The applicant is proposing to remove all the existing structures. The surrounding properties to the north are single-family homes. This parcel is zoned RUT in Ada County. This parcel is zoned R-1 in Ada County. To the west is Locust Heights Subdivision, also zoned R-1 in Ada County. Across Wells Street is the recently approved Hotel, zoned C-G to the south of the interstate and the on ramp. Here is a copy of the proposed preliminary plat. There are eight build-able lots. They range in size from 12,676 square feet to just over one acre in size. The applicant will be improving the front of Wells Street and Wells Circle with this application, including pavement widening, curb, gutter, and sidewalk. They are proposing cross-access for some of these internal lots that do not have frontage on those streets. There is a condition in the staff report that they do record cross-access easements, so all the lots have access to the public street. There are two driveways proposed. One to Wells Circle in this location, one out to the intersection of Freeway Drive and Wells Street. Here is a couple of landscape plans. City code requires a 35-foot wide landscape buffer along the on ramp. The applicant is depicting a 35-foot wide landscape buffer. However, about eight and a half feet of that 35, starting somewhere in this area, and going back, is within ITD right of way as an existing right of way fence. That's about eight and a half feet off of the property line. There is not any -- are not any trees within that eight and a half feet, but the applicant is showing dense trees, shrubs, landscape materials in there and staff is supportive of that. Along the eastern property line -- or, excuse me, western property line, the subdivisions -- the single family residences, they are depicting a 20-foot wide landscape buffer and along the streets there are ten foot wide landscape buffers. Here is a copy of the proposed amenities for this development. This is near the entrance off of Wells, so Freeway Drive would be here. They have a lot of future -- kind of -- it doesn't show up very well here. A water feature on -- in this general location and the same over here with this sitting area. Here are a couple of sample elevations with two stories. Office building. And here is a single story. I did just want to touch on a couple of the requirements here. The Ada County Highway District is requiring the applicant, along with this curb, gutter, and sidewalk, the requirements that I mentioned, to improve Wells Circle and provide a turnaround in the existing right of way with a 45-foot radius. There are several encroachments within that right of way, fences, trees, shrubs, a fire hydrant, all of those things it appears will have to be -- I don't know how they can be saved. It looks like they are all within that radius, so just to kind of point that out a little bit. There are some encroachments there. There are some irrigation concerns. I have talked to several property owners in this area, they all have concerns with the flow of irrigation water in this area. Historically water has flown in different directions from the box that is here, under the freeway, some of it has gone to the east and some of it back to the west Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21, 2005 Page 20 of 49 and north to serve this subdivision this direction. I'll let the applicant or the applicant's engineer touch on that maybe a little bit more. Did you see a letter in the packet from ITD regarding noise abatement? It's a pretty standard letter they send out when something abuts their right of way. However, those are typically more geared towards residential developments, office and commercial developments. They don't require noise abatement, so they seem to have attached their noise abatement letter to an office development that didn't apply. I did receive today two things from the applicant. The revised legal description requested on page nine to have shown the right of way on the east side of Wells for whatever reason when the Comfort Suites was annexed there was a little description, it didn't go to the center line, so to clean that up, we have asked this applicant to go all the way across the street and they have provided that. And also received a stamped approved plan from Sanitary Services Company approving the dumpster locations for this project. They originally had concerns and those seem to have been addressed recently. Finally, I guess I'll let the -- the applicant, it was my understanding, was going to possibly make some commitments requiring that irrigation and any commitments, I guess, I would just ask you to include those in a motion, so we can make sure that they get written down and aren't just on the record there, but we can have a record in the staff report with site specific conditions. Staff is recommending approval and I will stand for any questions you may have. Zaremba: Commissioners? Borup: None at this time. Zaremba: I had two clarifications to ask, if I may. One is on this, which I -- if I'm understanding correctly, is an existing street. There are obstacles at this end. Does ACHD already own the entire right of way with the turnaround? Hood: That's correct. There is 50 feet of right of way coming off of Wells Street, it's called Wells Circle to confuse things even more, but the pavement ends approximately in this location, so there isn't a turnaround -- an improved turnaround, but there is a 45 foot right of way from the center of what would be a turnaround. So, that is all existing right of way. Zaremba: That ACHD already has, even though it's not improved? Hood: Correct. Zaremba: Okay. And, then, I wasn't clear whether the centerline of this driveway lines up with the centerline of Freeway Drive. Hood: I'm not sure if it exactly aligns, but it's going to be pretty close. I can look at the staff report. Zaremba: Close enough. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21, 2005 Page 21 of 49 Hood: ACHD has approved that location, so it meets their location for that, so -- Zaremba: If there are no other questions, we are ready for the applicant. Nickel: Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. Shawn Nickel, 52 North 2nd Street in Eagle, representing Quasar Development. I'm not going to go into any great detail. Staff has done an excellent job at laying out the subdivision and our request. One thing I will add -- and this is all in your staff report, but we are asking for a PUD or a PD application with some modifications to interior setbacks and frontage, which staff is recommending approval for and he does a good job analyzing that in your staff report, so I won't go into any detail on that. Craig, could you put the colored picture up? As you can see, we have applied quite a lot of landscaping and we have taken into consideration the buffering to the existing residential uses to the west and to the north, in addition to our own buffering along the freeway. We do believe this is a great buffering transitional use between those existing residences and the more intense commercial that you were going to get further up towards Eagle Road and also the noise from the I-84 corridor. We did have a meeting on site yesterday afternoon with the neighbors to discuss mostly irrigation issues. There is three neighbors here tonight that are going to comment. We are going to defer our responses until after they comment. We have agreed verbally to address all their concerns. I believe we have. We are in agreement with them and we do have -- my engineer is here and he can address some specific after -- during rebuttal. So, I'll stand for any other questions have you right now. Borup: I have none at this time. Thank you. Zaremba: Let's see. The next person signed up to speak is -- is that Edward Rennison? Elwood. I'm sorry, sir. Come forward, please. Rennison: My name is Elwood Rennison. I reside at 990 Mustang Street, Meridian, Idaho. My phone number is 888-6448, and I live adjacent to the property there. I'm just a couple blocks over as you move over to the -- right here. Borup: Right there? Rennison: And I'm president of the water users association and I have several handouts for you, which I think will be very helpful, and if I can hand those out to you right now, I'd appreciate it. I have them for everybody. And there are two pages -- Canning: Sir, you need to wait -- Zaremba: -- not to talk while you're away from the microphone. Rennison: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21, 2005 Page 22 of 49 Zaremba: You're welcome to hand them out, but, then, wait until you're back on the microphone. Rennison: I appreciate your patience while I handed these out. One of the problems we have had over the several years is that we have not been able to put water to Bob Middleton's property, because of B&F Enterprises representing Jim Fehrman, would not allow it. Last summer I got with the Ada County -- I got a -- received a call from Ada County and they asked me if they'd please help me with a problem. So, I went over and I surveyed the location where the water line was supposed to be placed. Okay? And drew up drawings and you will find those listed in here as you read through this. I drew up the drawings, they went to Ada County, they reviewed them, they made one comment, they came back, the drawings were revised, and those drawings are drawings of record now with Ada County and at this date, as we speak right now, those drawings are on record as a system that should be put in, according to Ada County, and that was a phone call today made to Mr. Mills. Okay? Now, one of the problems -- with all the trees and shrubs and everything that are planted here to really make this a nice park -- and we like this, okay? We are not against having an industrial park there and the offices. Okay. The main thing we'd have a problem with is that we are on a rotating irrigation system, it is not continuous flow, and they only have nine hours of irrigation from 9:00 o'clock Sunday night to 6:00 o'clock Monday morning and that certainly isn't going to keep all their plants alive. Okay. Now, the water table in our area has dropped down ten feet in the last 12 to 15 years, so a deep well would not really possibly be a viable solution. The only solution that they really are going to end up with is city water and supplement from the irrigation, if they were able to do that, and those would be the alternate sources of water for the system that they would use to irrigate with. Comfort Suites was originally going to tie into Five Mile Creek and they started to do that and they abandoned it and they went to city water. I found out yesterday. I thought they had a system in there and we were very well pleased to be able tell the people for Wyndmere -- or Wyndstone -- thank you very much, gentlemen -- for Wyndstone that they would be able to tie in with that and I went and had a meeting with the Nampa- Meridian Irrigation District to see what could be done to help them and we don't have any real good options right now for them to use. Okay? We do require that they put in 24-inch reinforced concrete pipe and that the drawings that they come up with will be approved by us and the Meridian Irrigation District. They suggest the reinforced concrete pipe, though their drawings show a CMP. We don't want CMP, we don't want the ABS with the smooth bore, because there is so many gophers out there they would chew through it and in order to get the water over to the water users, which would be all the people, we would have to come in with maybe some kind of a siphon drop to get the water -- because if we leave the high point of the ditch and we have to go along the freeway and come back along the fence line of the subdivision and they would have to come up with some way to get that water there, so we would have it for the lateral. We have a main lateral that runs down through and you will find this in one of the exhibits in here. I prepared that for you, if you look at it. Okay? Zaremba: I do need to ask you to conclude -- Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21, 2005 Page 23 of 49 Rennison: The state law -- Wyndridge -- Wyndstone. Excuse me. Wyndstone, they really just can't come in and dig into the ditch without having some type of permission. You know, you can't cut into the banks and that. So, they need to sit down and work out a plan that's workable by all parties and right now we are going to start cleaning the ditch on Sunday, put water in on Wednesday. Mr. Bob Middleton has no water. B&F Enterprises, represented by Jim Fehrman, refused to put any line across the front of his place in the irrigation easement last year and that's where the Ada County called me and got me involved in it. Okay? And so -- Zaremba: Just for clarification, is that a previous owner of this property that you're talking about? Rennison: No. That's the current owner. Zaremba: Okay. Rennison: B&F Enterprises. Quasar Development, LLC, they are the developers and hope to buy the property. You know, they have got a paper that you -- you know, and everything is pretty well put in place, but Mr. Fehrman will not turn loose of his property and the question -- or the current purchaser has come up with a plan to put a ditch through the field and get it over to Mr. Fehrman. Ada County has no problem with this as a temporary system. However, we ask that these issues be addressed before you approve their permit. Okay? Zaremba: We will have the applicant do that. Do you have another issue besides the irrigation? Rennison: Yes, I have. Zaremba: Okay. Please do it quickly. Rennison: The lighting that goes in the facility, you know, needs to be subdued, okay? Because 50 foot off their fence are people's backyards, porches, upstairs. They have two story houses. So, they need to have some subdued lighting in there, because they have a parking lot right up by the fence and we all recognize we -- when we have a secretary get off work, we don't want her walking out into a dark parking lot. That's not good. Okay? And so we need to do something to subdue the lighting and, yet, provide for the people who get off work at night, especially in the wintertime, just for safety reasons. Okay? Zaremba: There is a standard requirement in Meridian that their lighting must be down- shielded and pretty well prevented from bleeding off into neighboring properties, so -- that's a standard ordinance. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21, 2005 Page 24 of 49 Rennison: Right. Right now Comfort Suites has all their lights on in their pool and it's just like a spotlight shining in everybody's back windows over there. So, we want to prevent it from happening with anything else that's put in. The building height -- Zaremba: Actually, this is a separate issue, but they would be in violation, if you care to call the enforcement officer at the police department, they will get those lights aimed properly. Rennison: Thank you very much. Appreciate the comment. Okay. And the building height, although 35 feet isn't exceptional, it would block some of the freeway, except it's just a peak on the building and if it's possible to change the building height to a maximum of 30 feet, that would be quite nice. That's just a request. It's not a demand. Okay? And -- Borup: I had a question on that. Mr. Rennison, I just had a question on that. They are proposing single story and two story buildings. I assume you're okay with two story? Rennison: The two story building looks really quite nice and, then, they have right above the entrance a big peak and that's -- Borup: So, that's what your concern was was on the -- on the architectural there? Rennison: Yes. Uh-huh. They have, actually, done a very nice job laying out the whole system, you know. You can't fault them for that. They have worked really hard, you know, and we will work with them any way we can and we met with them last night and we talked about a lot of these issues. Okay? And we tried to resolve them and they have worked very hard today to try to get Mr. Fehrman to give them access across their property and I got a phone call at 2:30 saying you're trying to screw up my million-dollar sale. If you screw it up, I'll get you, it's going to cost you, I will take you to court, you know, and blah, blah, blah. So, I just -- Zaremba: Even though the future owner is agreeing to what you're asking for? Rennison: Yeah. The bypass system for irrigation was paid for last year by others. Okay? Comfort Suites would have paid for all of it. The county would have done everything within the road, there was no cost out of Mr. Fehrman’s pocket and he refused to let anybody on his land, so we -- Borup: Which property is Mr. Fehrman's? Rennison: Pardon? Borup: Where is Mr. Fehrman's property in relation to this? Rennison: He owns B&F Enterprises, along with another partner. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21, 2005 Page 25 of 49 Borup: Okay. All right. Rennison: Yes. Borup: So, it is the same property? It is the same property? Rennison: It's the same property. Thank you for asking the clarification and -- because of some of these issues, I'm asking that you place a hold on the preliminary plat application until they are resolved, not hold it for three weeks or anything like that, but hold it for just a short time until it can be resolved. And that's basically -- Zaremba: Try to resolve them tonight. Rennison: Yes. Have it resolved tonight and I appreciate Shawn's comments. I mean as I told them on the phone, they are very ethical people, I like working with them, I have worked with a lot of people in my life, I'm a construction engineer and have worked all over the country and worked with all kinds of people and they seem to be very nice and ethical and I trust that. But they don't want to be unethical with me. Nobody does. Okay? And with yourselves. So, I appreciate your listening to me and please take the documents I gave you under consideration, if you will. Rohm: I just have one question, Mr. Chairman. Zaremba: Certainly. Rohm: This letter submitted by yourself, sir, Mr. Rennison, this irrigation water, pressure irrigation system with five items, A through E, that is the proposed system that -- that you have put your hand to and if, in fact, the applicant agrees to that system, that's acceptable to you; is that as I understand it? Rennison: There currently isn't any true system designed. That has to be designed. They, basically, have -- running down -- excuse me. I will walk over there. Zaremba: There is a pointer -- Rennison: Thank you. The current line basically comes in through here -- it comes through a siphon under the freeway. Okay? And it comes over here and they have it just basically as a CMP pipe running clear up to the corner up there with no provision for in here and it runs clear down here to this distribution box right here. And there is no provision for, you know, any details of any kind. I'm sure they will work something up, but this area right across here, this easement that we are -- the pipe would have gone through if we had been able to put it in last year, and last year Mr. Middleton received no irrigation water, so that's a rather serious situation. He's entitled to his water and Mr. Fehrman won't -- Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21, 2005 Page 26 of 49 Zaremba: Was there at ditch at some time that somebody covered over and that's what we are trying to undo? Borup: In other words, Mr. Middleton had water up until last year? Rennison: Yeah. He had water prior to last year. However -- Borup: I don't know if -- Rennison: -- we were using the Cary Bower ditch and the county, when they developed Comfort Suites, the county had to change back to some of their regulations and their regulations were that you can't run any water in a county ditch, you have to maintain it and keep it within your property boundaries. Okay? So, they came and called me and asked me to help them and we have, over at this far corner right here, when this was designed, we have a tap right here, a 12 inch tap, that runs off -- it would run off and feed Mr. Middleton's property. And when the whole interstate was designed, I worked with the state and we come up with -- came up with all the boxes and all the distribution system to maintain a complete lateral. The main lateral came through here, ran across through the field, back through this fence right here, and down through the back and off through a random path that we will see on the drawings, through -- into Five Mile Creek, which is where it still goes. Borup: So, up until last year Mr. Middleton received his water from a barrow pit ditch, rather than from a separate users ditch? Rennison: That is correct. Borup: Okay. Rennison: We had the tap there and he just pulled it out of that tap and the county, of course, they said as we develop people use barrow ditches all the time and as we develop the barrow ditches are going to be -- Borup: Okay. Rennison: So, we got caught in a crossfire right there. But the county seriously has bent over backwards to assist in the problem. Are there anymore questions? Zaremba: You have a great deal of historical knowledge on this and I have appreciated the education and the knowledge. I think we have asked our questions as we went along. Commissioners, any other questions? Rennison: One comment. I have worked with the -- been, basically, chairman of the water users association since about 1981 and we draw the water from the Ridenbaugh Canal, it comes all the way from the canal up Overland Road to the Overland-Eagle intersection, it crosses there to the northwest corner and starts through a field and, Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21, 2005 Page 27 of 49 then, it goes through a subdivision and, then, it wanders through another field, which is 36 acres, which will be soon coming under development also. And the corner of the -- the northeast corner of Eagle and Overland is going to go under development there, too, so we have to work out the irrigation system with these people. So, we have got to go out and burn all of the ditches this weekend, so we have our work cut out for us, but it looks like it might turn out quite nice in the future for us. Zaremba: You have a job keeping your eye on what everybody else is doing. I appreciate that. Rennison: We have had people get pretty irate if they don't get their water, but it's on a -- on a basis -- we took the total acreage, we took 24 hours a day, seven days a week, came up with 168 hours, we took three hours for wetting time in the ditch, where ever it had to be, and we took those hours, divided into the acres -- or divided the acres into the hours, we came up with how many hours per acre is allocated for each individual's irrigation system. Borup: Is this the Magic View and the Locust -- Rennison: Locust Heights. Borup: What, the water had been used by those two areas, Locust Heights, plus Magic View? Rennison: That is correct. Borup: And does it go any further west from Locust Heights? Rennison: No. Borup: It stops at Locust Grove Road, then? Rennison: We used to go through Windmere -- Woodbridge Subdivision, but in all their revamping and changing, they took our line and turned it and ran right along the canal. Borup: Okay. Rennison: The south fence. Borup: I just wanted to get a feel for how many properties this was serving. Rennison: Yeah. We have 44 properties that are involved in this, anywhere’s from, like I say, .34 acres to 39 acres, that use the water and so we try to monitor pretty carefully and if somebody doesn't put their gate in and the water is still running through the person down below, he can irrigate. So we have flexibility to accommodate everybody in every situation and we try to maintain that quite carefully and if you will, please, look Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21, 2005 Page 28 of 49 through the different exhibits here, you will see the system that we have, where the irrigation ditch runs, you will see one picture in the exhibit that shows all the areas that this ditch irrigates. Okay? It comes down through Keystone and El Dorado, through that area there. And so if you will, please, review the documents and make your decision, I would appreciate that. Zaremba: Thank you. We will do that. Rennison: And I'd like to turn this over to -- Zaremba: Have you given a copy of each of those to Mr. Nickel? If you have more copies than you handed out, could you hand him -- oh, he does have a set. Thank you. I appreciate that. Rennison: If he needs another one, I have a couple extras. Thank you very much for your time. Zaremba: Thank you. Actually, we don't have anybody else signed up, but, again, the opportunity to speak is yours if you wish to. Buckert: I am Wanda Buckert, 971 Wells Circle, Meridian. I am Lot 20. That circle. You see next to his property. Borup: This is your home here? Buckert: Yes. The reason there is an encroachment -- I gave the City of Meridian 20 feet of easement to put in the water main, although I'm still in the rural county. You have -- when people come in -- I had my place for sale. They come in, you tell them I'm zoned R-1. I am zoned R-2. There is two gentlemen in the audience, Mr. Rennison and Mr. Middleton is one, that was at that meeting where it was passed by the Ada -- the Ada County board, the staff, so I am zoned two and the reason of the encroachment is because when the City of Meridian put in the water, in my contract I was to have a stub for future -- a water stub to the water main. I was to have a fire hydrant. It's in, but now Ada County developers tell me it's almost in the middle of the circle, which Ada County claims that's their property. In fact, there was a surveyor -- I'm not sure yet who it was -- the came out while I was gone about three weeks ago, tore my fence down, drove out in the driveway -- I mean out in my field while it was soft and left the fence. I'm a single lady living by myself, so the reason that is there is because of the mistake of the City of Meridian. Borup: The fire hydrant is what you're referring to? Buckert: Pardon? Borup: The fire hydrant is what you're referring to? Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21, 2005 Page 29 of 49 Bucket: Yes. Yes. Borup: And the fence. Bucket: It's -- Borup: Just the fire hydrant? Buckert: No. Borup: Okay. Buckert: Also, the water stub. The stub -- I believe it's a six-inch stub and that's in the middle, but they did assure me that they will move it. I took their word for it. I just wanted it on record. Also, that means -- there was some existing fence when I bought that in April of '82. Twenty-four years I have lived there. And I was told that was my property line and that's where my fence is now. But they have cut me down an awful lot. One other thing. I have a 24-year maple -- 24-year-old maple tree they tell me they have to remove. I have bushes. My telephone connection is there. My sprinkler system is there where they have to take out all of the shrubs and the tree. So, I just wanted to make that clear why it is encroached upon. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Any other questions? Anyone else care to speak on this subject? Sir, come on up. Middleton: I'm Robert Middleton, 955 South Wells Street. I'm the property that does not get the water. I had received water up until the time, as stated by Mr. Rennison. When we initially purchased the property there were no easements and the roads were all private. The easements for this that the county is wanting everything in, appeared in 1983, when they did their amended survey, but they also assured us at that time and required us to sign a letter requiring -- that they accepted as it was before they would take it. They took the irrigation ditches the way they were until last year. This is when the problem occurred. I believe that we probably have a solution with the developers of this property. Okay. They seem to be very easy to work with and just happy as can be. Now, all we have to do is get it done. I just wanted to clear up that point, that we are not trying to take something that we did not own, it was there -- in fact, I have a title policy that shows that there were not easements when we purchased that property and that's where the original irrigation was. So, if you have any questions on this, I would be happy to try and explain it, because it's a bad situation. Zaremba: I appreciate that input. Middleton: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21, 2005 Page 30 of 49 Zaremba: Thank you. There appear to be some legal issues and I would ask our legal counsel whether you care to comment now or should we have Mr. Nickel offer his solutions first? Baird: Mr. Chair and Members of the Commission, if you have a specific question, I would be pleased to answer it. However, I anticipate that Mr. Nickel may be able to clear up the bulk of this, so if there are any remaining legal issues after his rebuttal, I would be happy to answer specific questions at that time. Zaremba: Thank you. Let's proceed with Mr. Nickel, then. Rohm: Before we do that, though, I have a question of staff. Through this testimony there was reference to the irrigation system not having sufficient waters to irrigate this development through their nine hours or however many hours that they are allowed and I think that the intent was to put this on city water for their irrigation and I'd just like to get some staff comment on that and see if they are in concurrence. Freckleton: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Rohm, the application, as I remember it -- I don't remember that it specifically talked about any problems with irrigation water. So, it's something that we are definitely going to have to address with the -- with the applicant and his engineer through the -- through the process. From the testimony tonight and what was submitted by Mr. Rennison, it does appear that there is some water available. Maybe not enough to provide 24-7 type service, so, you know, there might have to be some sort of a system with a supplement connection to city water. Until we see the details it's kind of hard to -- to tell how this is going to work out. We do require that, basically, all other forms of irrigation water source are proved out before we consider using city water for the source of water, so -- Rohm: It kind of sounded to me like the city would need to supplement this, but not necessarily be the primary source, and that being said, at such time that we move forward, I'd like to get some input on how that should be phased, because I think that we should make that part of any motion that you might think about that as we -- and maybe Mr. Nickel will have some comments that he will help resolve that as well. End of questions. Zaremba: All right. Thank you. Mr. Nickel, let's proceed with -- okay. You are sharing your ten minutes, I think it? Erickson: Ross Erickson. 5293 North Schubert, Meridian, Idaho. I'm the applicant's engineer. We met with Mr. Rennison and the rest of -- let's see, Mr. Middleton, Mrs. Buckert, and the main bulletin -- yesterday I was working with them and all throughout today trying to get some clarification for me this year. And for the most part, actually, in the entirety we are in agreement with the irrigation concern. There is a lot of history, as you guys are aware now, with some of the difference being kind of relocated along the property and points to the diversion being moved around throughout the years and people not getting water, people getting projects and the intent of our project -- we fully Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21, 2005 Page 31 of 49 intend to supply water to all the property owners that are currently getting water, and, in addition to that, we are going to make a provision for Mr. Middleton, so he can receive water. Once this project is built. In addition to that, as acting as kind of a go-between the neighbors and Mr. Middleton and the property owner Mr. Fehrman. I put together a sketch and I will just toss that to you guys real quick. This says -- the sketch has been faxed back and forth a couple times, but you have done a pretty good job of explaining what we are doing. There is an existing head-gate located along the -- along the ITD right of way there and currently there is no means for this property here to get irrigation water, so in the interim, prior to constructing this project and providing a pipe to gravity source to Mr. Middleton, to his property, we are proposing to construct a temporary fix from this point, across the property, and, then, connect it up. There is, actually, a pipe located underneath Wells Circle here that Mr. Middleton can receive water through to irrigate his property. So, we have gotten Mr. Fehrman's signature on this drawing that authorizes our agents to go in there and actually construct this little V ditch, which will be nothing more than probable, you know, something like this, to supply some water to him in the interim until the project is built. As far as the design of the system, you know, at this point of the project everything is pretty conceptual as far as the horizontal line that the pipes are going and things and, then, we will be working with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District throughout the process to design to the standards and things for block sizes, material types, pipe sizes, et cetera. So, as far as the plans go, you know, once we get to that point as far as working up the specific details, that work will all be coordinated and approved by the irrigation district. As far as the irrigation system for the landscaping for the project, it is our intent to utilize as much of the surface water as we can to irrigate the landscaping and, then, use a secondary connection to the city's primary system to supplement, because it looks like we already have some issues or some surprises with having a full-time pressure irrigation system from surface water. So, it will be kind of a combined system that would help us coordinate some details with the city once we get to that point where we are putting construction drawings together and things. Mrs. Buckert had a few comments regarding some of the encroachments into the right of way. One of this is along the front of her property. In ACHD's staff report it indicates that we are going to have to relocate that hydrant that is located within the right of way to a location outside of the right of way and we are in agreement with that. We will take care of that with our project, as well as, you know, she has got some utilities -- there is a telephone pole out there. There is some comments in the staff report that say we can't have her service down for, you know, a length of time and we will make every provision we can to minimize any interruption to her service, you know, during construction. Zaremba: Would you be willing and able to reassemble her fence outside of the right of way? Ericksen: I guess I'm not sure specifically what she's talking about. I think she's talking about the fence just along the end of the cul-de-sac here. And, you know, we do that -- I think it's -- at this point it's just a -- like a three strand or a four strand barbed wire fence with some metal posts and we are going to have to be moving those improvements to pave out the cul-de-sac for the turnaround anyway, so I don't see a Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21, 2005 Page 32 of 49 problem with those -- taking and resetting those posts and restringing wire. It's re- connective fence, so it's secure, so if you have animals or stock or anything on it. Yeah. We can do that. There are a couple of items in Mr. Rennison's comments that he handed out that I agree with, just thought I would mention. He currently operates the gates to kind of control the water throughout the delivery system in this whole area and I talked with him earlier today and he had requested that we put a gate at this location, so he can access through this from -- from this side down to the head-gate that will be at this location also at this location. So, we will probably have forms we can get through to operate those gates. As far as the lighting goes, at this point we haven't put together a site plan, so it's a little bit preliminary for that, but once we get to that point, we will, you know, design according the city standards some plants and things and go through the process to make sure that we are not generating some sliding things for the neighbors. It think that's all I had. I will stand for any questions. Zaremba: He answered all of mine. Rohm: I just have something that I've written up here that I'd like to add to the staff report as part of a motion and before I do that I want to get some concurrence from you folks that this meets the needs of the water users and acceptable to you, so I'm just going to read it to you and see if there is some word-smithing that might need to take place. On the site-specific conditions, I would propose that we add an Item 11 that says applicants shall design an irrigation system sufficient to satisfy all adjacent properties currently being served by the existing system to include the Middleton property, even though it's not currently being served, that property, as well as all others currently being served. I think that addresses the irrigation issue, without coming up with a specific design. Erickson: Yeah. I would agree with that and that is our plan to provide Mr. Middleton water as part of our project, so I think that condition would be suitable. Rohm: Okay. That's all I had. Zaremba: I also see Mr. Middleton shaking his head yes. We may have agreement on that one. Did you have another one? Rohm: No. I that would be it. Zaremba: Okay. Erickson: All right. Thank you. Zaremba: All right. Thank you. I'm not -- I don't know whether there is time left or not. Mr. Nickel, do you need to add anything? Okay. Freckleton: Mr. Chair? Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21, 2005 Page 33 of 49 Zaremba: Where did that voice come from? Mr. Freckleton, I believe. Freckleton: A voice from the beyond. To address Commissioner Rohm's question earlier, I believe site-specific comment number five on page 14 adequately covers the concern regarding the availability of surface water. The tail end of that comment says the applicant shall be required to utilize any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If the surface or well source is not available, a single point connection to the culinary water system shall be acquired and, then, it goes on to talk about payment of assessment, since that is the case, so I think we are covered. Rohm: Thank you. That was the point that I brought that up for. Thank you. Okay. Zaremba: And in spite of my earlier comment, I think if we are finding agreement between the applicant and the neighbors, I don't have a question for our legal -- Borup: Well, I do have a question for Mr. Nickel. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: And I think my other questions have been answered. I just -- we have not received any comment from the two neighbors to the west. Has there been any discussion with them? I just find that curious that -- Nickel: Mr. Chairman, Shawn Nickel for the record. And Commissioner Borup. Other than Elwood, who lives right here -- Borup: Right. The -- Nickel: We notified these folks a couple times, because I messed up my neighborhood meeting notification, so we noticed them a couple of times and I don't -- I don't recall ever hearing from them. I do not recall every hearing from them. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: The applicant gets to have the last word, so we are -- we have moved on to that point. Nickel: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, it sounds like there might have been some language barriers between one of the neighbors and a work conflict with the other, so I would be more than happy to maybe meet out there or go door to door to those two, just to make sure that they are okay and I would imagine that Mr. Rennison would also help me with that and we would see no problem with just making sure they are comfortable with that, if -- Borup: And I don't know that I'm asking that. It's up to -- Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21, 2005 Page 34 of 49 Nickel: We have no problem doing -- Borup: Well, if there had been any -- I mean I realize it's very preliminary, but as far as building heights on the two western buildings, has there been any discussion at all on that? Nickel: No, sir. Borup: But just from past experience, it's -- you know, it's -- the adjoining neighbors, you have some concern. I know office buildings is a much preferable use to almost anything. Just about everything. Zaremba: A lot of other stuff that could be there. Borup: But you're maybe looking at a reduced setback, plus perhaps two story buildings and a combination of both was my concern. Nickel: I don't believe we are asking for the reduced setback. Borup: Did that change? Nickel: Are we asking for reduced setback on the west boundary? Borup: No. The rear of the lots. Nickel: I think that's the -- Borup: Did I misunderstand that? Hood: That was the internal. So, there are two lots along Wells Circle that actually go below the street side or rear setback or -- Borup: So, the building setback would be to the 20 foot? Nickel: That's correct. Borup: Okay. Yeah. I understand that. Nickel: They were encroached to the -- Borup: No. That was my understanding on that. Nickel: But, again, I would have no problem, as a courtesy, to just inform those folks. Zaremba: My personal opinion would be since they have not appeared tonight at this noticed Public Hearing, that we would not wait for their input, but I would appreciate Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21, 2005 Page 35 of 49 your offer to talk them and the value to that would be that you would not be surprised by their testimony at the Public Hearing before the City Council, which follows this. Nickel: Yes. I agree. Zaremba: I think that's a good solution and it doesn't impact our decision for tonight. Borup: And that's -- yeah. I wasn't intending for it to -- anything for tonight. Hood: Mr. Chair, to throw a little bit of a late wrinkle onto this and to let Shawn know when he does talk to those property owners, there is a sewer line and easement along that west property line. The Public Works Department has just informed me they don't want any trees in there, so our typical land use buffer now has to contain just shrubs. The applicant is proposing a six foot vinyl fence that will provide some of that buffer, but a lot of the nice trees that are still shown here, cannot happen and they need to have their access maintained -- there are actually manholes on the back side there as well, so we are going to need to work with them a little bit on -- on landscaping back in there on that side of things. So, just to let you know those trees are not going to go about like it's proposed here, it doesn't seem like, so -- Borup: Mr. Hood, the -- I assume that would not affect the existing trees, though? It looks like there is some pretty extensive existing trees that are off site from this, right along the property lines, so -- Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Borup, yeah, there are several trees. They are on the other side of the 25-foot easement that basically is on the western boundary of this site and goes east 20 feet, so they are just from the outside. I think there is one six-inch tree that will have to be removed. Borup: But there is about, what, 19 others that -- Hood: Yeah. There is several -- yeah, there is several others that can remain on the other side of that fence that's proposed. So, there is some screening on the other side of the fence for those property owners, but we will just need to work on coming up with a different scheme for that side of the development, so -- Nickel: Mr. Chairman, if staff is comfortable, we can work that out prior to final plan or -- I don't know if you want to have a revised landscape plan prior to City Council, I'll leave that up to staff to make that recommendation. And if I could add one other thing. I did talk to Mr. Rennison and his comments with regards to the lighting were from the neighbors to the west and so I believe we did get some input on that and we can address that again with the design of those lighting -- that lighting. I'm still going to make a -- make a pit stop over there to talk to them, but I think that's some of the comments that have been presented tonight. Zaremba: Great. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21, 2005 Page 36 of 49 Nickel: Thanks. Rohm: Mr. Chairman -- Zaremba: Let me just ask a quick question of staff. The apparent agreements between the applicant and the neighbors and their willingness to work the other issues out with staff, is that comfortable for everybody? Hood: Yeah. Zaremba: I see and hear a yes. Okay. Commissioners? Rohm: All right. Mr. Chairman? Borup: Let me -- sorry. I was still back on -- well, I was looking further my concern for the building height and such, but I mean I look at the location here and I guess I'm thinking if I lived there that would be a nice buffer from the freeway and it might be an improvement almost. Zaremba: Do we have an aerial view that would show how far the neighboring residences are from this property? They don't appear to be backed right up against it. Borup: No. One's here and one's here. Okay. Zaremba: Yeah. Borup: Excuse me, Mr. Rohm. Zaremba: Thank you. Rohm: Mr. Chair, I move we -- Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we close the public hearings on AZ 05-010, PP 05-012, and CUP 05-014. Borup: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21, 2005 Page 37 of 49 Rohm: Okay. The other thing that I was going to add to the site specific conditions is to replace that fence at the end of -- the west end of that cul-de-sac and I think that the appropriate place would be the site specific conditions or -- Zaremba: Or the CUP? Rohm: Well, I'm not sure if it would be the CUP or -- Zaremba: A recommendation from staff as to where to mention that. Canning: The issue we were jabbering about, if that's what -- was not so much where to add it, which as to the wording to add it and we would prefer that you note that it is a commitment made by the developer, rather than a condition we have placed upon them, because it is off site. So, if you could just make it clear that it's a commitment the developer has made and go ahead and list it out. Just semantics, but -- Zaremba: But during the annexation discussion or plat discussion -- Canning: Probably in the annexation discussion would be best. Zaremba: Okay. Rohm: Okay. Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: All right. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-010, to include staff comments for the hearing date April 21st and received on April 14th and for the AZ no changes. Borup: Second. Zaremba: Did you want to comment on the offer to restore the fence? Rohm: I was thinking I'd put that on either the preliminary plat or the CUP, but you think it should be on the AZ? Borup: That's -- well, that's true. It's not a -- it's not a condition, so I guess it doesn't matter where it goes. Zaremba: It's doesn't make too much difference where it goes. Rohm: Yeah. Since I have already finished my motion, I -- Borup: And I seconded it, I think. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21, 2005 Page 38 of 49 Zaremba: There is a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Rohm: All right. Moving on. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval PP 05-012, to include staff comments for the hearing date April 21st, 2005, and received on April 14th, 2005, with the following changes: On page 15 we need to add item number 11 and it is to read: Applicant shall design an irrigation system sufficient to satisfy all adjacent properties currently being served by existing irrigation system and to include the Middleton property as well. That's the end of item 11. Item 12 shall read: Applicant agrees to replace the fencing removed at the end of the cul-de-sac on the northwest part of the property and this is not a condition set forth by the city, but it's agreed to by the applicant. End of motion. Borup: One comment. Rather than say replace, I might use the word re-install, as we are not talking about inventing a new fence, but -- Rohm: Okay. Re-install the fence that has been or will be taken down for the installation of the cul-de-sac. Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: Second that. Zaremba: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of CUP 05-014, to include staff comments for the hearing date April 21st, 2005, and received on April 14th, 2005. Borup: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries as well. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Zaremba: Thank you all very much. We have reached 9:00 o'clock and even though we only have one big item left, we traditionally take about a ten-minute break at this point and we would appreciate doing that and we will reconvene in ten minutes. (Recess.) Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21, 2005 Page 39 of 49 Item 16: Public Hearing: AZ 05-011 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 6.26 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Lyndhurst Grove Subdivision by Highland Development, LLC – 2820 West Pine Avenue: Item 17: Public Hearing: PP 05-013 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 36 building lots and 5 common lots on 6.26 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Lyndhurst Grove Subdivision by Highland Development, LLC – 2820 West Pine Avenue: Item 18: Public Hearing: CUP 05-015 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for single-family detached residential units and single-family attached residential units in a proposed R-8 zone for Lyndhurst Grove Subdivision by Highland Development, LLC – 2820 West Pine Avenue: Zaremba: Ladies and gentlemen, we will reconvene and let the record show that all the Commissioners that were present before are again present and I will open the public hearings for AZ 05-011, request for annexation and zoning of 6.26 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Lyndhurst Grove Subdivision. Also Public Hearing PP 05-013, request for preliminary plat approval of 36 building lots and five common lots on 6.26 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Lyndhurst Grove Subdivision. And also CUP 05-015 -- excuse me -- request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for single family detached residential units and single family attached residential units in a proposed R-8 zone for Lyndhurst Grove Subdivision by Highland Development, LLC, 2820 West Pine Avenue and we will begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The project that you just described is located on the north side of Pine Avenue, approximately 825 feet to the east of Ten Mile Road. There is an existing home and some outbuildings on the site. The applicant is proposing to relocate the existing home onto Lot 14, Block 2, in the same general location on the southeast side of the property. They will be removing all other structures. To the north of the subject site, the Eight Mile Lateral -- I'll try to -- it kind of courses in this general direction. Directly to the north on the other side is Haven Cove Subdivision. They are zoned R-4, single family homes. To the south are some single-family homes on the large parcels here. Some of them now vacant zoned RUT in the county. To the east is Kelsey Park Subdivision, also zoned R-4. It's this little triangular subdivision. And to the west is the recently approved Somersby Subdivision and that's zoned R-15. Somersby took up -- went all the way to the intersection. This portion is zoned R-15. Right on the corner is zoned L-O. I just want to point out to the southwest of that you can see here the preliminary plat lines are in -- the construction lines aren't there, but they have constructed some of the existing attached units in The Courtyards at Ten Mile. I bring that up just because we did have a letter that we received in our office this afternoon from the developer of that and I will touch on that in just a couple more minutes, but I wanted to kind of orient you with that development. It takes up this intersection here. So, 12 of the proposed 36 lots are proposed to contain Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21, 2005 Page 40 of 49 single family detached homes -- or, I'm sorry, attached dwellings, town homes, with zero lots, and the remaining 24 are detached lots. The gross density of the proposed R-8 development is 5.75 dwelling units per acre. Staff believes that this is a very good transition between the more traditional single family and the multi-family development to the west. Again, that's Somersby. The applicant is proposing to extend a stub street from Somersby Subdivision into the site that will eventually come down and connect with Pine Avenue. The proposed amenities don't snow up any better on this landscape plan, but they do include some playground equipment and a picnic area, including tables and a barbecue on Lot 21, Block 2. In addition, there are over six percent of the site being set aside for open space. Here are some simple versions of the detached homes and -- sorry they didn't come through very well, but that's attached units, so there will be two dwelling units on either side of the common -- the outline would be there. Quickly just a couple of issues or points of clarification. There is a stub street in -- Clara Street is the name of the street in Haven Cove. We are stubbed basically at the top of bank of Eight Mile. Staff did not believe that it's warranted for that to be extended and another bridge across the Eight Mile. There is a crossing right here, with the extension into Somersby and here you get the same connectivity, it just seemed to be a little redundant to have that extended there. There will be a pedestrian crossing from that. They do have a common lot here, a micro path running and tying up, plus the existing foot bridge across that would tie into the sidewalks on Clara Street. Just to point out to the applicant and the Commission that I have requested a revised landscape plan. There were several changes in the staff report and this is one where we would like to see those changes made and resubmitted to the city ten days before the next Public Hearing, so I did just want to reiterate that. I tried to bold it in the staff report as well. And now to the real issues with this one. Sanitary sewer -- currently there is not sewer available by gravity means to this property. That's pointed out in the staff report. The applicant -- there is a dry line sewer in Pine Street. The applicant is proposing to extend from their east boundary line to the south private lift station at The Courtyards At Ten Mile. This lift station is private; therefore, the subject applicant will need to work with the city and the developer of The Courtyards on upgrading that lift station. And the other thing we brought up in the letter from the developer of The Courtyards was the existing traffic in the area. They were required to construct turn lanes at the intersection of Ten Mile and Pine. They mentioned something about a latecomers fee or being reimbursed for a proportionate share of their -- the cost to install those and that was a condition of The Courtyards project, but he throw that out there in the letter. I'll let you review that. You did get copies of that letter, is that -- okay. With that, just to kind of follow up with that one, Somersby mostly amended their development agreement and they are only allowed to construct eight detached units and nine multi-family -- or nine attached multi-family units until the Ten Mile/Pine intersection is improved with a signal. So, those have been restricted to what they can do prior to the intersection improvements being constructed. Staff has not made that a condition of this subject application, they are more -- or approximately 1,000 feet away from that intersection and didn't see that the implications of 36 additional homes -- although they will have an impact on that intersection, would be prudent to restrict this that way. So, I will -- will recommend approval of this subject application with the conditions in the staff report. I did just want to point out that I talked to the applicant at Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21, 2005 Page 41 of 49 the break. One point of clarification I'll let him kind of give his proposal first, but site specific condition on number -- site specific condition number three on page 19 does talk about the amenities. I believe the applicant is going to propose to actually pave up to that footbridge and do some reconstruction of the footbridge to make it usable. It's a little dilapidated, I guess, and they are going to improve it. The city will offer to enter into a maintenance agreement with Nampa-Meridian to make sure that that footbridge is maintained that the applicant constructs. So, I just want to go on record that if he, in fact, does propose that, then, we would be amenable to the maintenance of that. So, I thought it fit pretty well and we would add a second sentence on that site specific condition number three on page 19. With that, I will stand for any questions. Zaremba: Commissioners? I have a compelling need to ask an off-the-wall question. Hood: Okay. Zaremba: On page 13, paragraph five, starts out the applicant has not indicated who will own and operate the pressurized irrigation system. We see that on probably 90 percent of reports and I guess my question is does that question appear on the application? So, we do ask, it's just 90 percent of the people don't answer it? Hood: We do ask and I think Shawn Nickel, about a hundred percent of the time, says - - does not commit to who is going to own and operate that. Zaremba: So, we are at least asking. That was what I wanted to know. Okay. All right. If there are no other questions from the Commissioners, would the applicant care to come forward. Amar: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, my name is Kevin Amar, address 36 East Pine here in Meridian. I am here representing Lyndhurst Grove Subdivision. Staff did an excellent job of describing to you what the subdivision is, so I probably won't go over that again. Excuse me. We did have a neighborhood meeting on site, spoke with some of the neighbors, and Mr. Bergante, who -- I think that's how you say his name. He's not here this evening. But he lives in this house right here. Excuse me. He was really the only one with a question and that was what was the minimum home size. We are at 1,301 square feet and all of them and I told him because his subdivision, Kelsey Subdivision, has a minimum home size of 1,400 square feet on those lots that border Kelsey, we will also put those at 1,400 square feet. Excuse me. And he seemed satisfied with that. We did have some other neighbors -- as a matter of fact, we had a couple that requested, actually, to come and speak in favor of the subdivision, which I haven't ever had that before. I hope we make it through this. We do 36 lots. We have tried to make a 467 feet transition from an R-15 zoning down to an R-4 zoning. Thanks, Shawn. And we are, actually, relocating the existing house on site, so there will be additional -- 35 lots. With respect to the footbridge, that is an off-site improvement that we are requesting to do. It does make sense, I think, to have the connection between two subdivisions, at least a pedestrian. The bridge actually already exists. It was previously a bridge for the house on the north side -- the old home on the north side of Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21, 2005 Page 42 of 49 -- I forget the name of the lateral. So, it's a well constructed bridge, it just hasn't been used in a few years, so it needs cleaned up a little bit and that's something we will do. We just need to enter into a license agreement with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District with respect to the pressurized irrigation system -- Zaremba: Is there an unused glass of water along here somewhere? Amar: With respect to the pressurized irrigation system, I believe that system ultimately is going to be owned by Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. In talking to them that's what they had indicated. We will work with the developer next door and, ultimately, it will be a Nampa-Meridian irrigation system. We have contacted Mr. Campbell back in -- actually, last year and talked to him about the sewer lift station and we received a letter from him January 9th stating that we could work with him and hook up to the sewer lift station. I spoke with his representative, who is Rod Ralphs, today, after he sent the letter and Mr. Ralphs said that he hadn't realized -- or Doug did not remember even signing a letter. So, I think it was just a matter of -- it was four months ago when he signed the letter. I have a copy of the letter and I have provided it to your staff and we will certainly work with -- with the developer of The Courtyards At Ten Mile for any sewer connection. I'm going to quit talking here real quick. I guess with that I'm going to stand for any questions and sit down. I don't know if I'm going to make it much longer. Zaremba: Well, by your testimony you clearly understand that the city is not prepared to provide sewer at this point. Amar: No, but they are getting closer. Zaremba: Okay. Amar: We can talk a little bit about the sewer. Zaremba: Well, I was just going to say that the connection that you would put in or the infrastructure that you would put in to reach the current private lift station that you're talking about, is not a whole lot different than what you will eventually have to put in anyhow, right? So, this is -- Amar: In order the reach this lift station, an eight or ten-inch trunk line will have to be ran down Pine Street. So, it's ultimately what the city wants and it will connect to the lift station, which is at this corner. Ultimately, the sewer will run down Pine. This is Castlebrook Subdivision, one that I'm involved in, and we are extending the sewer even closer to Pine Street as we speak and talking with staff about where those stubs should be. So, I don't know -- I don't think this lift station is going to be on line very long. Bruce will be able to answer that question better than I will. I just know it's getting real close to Pine. Zaremba: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21, 2005 Page 43 of 49 Amar: Thank you. Zaremba: Barbara Bollis has signed up. Bollis: Hi. My name is Barbara Bollis and my address is 2783 West Eptide and I am -- Zaremba: There is a pointer on the platform there. Bollis: Oh. Okay. My house is right here. Right here. Yeah. Right here. Okay. So, I talked to the owners. I have enjoyed having that view for quite a long time, four years now, and, you know, watching the birds out there and the snow capped mountains and, then, those apartments came up, but I could still see up above and then -- but I always thought that their house would be there, because it was a farm with a little orchard and everything and that's the only reason I bought my house. But I kept thinking they -- you know, they would build over there, if anything, so -- but that's their right to do that, that's their property, and I sure appreciate having them for neighbors, even though they are leaving. My concern is if you see the development on the pages, there is a lot of lots there, which tells me there is going to be a lot of construction and though there is a chain link fence along the canal right here, I have a chain link fence there, I'm just concerned of all of the dirt -- dust coming up, because the wind's always blowing that way and I was just wondering if we could -- if I could ask if maybe along that canal they could put on one of those solid fences, instead of a chain link fence, and maybe have a water truck that goes through to keep the dust down. Is that okay to ask? Zaremba: There, actually, are existing standard ordinances that require dust abatement during construction. We will ask them what their plan is for fencing that. But they must protect that waterway as well during construction and those are standard requirements. Bollis: Yeah. Zaremba: But we will ask them what they are planning to do for a fence. Bollis: Okay. And I would like to recommend that, if they could. I have seen a lot of the new subdivisions, they will put in a fence around the boundaries there, like those new vinyl ones, upgrade -- anyway. And, then, also the water truck to keep the dirt down. And other than that, you'll have no complaints from me. Zaremba: Thank you. Any questions? Thank you. Ben and Norma Jeppeson signed up together. If you would care to come up one at a time, we'd like to -- okay. Ben and Norma have -- they are signed up in favor and from the audience they say they are in favor, but have nothing to add. And -- okay. That's the whole list of everybody that has signed up. Does anybody else care to testify or add anything? All right. Well, thank you. Mr. Amar. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21, 2005 Page 44 of 49 Amar: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. With respect to the lateral and the fence, during construction we are required to keep a dust abatement and there is a water truck on site and, in fact, it's getting more stringent, especially with the EPA coming into town and we now have to prepared a new plan that's called a storm water pollution prevention plan that details a lot of that information in it, but we are doing the site construction, which is -- which causes most of the dust and we have a water truck on site. As far as the fence, we anticipate putting an open style fence in there, similar to what they have across the canal and continue with that theme, I guess, that's running along there. Zaremba: Okay. Amar: I don't know if there were any other questions, but -- Zaremba: Any questions from the Commissioners? I think that generally along canals and open spaces like that, it is preferred that it be an open view fence, just so that -- the police department usually asks for that, so that there is no nefarious activity that can go on in blind spots. So, I -- it sounds like the offer is to put a fence, but not a vinyl one. Be open view. Borup: Does the irrigation district do any burning along there on their weed maintenance? Amar: I don't know if they do it. I suspect all irrigation districts do it from time to time. I know they certainly do cleaning and things of that nature, so -- Zaremba: Okay. Any other questions from the Commissioners? Rohm: I have none. Zaremba: Thank you, sir. Borup: There was some reference to the intersection. I don't know if I really understood it. Is there going to be any participation there? Is the traffic study showing that most of the traffic is going to be going to the east anyway? Amar: Actually, with this development we weren't required to do a traffic study by ACHD. I'm not sure what the involvement would be. I know ACHD's stand is you do your own improvements in front of your own development. In fact, I have requested specifically with ACHD to do latecomers agreements and they have told me we don't do it, we are not going to do it, so I don't know -- I guess this time I don't have to do the improvements and -- I don't know. Zaremba: So, ACHD is not asking you to participate in the intersection that's a thousand feet away, so -- Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21, 2005 Page 45 of 49 Amar: In fact, they did not speak to it at all. They have approved the plan as we have it and that was not addressed within their comments at all. Borup: So, the only person that's even brought it up was Mr. Campbell? Amar: Yes, sir. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Amar: Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Any further comments from staff? Apparently not. Commissioners? Apparently not. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we close Public Hearing AZ 05-011 and PP 05-013 and CUP 05-015. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Borup: So, I guess with all that discussion we really don't have any revisions to the staff report; is that -- Zaremba: It doesn't sound like it. Rohm: Were we going to make a reference to the commitment to provide long-term maintenance once the bridge has been upgraded? Borup: Yes. Rohm: That would be item three on page 19. Borup: I wrote a note on that. Let me see if I can find it. So, I assume the parks department will maintain -- Hood: That's correct. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-011, a request for annexation and zoning of 6.26 acres from RUT to R-8 for Lyndhurst Grove Subdivision by Highland Development, recommend approval of that project, to include all staff comments and conditions of the staff memo dated April 21st, received by the clerk April 14th. That concludes the motion. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21, 2005 Page 46 of 49 Rohm: Second. Zaremba: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to City Council recommending approval of PP 05-013, preliminary plat approval of 36 building lots, five common lots, proposed R-8 zone for Lyndhurst Grove Subdivision, to include all staff comments, conditions of the staff memo, again, with a transmittal date of April 13th, received by the city clerk April 14th, 2005. I think that concludes my motion. Rohm: Did you want to speak to the site specific or is that -- Borup: That would be in the conditional use. Rohm: Okay. Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to City Council recommending approval of CUP 05-015, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for single family detached residential units in a proposed R-8 zone, to include all staff comments and conditions in the staff memo dated April 13th, received by the clerk April 14th, with the following change: On page 19, last sentence of item number three, to add that the applicant will improve and reconstruct an existing foot bridge with the -- after entering into an agreement with the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District, after the improvements are made, the city -- the parks department of the City of Meridian will maintain that bridge. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Item 19: Public Hearing: PP 05-011 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 12 building lots on 4.31 acres in a L-O zone for Julie Subdivision by Paramount Development, Inc. – northeast corner of North Linder Road and West Cayuse Drive: Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21, 2005 Page 47 of 49 Item 20: Public Hearing: CUP 05-013 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development with reductions to the minimum requirements for street frontage and building setbacks for Julie Subdivision by Paramount Development, Inc. – northeast corner of North Linder Road and West Cayuse Drive: Zaremba: Thank you all very much. We have another order of business, that is Items 19 and 20, preliminary plat 05-011 and CUP 05-013. I will not open the public hearings for those, since they were failed to be posted properly, but we do need to reschedule them and does staff have an opinion about when we should reschedule? Hood: Not the 19th of May. Zaremba: We have a negative suggestion. Baird: When you do get that date, Mr. Chair, my recommendation would be that you do open the hearing to get on the record the new -- the new date. There is nobody -- nobody here who had received that notice, but, technically, that way you have actually opened it and continued it for those who received mail notice -- notice by mail and might have been here tonight, but, technically, received the notice of the new date. Zaremba: So, there was a partial correct notice and a partial incorrect notice? Baird: It's my understanding it was just the posting of the site that was deficient. There was no issue with the mailed notice. Zaremba: In that case I correct myself and I will open Public Hearing PP 05-011 and CUP 05-013. Both relating to Julie Subdivision. Rohm: How about June 2nd? Canning: Commissioner Zaremba -- Machelle, do you have the agenda for the 2nd? Zaremba: Oh, I do. I thought we were far enough away I already put it away. At present it only shows eight items. I suspect we would be safe to -- Borup: How many projects? Zaremba: Three separate projects, actually. And there are probably more coming, but that's far enough away that they could correct the failure in the noticing and still be timely. I don't have a problem adding it to June 2nd. Rohm: Okay. With that being said -- Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21, 2005 Page 48 of 49 Zaremba: I would include the requirement to re-notice by all methods in the motion. Just a suggestion. Canning: Commissioner Zaremba, are you indicating that you want us to send out mailed notice again? Zaremba: Don't you think we should do that? Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, the reason I suggested that you reopen and actually set a date certain on the record was to avoid the necessity of having the city to incur -- incur that cost. It's my understanding that the failure to post was a failure on behalf of the applicant and that that failure can be corrected with what you're doing now, but it's -- generally it's not been required that other notices be resent. If anybody that received that mailed notice was interested in the project, they would have either sent in an e-mail or would be here in the audience right now tonight and would get that notice of the new date certain. Zaremba: Good. Borup: Wasn't this -- wasn't this part of the original application, this section of the original Paramount? Zaremba: This is an adjustment to something that was a much bigger application already and decide and -- Borup: Yeah. So, it's similar to the earlier one this evening that is something we have already seen and I -- just for the development of the existing subdivision. Zaremba: Okay. Then, in that case -- Rohm: Mr. Chairman. Zaremba: -- without my comment, we are ready to proceed. Rohm: All right. Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue the public hearings PP 05-001 and CUP 05-013 to the regularly scheduled P&Z meeting of June 2nd, 2005. End of motion. Borup: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Zaremba: One more motion. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21, 2005 Page 49 of 49 Rohm: I move we adjourn. Borup: Second. Zaremba: Motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Zaremba: We are adjourned at 9:49 p.m. Thank you all. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:49 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED ______________________________ _____|_____|_____ DAVID ZAREMBA - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTESTED:______________________________ WILLIAM G. BERG JR., CITY CLERK