Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Testimony by Brady & Teri Turner 2/4/15 - CCBrady & Teri Turner 3678 S. Caleb Place Meridian, ID 83642-7068 208-887-6832 February 4, 2015 Mayor de Weerd and Meridian City Council c/o Bill Parsons, Planning Supervisor Meridian City Hall 33 E. Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho 83642 RE: PP14-020 Accommodations Subdivision Madam Mayor and Councilpersons: We hereby submit our written testimony in opposition to the preliminary plat application filed by Providence Management, LLC, scheduled for hearing before the Meridian City Council on February 17, 2015. The subject parcel is adjacent directly north of our home in Dartmoor Subdivision. We request better transitional density next to our acreage. The five smallest lots in this project are placed along the southern boundary; the three smallest lots at 8,844, 9,100, and 8,658 square feet are directly adjacent to our property. We believe the smallest lots should more appropriately be placed on the western boundary next to the existing R-8 zone. In addition, the land in the project slopes uphill from us, adding further negative impacts of this project. We asked the developer to remove at least one lot next to us, but this request was refused. We asked the developer to place single -story homes next to us, but this request was also refused. All parcels in our Dartmoor Subdivision are acreage lots zoned RUT in the county. We paid a premium price for our "view" lots twenty years ago. Our subdivision is now an enclave, with all other lands surrounding us having been annexed and redeveloped over the past ten years—and our "view" is now an urban residential landscape. Throughout the redevelopment activities on multiple projects, we have attended more than a dozen hearings in Meridian to press for some preservation of open space. The City has always been sensitive to our desire for transitional density to help mitigate the impact of so much urban development around us. This is entirely appropriate and consistent with the low-density designation of this section in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan Map. The subject parcel has a significant history that is most relevant to our objections. It was part of the planned Harcourt Subdivision approved in 2007. We opposed Harcourt for the identical reasons that we are opposing the Accommodations project now. Harcourt was finally pproved after the City requested the developer to remove one lot next to our parcel—resulting in three large lots over 14,000 square feet in size on the southern boundary with Dartmoor. These lots were still significantly smaller than the Kingsbridge half -acre lots, but was an acceptable compromise. Meridian City Council February 4, 2015 Page Two For your consideration, enclosed are the following documents regarding the Harcourt project: Page 1 of the final Staff Report noting that the City Council hearing had been continued while the developer redrew the preliminary plat to eliminate one lot along the south boundary (adjacent to our lot). Approved Preliminary Plat for Harcourt Subdivision (showing a total of three lots along the southern boundary). Minutes from the Meridian City Council Hearing dated February 27, 2007 (highlighting added for emphasis). These materials clearly show the City's sensitivity and responsiveness to our objections. While we do realize this is a new day and a new developer, nothing has changed from our perspective. Just because this parcel's development was delayed by eight years due to the recession should not mean we must suffer additional urban density uphill in our back yards. There is a strong precedent here, not only from the Harcourt project but also with adjacent Kingsbridge Subdivision, as you will see discussed during the Harcourt hearing. Changing course now would be most unfair and contrary to the planning history for this area over the last decade. We very much appreciate the City's understanding of the impact all the development has had on our lives over the years. We respectfully request that this same consideration be extended regarding the Accommodations Subdivision. Please honor the development history and ask this developer to reduce the number and increase the size of lots along our common boundar. We are not able to attend the hearing on February 17th due to a previous commitment, so we ask the City to consider our objections in our absence. Thank you very much for your consideration. Sincerely, Brldy & Teri Turner Lot 6, Block 2, Dartmoor Subdivision Enclosures CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 13, 2007 STAFF REPORT X%X" 1 v Hearing Date: 3/13/2007 MAR 0 8 2067 Continued From: 2/27/2007 City of Meridian City Clerk Office Wir+Fian TO: Mayor & City Council y = v SiDAM] FROM: Amanda Hess, Associate City Plannerr (208) 884-5533., SUBJECT: Harcourt Subdivision • AZ -06-046 Annexation and Zoning of 23.05 acres from RUT (Ada County) to R-4 (Medium Low -Density Residential) zone • PP -06-048 Preliminary Plat of 60 single-family building lots and -5 6 common lots on 22.37 acres in a proposed R-4 zone 1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST The Applicant, Great Sky, Inc., has applied for Annexation and Zoning (AZ) of 23.05 acres from RUT (Ada County) to R4 (Medium. Low -Density Residential) and Preliminary Plat approval of 60 single family residential lots and -5 6 common lots for Harcourt Subdivision. The subject applications were scheduled to be heard before the Planning and Zoning Commission on November 2, 2006. Prior to said meeting, the Applicant and Planning Staff were notified that ACRD requested relocation of S. Zephyr Avenue, Harcourt's access to Victory Road, to align with S. Bay Star Drive, Sutherland Farms' access to Victory Road to the north. This ultimately prompted a substantial redesign of the preliminary plat. The new plan also proposes one less building lot. The subject property is located on the south side of Victory Road, approximately 1/6 mile east of Eagle Road in Section 28, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, B.M. The site has been previously platted and is currently identified as Lots 1, 2, 4, and 6 of Golden Eagle Estates Subdivision. The subject property is within the City's Area of Impact and Urban Service Planning Area. 2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION The subject applications (AZ -06-046 and PP -06-048) were submitted to the Planning Department for concurrent review. Staff has provided a detailed analysis and recommended conditions of approval for the requested Annexation and Zoning and Preliminary Plat applications. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed Harcourt Subdivision subject to the R-4 standards and the conditions listed in Exhibit B of the Staff Report. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard these items on November 2 and December 21. 2006. On J'anuary 18. 2007. the Commission moved to recommend approval to the City Council. Harcourt Subdivision AZ -06-046, PP -06-048 PAGE 1 PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HARCOURT SUBDIVISION A REPLAT OF LOTS 1, 2, 4, AND 6 OF A PORTION OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO TOTAL SITE PRELIMINARY PLAT Res de�t'o Lots 60 Los 15.93 Aar FCommon Lata 1-- 119 Acre a11- Open '-F 1.35 Acres Groza Area 2224 Acral AREA SUMMARY Grass Dens ty 2.S -/acre Net Densly 3.75du/Pcr SHEET INDEX DYER SHEET 2-3 PIAN SHkETS 4-5 5 REST SEKR PROFILE5 o r l SUTHERLAND FARM NO. 1 A/ ti �m S89'36'14'E 907.97 - .Piss I — o cc o � HAR00i w. WR TORY ROAD 1 W 0 cc Nm mmV SUBDMSION IRR m 7 0 9$ g LU gip D BLOCK i LU mNv 0 aed Sewer Lie - } W ........ water Ab S K yO,e n 1 LEgE ` __... NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION „a`w1.rr,aso BLOLK 3 3 x n., Z A ed Fre Hydrant O O posed Street Light s 3 O roposed sewer Nanha e ; N ._. I i:ox o.aa�.o.. 4 sed G, ty I g&w Nonh- Q 1 o q 6 ism uv5 •e. .: oxfiw". Smrtn D g wml BLOLK 4 ® 1)) O 5.a a BLOCK 6 y ® m 4 ♦ a n Prnpaaed Retest on Pond Z lr to C� Prapaeetl Berm � O 0 N'taG� ES ATE x J U Proposed Roled Curb am G.-, w rs. 1 Zm�.a oa,s ... BLOCN B s0 0 6 'I 2 cr Q N73'16' 9-E 569 EXISTING Existing Water E ting Exis i Fibvh Optic 2745 7Oy845E :0 S• 17 rnewi _ ,� ♦ ' III 6 §, I2 m N823 W , 1♦ x.>.ara fi oP1J R ,aI. 219,9 2 ' ti�0 - 19.98' Exlstinq -1- Ph = e by o 48 _ a _ la sea. 150.00' S87'5D'02"W - BLOCKY "56.47' .,OLD.N Ac �sTA 5 - t2e r 4 d J� no E_TA P_ 9 B 7 TOTAL SITE PRELIMINARY PLAT Res de�t'o Lots 60 Los 15.93 Aar FCommon Lata 1-- 119 Acre a11- Open '-F 1.35 Acres Groza Area 2224 Acral AREA SUMMARY Grass Dens ty 2.S -/acre Net Densly 3.75du/Pcr SHEET INDEX DYER SHEET 2-3 PIAN SHkETS 4-5 5 REST SEKR PROFILE5 NOTES 1 g t Me I me % h 9 o. wtn ue. an g a� n D-st 1 deo m be awnea a9a nape y p & mat water d6i.,y --1 eaa 9 lbdb s note pea aaeh 1br 1-1 ib samara. ta•.t:oto p(wdee n naeoraanaewm ACIDZPo 9es a 000 g a ee. ma ntenanaaram, east 6 adee KCND aro eawa l n -me h y n. see mean 2 a f Prelmnary -P -n", / coasts ,Sw ermvne c w 6 wtle un els o erw se no e Ih t d OWER / D�LOPER/ D�LOPER- N/w so'R/W N/w N. Great Sky, Inc. 14148 S. Con -Ada Rd. III Melba, ID 83641 6 IB' e' S� Phone: (208))886200269 2R 2R3 -333 R T ZR �..�� ENGINEER / SURVEYOR: PARKWAY L NOBC PE STR P `CD SIDE -K PER 1SD-7 C. U B AND GUTTER STD. N0. 50-709 NOR P02 srD GT1 c�D (rr.) J—U—B ENGINEERS, Inc. SO -702 6U6 GR E PARKWAY LANDSCAPE STRIP sPHALr NAT s• uinus Prr RUN GRAVEL scALE: t'=I 250 S. BEECHWOOD AVENUE SUITE 201 /a' Mwus CRUSHED ROADMIK BOISE, IDAHO 83709 TYPICAL STREET SECTION CURVE TABLE 50' RIGHT-OF-WAY CURVE LENGTH RADIUS TANGENT CNIX20 CHORD BEARING DELTA TELEPHONE: (208) 376-7330 NTs sass 332e Gals see1 B'sG"E 3Ga9'm.. ENGINEER: JUSTIN E. BOZOVICH, P.E. as�Do 7s o3 nso 11eDs'D9 SURVEYOR: RONALD M. HODGE, P.L.S. VICINITY IMAP TY 85750 s♦a<6 u MDOGS. PRELIMINARY 8peg@ LEGEND o r l SUTHERLAND FARM NO. 1 A/ ti �m ea Preaeare n .Piss I — o cc o � HAR00i w. WR TORY ROAD 1 W 0 cc Nm mmV SUBDMSION IRR m 7 0 9$ g LU gip LU mNv 0 aed Sewer Lie - } W ........ water Ab S K SD N co ` __... NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION „a`w1.rr,aso NOTES 1 g t Me I me % h 9 o. wtn ue. an g a� n D-st 1 deo m be awnea a9a nape y p & mat water d6i.,y --1 eaa 9 lbdb s note pea aaeh 1br 1-1 ib samara. ta•.t:oto p(wdee n naeoraanaewm ACIDZPo 9es a 000 g a ee. ma ntenanaaram, east 6 adee KCND aro eawa l n -me h y n. see mean 2 a f Prelmnary -P -n", / coasts ,Sw ermvne c w 6 wtle un els o erw se no e Ih t d OWER / D�LOPER/ D�LOPER- N/w so'R/W N/w N. Great Sky, Inc. 14148 S. Con -Ada Rd. III Melba, ID 83641 6 IB' e' S� Phone: (208))886200269 2R 2R3 -333 R T ZR �..�� ENGINEER / SURVEYOR: PARKWAY L NOBC PE STR P `CD SIDE -K PER 1SD-7 C. U B AND GUTTER STD. N0. 50-709 NOR P02 srD GT1 c�D (rr.) J—U—B ENGINEERS, Inc. SO -702 6U6 GR E PARKWAY LANDSCAPE STRIP sPHALr NAT s• uinus Prr RUN GRAVEL scALE: t'=I 250 S. BEECHWOOD AVENUE SUITE 201 /a' Mwus CRUSHED ROADMIK BOISE, IDAHO 83709 TYPICAL STREET SECTION CURVE TABLE 50' RIGHT-OF-WAY CURVE LENGTH RADIUS TANGENT CNIX20 CHORD BEARING DELTA TELEPHONE: (208) 376-7330 NTs sass 332e Gals see1 B'sG"E 3Ga9'm.. ENGINEER: JUSTIN E. BOZOVICH, P.E. as�Do 7s o3 nso 11eDs'D9 SURVEYOR: RONALD M. HODGE, P.L.S. VICINITY IMAP TY 85750 s♦a<6 u MDOGS. PRELIMINARY 8peg@ LEGEND o PROPOSED es�� - PI ea Preaeare n .Piss I li �Ng:S IRR ed cr gat'an 5 0 aed Sewer Lie - } W ........ water FggF SD P - -d Storm Dmlo Pipe Easements Boundary - - -1-1 Loc Lnes ed R", of Way P eaa Romway CemeHae Z A ed Fre Hydrant O O posed Street Light Fn O roposed sewer Nanha e ; D sed G, ty I g&w Nonh- Q o P pend Grpa nhPle paces -i m w �> Smrtn D g wml w ® Pr Pp.- storm n net ra � (n y ® Proposed Starts Dran 1-b.n Box Q J Prnpaaed Retest on Pond Z lr F C� Prapaeetl Berm � O _ ---- Prapaeaa sdewak J U _-. Proposed Roled Curb am G.-, w rs. _ Propoe ed V-1 Curb and Gutter cr Q _ EXISTING Existing Water E ting Exis i Fibvh Optic Exst"ng F - E' t' g C moor Pn.ement E.is tan Ditch tap of Bank Exlattnq Irt 9auan D'- Flo«use - ---- Existing section Lige _ �.ar arp.,EO: mow, SHEET y Exla6ng SeeNan Non�ment 1 Exlstinq -1- Ph OF 5 r l _ KEY NOTES p '- O1 EXIST HOUSE TO BE REMOVED c q O2 EXIST BUILDING TO BE REMOVED — m O co Q m Rm OO EXIST HOUSE TO REMAIN Q V O ^q� l OX EXIST FENCE TD BE REMOVED O5 CONNECT TO EXIST. WATER UNE Z 3 41 m E.7 m � 0 RIR w m 3 — to m y a Q oo CO 5 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION = 4D S` AAAA... AAAA. 8575LOT 3 s GOIUENAEACLE ES ATE5MMENOED PLAT0F - e, PRELIMINARY \ m V N u > bq TC T6;9E Cl m �gEFS weg £ Nj3�'-`—�\ Ss9s'Sf `� a�; ? : ,i �• 7�"Eer2 anw �,� 84'35.28'VJ �=WwK Hn mall 1 so 00 4 5E7 5a' 5,472 V LOT 5 AMMENOEO PLAT OF GOLDEN EAGLE ESTATES b s _n "� _n4 0 o K< �d =LOT , of GOLNEN EAGLE ESTATES � m w w cr GO f s O. DDW — — fJ ,R z a w Z) O ^ � U 6 w AAAA AAAA .. " i PL _ N8930'1 1"W 501.45' — I SHEETho i 3 SCALE: 1"=50' 5 OF Meridian City Council Meetina February 27, 2007 A meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:05 P.M., Tuesday, February 27, 2007, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd. Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Joe Borton, Keith Bird, and David Zaremba. Members Absent: Charlie Rountree. Others Present: Bill Nary, Will Berg, Anna Canning, Len Grady, Gene Trakel, Ron Anderson, Joe Silva, Caleb Hood and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll -call Attendance: Roil call. X David Zaremba 0 Charlie Rountree X X Joe Borton X Keith Bird Mayor Tammy de Weerd De Weerd: Well, good evening. We will go ahead and get started. We appreciate you all joining us here tonight. Welcome back to those who were with us last night -- or last week. We appreciate you returning. And we will go ahead and start tonight's meeting. It is Tuesday, February 27th. It's five minutes after 7:00. Tonight we will start with roll call attendance. Mr. Berg. Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance: De Weerd: Tonight we will have our colors posted by Boy Scout Troop 152. So, would you all rise. (Pledge of allegiance recited.) Item 3: Community Invocation by Pastor Mike Dodd, Capital Christian Church. De Weerd: Very well done. Now, if I could ask the troop to, please, come forward. I do have some City of Meridian pins that we'd like to give to you. Okay. Item No. 3 is our community invocation. Tonight we will be led by Pastor Mike Dodd. He's with Capital Christian Church. If you will all join us in the community invocation or take this as an opportunity for a moment of reflection. Dodd: Thank you, Mayor and Council people. Please join me in a word of prayer. Dear Father, we thank you so much for this day, Lord, that you have made, and, Father, we just tonight acknowledge your goodness in our lives, your faithfulness, Lord, and ask that, Lord, you would just impart wisdom, Lord, as decisions are made and items of 0 Meridian City Council February 27, 2007 Page 30 of 100 De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we close the Public Hearing on RZ 06-014. Zaremba: I'm just not fast enough, but I'll second it. De Weerd: Okay. Well, I have a motion to close the Public Hearing on 14. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve RZ 06-014, without a development agreement. Zaremba: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 14 as stated. Is there any discussion? Mr. Berg, please, call roll. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree; absent; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 15: Public Hearing: AZ 06-046 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 21.7 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Harcourt Subdivision by Great Sky, Inc. — 3465 & 3595 E. Victory Road and 3432 & 3467 E. Falcon Drive: Item 16: Public Hearing: PP 06-048 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 61 single-family residential lots and 6 common lots on 21.7 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Harcourt Subdivision by Great Sky, Inc. — 3465 & 3595 E. Victory Road and 3432 & 3467 E. Falcon Drive: De Weerd: Okay. Items 15 and 16 are public hearings on AZ 06-046 and PP 06-048. 1 will open these two public hearings with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Harcourt project. It's located on the south side of Victory Road, approximately a sixth of a mile east of Eagle. The applications are for annexation and zoning and preliminary plat. The annexation and zoning would be of 23.05 acres and they are requesting R-4 zoning. And, then, the preliminary plat approval they are requesting Is for 60 single family residential lots. The lots range in size from 9,000 square feet to 22,250 square feet. The subdivision will provide 1.42 acres or 6.4 percent open space, including eight foot parkway throughout the entire project. And you see that those show up as the predominant form of open • 0 Meridian City Council February 27, 2007 Page 31 of 100 space within the subdivision. The gross residential density is 2.68 dwelling units per acre. The Commission recommended approval at their January 18th Public Hearing. Darin Fluke, the applicant — spoke in favor of the application. Brady Turner spoke In opposition. Michael Reedy, Robert Aldridge, Harold Kaczynski spoke -- or commented. Written testimony was also provided by Brady Turner for the Dartmoor Homeowners Association. Dartmoor is immediately to the south of this project. Key issues of discussion by the Commission were the type of fencing to be installed on the perimeter and micro pathways, as well as the common open space. The redevelopment potential of the Kaczynski property to the southeast, that's the property that would be in this comer here. You can see it right there. The potential for drainage and runoff to affect neighboring properties, preserving the ditch canal irrigation currently serving the neighboring properties, preserving trees within the right of way at the terminus of the Falcon Drive cul-de-sac. And the possible transitioning of lot sizes adjacent to Dartmoor Subdivision along this southern boundary. Key Commission changes to staffs recommendation. They restricted Lots 7, 8, 9 and 10 and 11 on Block 7, to a 25 foot rear setback. And I apologize, I didn't look that up, but I am assuming that that is those lots right there. Okay. Yes. I'm getting a nod from Mr. Fluke. And requiring the applicant to install vinyl perimeter fencing. Outstanding issues before City Council. Staff has not received an updated landscape plan, so we have not been able to evaluate that yet, but that is the only outstanding issue. I'm not aware of any written testimony since the staff report was prepared. I will answer any questions that you may have. De Weerd: Okay. Any comments from Council? And you did refer to the letter we received from Mr. Aldridge? And Mr. Hutt. And we did receive a landscape plan as well. Canning: I believe it was not submitted in time to review it, is what Ms. Hess has stated. Bird: Its dated 2/22/07, Anna. Canning: Okay. Councilmember Bird, I believe we have got it, but we didn't get it in time to evaluate it for tonight's hearing. De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant's representative here? Fluke: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Darin Fluke, 250 South Beachwood in Boise, with JUB Engineers, representing the applicant in this matter. Anna did a good job summarizing the application, so I'm not going to go over the vitals on it again, other than to say that the site is designated as low density residential by the Comp Plan. I would note we are in strict conformance with the Comprehensive Plan on this one. That low density designation allows for up to three dwelling units per acre and we come in at about 2.68. So, by definition you're looking at a low density project. We don't have any particular Issues with the conditions of approval. We did agree with the Planning and Zoning Commission to increase our rear setback where we abut Dartmoor 0 • Meridian City Council Febwary 27, 2007 Page 32 of 100 Subdivision. Here on the south and I'll talk about that a little bit more in just a second. One of the other issues — Anna, could we see the aerial, please? Your aerial. Canning: The -- yeah, I don't think — Fluke: No. Yours. Canning: I know. Fluke: Oh. Thank you. One of the issues that we were dealing with is the Kaczynski parcel here is the five acre parcel that lies within Golden Eagle Estates, the same subdivision that our four parcels lie within. They have about 90 feet of frontage on the cul-de-sac here and they have got some mature vegetation that abuts that cul-de-sac. That's not currently developed with curb, gutter, and sidewalk and they are interested in maintaining that vegetation that they have there, which appears to encroach into the right of way somewhat. We — in trying to work out that situation, we had a phone conference with the Ada County Highway District and they did agree that we could pull that cul-de-sac back somewhat to allow us to construct curb, gutter and sidewalk within the existing right of way and not affect their vegetation. Otherwise, what you would see would be just curb, gutter and sidewalk ending at their frontage and, then, picking up again on the other side, because we will be redeveloping this stretch of Falcon Drive here with standard street section and curb, gutter, and sidewalk, of course. With regard to irrigation water, Mr. Aldridge lives here. There is a ditch that courses through the property here and provides irrigation to all the existing lots within the development. We have been working with him on a solution to that. Conditions of approval state that we do have to maintain existing irrigation and we will do that. We are not quite sure how yet, we are working -- the engineers are looking at it to figure out how best to do it. What we'd prefer to do would be to hook into our system up here in Sutherland Farms, which does have adequate capacity. We may need to put in some larger wells to do that, but we would connect the two and make more efficient use of that infrastructure that we have already built. So, that's our preferred solution. We will see if that's going to work. In any event, we will continue to provide Mr. Aldridge with his allotment of irrigation water where he receives it now, no matter how we have to do that. With regard to the other issue that came up before the Planning and Zoning Commission, it had to do with transitional lot sizes against these two lots here abutting Dartmoor Subdivision. Are we able to see the — that exhibit that I brought? What this shows you is the southern tier of the proposed Harcourt here. These are the lots that we have got With 25 foot setbacks on, which is an increase of ten feet over what's required by code. What this is showing you is that we have an exceptionally large lot here, which it's not exceptionally large, its an acre, but due to its odd configuration it has almost 400 feet abutting our project here and what we are trying to show is that the house has about 120 feet of setback currently. In addition, we will have our houses set back off this road about 20 feet and so you're going to have a good 160 feet of separation. At least between the dwellings. In addition, the Commission did require that we put a six foot vinyl fence along the perimeter here and we are okay with that. So, that is why they did not require us to lose another lot against here, because it does comply with the intent of • Meridian City Council Febnuq 27,2007 Page 33 of 100 the ordinance. The last thing I would make mention of is just that the city anticipated just this sort of project on lands that are designated low density residential. When the Comp Plan was adopted, most of the development in the area — maybe we could go back to your aerial, Anna. The only thing that really existed out here at the time you adopted your Comprehensive Plan was the Dartmoor Subdivision, which was platted as a non-farm subdivision. That allowed for one acre lots to be platted in the front with dedicated open space back here in the rear, which has now been re -subdivided as the Kingsbridge, I believe, Subdivision. When you designated this as low density you recognized that we had low density next to us and thought that it would not be appropriate to have higher densities out here. But recognizing that you were going to the expense of extending sewer and water and we would have larger roads out in the area, you did recognize that some more density than what was here originally was appropriate for the land. When Dartmoor Subdivision was platted, it was a county subdivision again. It was not required to build curb, gutter and sidewalk, sewer, water, fire hydrants, streetlights, it was not provided — it was not required to provide open space. It was not required to improve Eagle Road. And so it was a much cheaper way to develop. Well, now that we are in the city or, you know, contiguous with the city and the city has planned for growth in this area, this is the type of growth that makes more sense. So, we think we have designed a nice project that fits well with the neighborhood. We do have — excuse me. We do have the support of the majority of our neighbors and we would simply ask for your approval. De Weerd: Okay. Council, questions for the applicant at this time? Bind: I have none. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I would ask one. Can you point out where — what I'm looking at is your access -- what I'm looking at is your access to Eagle Road. Where is the access of the project across the street in relation to your access? Fluke: Anna, do you know if they were required to align with that existing driver offset? Canning: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Anna. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, they do line up. It's not very clear there. There is an odd parcel line that goes further up, but this comes right across there, so they do line up. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. 0 Meridian City Council February 27, 2007 Page 34 of 100 Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Borton: Darin? Anna, can you put the plat back up? Canning: Yes. After I -- after I recant my last one. Commissioner Zaremba, I'm not sure. The entrance may be there. It's hard to tell. It could be that it's at the south end of the project. Zaremba: My recollection was that when we were considering that -- the opposing development that we are pointing at, it moved around a little bit, and I thought that it had ended up at more the southern end of their project in this area. Canning: I believe it is. Zaremba: Which was leading me to my question of how many accesses are we having opposing each other on Eagle Road in a stair step manner. Not opposing each other, but going stair step. Canning: The one on this southern end it looks like it is right on the south boundary, so this property to the south could share an access, because there is a landscape buffer preventing it from taking access to the road to the south. Zaremba: So, we would end up with a stair step kind of -- Fluke: Madam Mayor, may I address that? Commissioner -- or Councilman, I presume that -- I believe that when they came in with this project that they were showing it aligning. We did speak with the developers over there when we were looking at our sewer options. And I believe they started out with it in alignment and, then, ended up moving it for one reason or another, but I believe that that does comply with the ACHD offset policy for the minimum offset between the two accesses. Zaremba: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Anything further for the applicant at this time? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. I do have several people who have signed up. I will read your name and your support or opposition. If you would like to come forward at that time, please, do so. Brady Turner signed up against. Turner: Good evening, Madam Mayor and Members of the Council. My name is Brady Turner. I live at 3678 South Caleb Place in Meridian. My property is right here. I'm also the president of the Dartmoor Homeowners Association and I'm speaking on behalf Meridian City Council February 27, 2007 Page 35 of 100 of the homeowners in that subdivision this evening. Our objection with this application is the lack, as you have heard, of transitional lot sizes adjacent to the Dartmoor Subdivision. The original design had lot sizes adjacent to Dartmoor ranging from 12 to 21 thousand square feet. These were reduced when the development was redesigned at ACHD's request. The new design was never presented to us prior to the P&Z hearing, nor was our input solicited. As the applicant stated, while the distance from my house to the nearest build -able lot of 120 feet does provide some relief, when we look at other properties in Dartmoor Subdivision, the approximate distances from the nearest build -able lot in Kingsbridge range from 75 to 230 feet. The average being 134 feet. So, our property at roughly 120 feet falls below that average. However, the distance to the nearest build -able lot only tells part of the story. The other factor is the size of the adjacent lots. The adjacent lots in Harcourt range from slightly over 10,000 feet to 11,400 square feet, averaging 10,006 square feet. In contrast, adjacent lots in Kingsbridge range from 16,800 to 25,000 square feet. Moreover, all of these lots but one are restricted to single story homes. When comparing lots with comparable distances to the nearest build -able lot, comparable to our 120 feet, the lot size in Kingsbridge range from 23 to 25 thousand square feet. Averaging 23,700 square feet. We are simply asking for parody with the transitional lots in Kingsbridge that were supported by this Council and negotiated between the Dartmoor Subdivision and Vision First, negotiations that have been held up by this Council and the Idaho Statesman, is a prime example of how the developers and existing homeowners can work together. Unfortunately, the applicant has ignored our attempts to open a similar dialogue on three separate occasions. Napoli Subdivision is another prime example where split zoning and larger transitional lots adjacent to supported existing acreages were supported by this Council to address homeowners concerns. Fewer larger transitional lots in Harcourt would help to mitigate the impact of these homes being uphill from our property, blocking our foothills view, for which we paid a premium when we built our home and help to retain the feeling of the Dartmoor Subdivision, which is large, open, estate lots. We would support this application if at least two lots were removed adjacent to Dartmoor Subdivision, making the transitional lots on the order of 18,000 square feet. Still smaller than those provided by Kingsbridge and more in line with the original Harcourt design. We thank you for the consideration this evening. De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions from Council? Can I ask you a question? Turner: Yes. De Weerd: You had mentioned that the plat changed after it went to Ada County Highway District. Turner: Yes. The original plat that was presented by the applicant at a homeowners — or an informational meeting I think it was back in the April 2006 time frame, had much larger lots than what are proposed here. They had about four lots that were adjacent to Dartmoor Subdivision. When the street configuration on that south parcel was reconfigured, they added in some additional lots, thereby reducing the total size of each i 11 Meridian City Council February 27, 2007 Page 36 of 100 lot, also because originally there was a cul-de-sac there and now there is a stub street. So, all of those factors contributed to reducing the lot sizes. De Weerd: They had to get the road to that back lot. Turner: Correct. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Theresa Turner signed up against. Thank you. Tammy Cook signed up against. Thank you. And Rick Stott signed up against. Stott: My name is Rick Stott. 3684 South Caleb Place in Meridian. I live in the -- I'm neighbors to Brady -- Mr. Turner in the -- in the lot just south of his. So, we touch the comer of the proposed subdivision. We spent a lot of time -- I was interested earlier this evening on the discussion with the Woodbridge neighbors in that subdivision and the relationship that they developed with the proposed developer and the ability for them to work through a process that was rejected just months ago in that same lot. We have been very successful over the last couple of years in working with Kingsbridge in developing a strategy and a plan to provide for transition, provide for an exceptional neighborhood feeling, not only in our neighborhood, but in the Kingsbridge neighborhood, increasing the value of those lots and the overall value of the neighborhood as a whole. Originally, in Kingsbridge we were not thrilled with what they were proposing and after lengthy discussions and much encouragement from this Council, in discussion with that developer, we were able to come to a mutually agreeable position where they have premium lots in a premium neighborhood that provides additional value to -- to a nice area to live in. This does not fit any of those qualifications. The developer has not worked in any way. Mr. Turner has tried -- tried repeatedly to open conversations and dialogues with the development company and has been ignored to a large degree. I'm surprised that the developer would insinuate that the majority of neighbors were for the subdivision. I know several -- one in particular on his -- on the west side of his that is not for it. Certainly, the neighbors in Dartmoor, as Mr. Turner indicated, are not for the current application. So, I'm not sure how many other neighbors there are, but right there alone I think he's pretty much outnumbered. But I haven't talked to many of the other neighbors. A couple of concerns. One is that -- for example, in our backyard we have a horse and, you know, it stinks. I was back there and it's a little smelly. And additional setbacks and lower density houses is important for continuity of the -- of what they -- the new neighbors to the north of us will have to put up with and encourage that that be in consideration. Adding an additional lot in the interim period of time between what was originally given to us as a neighborhood to the time that it was actually presented before the P&Z I think is a concern as well. And so I just would encourage that this Council be consistent with its active participation in working with neighborhoods and making sure the transitions occur amongst the lower densities to higher density projects. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions from Council? Bird: I have none. 0 Meridian City Council February 27, 2007 Page 37 of 100 De Weerd: Okay. Stott: Thank you. • De Weerd: Those were the people that had signed up. Is there anyone who would like to provide testimony on this application? Okay. Fluke: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Darin Fluke. JUB Engineers for the applicant. Okay. Well, I suppose we are, essentially, down to this issue of transitional lot sizes and why we did or did not do that and how well we may have negotiated with the neighbors. I do take slight exception to the fact that I have been unresponsive. Nobody from the Dartmoor association saw fit to attend the neighborhood meeting. Every time Mr. Brady called me, which was approximately three times, I did return his call each and every time. I think what he means to say is that I did not -- my client did not choose to redesign his project in the way that he wished. That does not indicate a failure to negotiate, it simply means that there was not agreement and I think I have touched on some of those reasons. But, again, I'll tell you why. We don't have the same land base and number of lots that Kingsbridge Subdivision had to spread those costs over. The costs for bringing urban services that we are required to bring to this area, sewer, water, curb, gutter, and sidewalk, wider streets, street lights, fire hydrants, all the things that you expect when you live in a city we provide and Dartmoor Subdivision does not. So, it's very easy to sit back and say they ought to have big lots, because we have a 400 foot long lot line across there. If I were forced to lose two lots against the Dartmoor Subdivision, all that would do -- would not increase the depth of the lots against this, it would simply make them wider. That will do nothing to mitigate the smells from horses if the pasture is not well maintained. It will not do anything to increase the distance between the houses that do get built there. I would submit to you that this is low density, single family housing against low density single family housing. I fail to see how just because our lot is as large as their lot, that we are not compatible. The definition of low density has transitioned through time, because when Dartmoor was approved it was, of course, approved in the county. One acre lots were high density in the county at that time. The situation is considerably different now and the city has other considerations besides just the neighbors who want to have large lots or large tracts of open land against their subdivision. I totally understand that, but I also know that it's not really in keeping with the plan that the city has for the area, which mandates that we extend services to the area. So, I would tell you that we have worked with the neighbors. We have gone to great lengths to accommodate the Kaczynskis. They are very complimentary. We have gone to lengths to work with Mr. Aldridge on his irrigation issues. And we have also had to accommodate the highway district, which cost us a lot, to accommodate their changes that they wanted. And I make one final comment and that is our original layout your staff did not like and asked us to work on it. It had a couple of lots back here in the comer when this was a shorter road that had long flags on them, the very lots that the police department routinely asks you not to approve, because you can't see into them. And so we get sort of caught between a rock and a • Meridian City Council February 27, 2007 Page 38 of 100 0 hard place trying to balance out the needs and desires and wishes of the neighbors and the agencies and the staffs. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to take those. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Fluke: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any further information needed from staff or the applicant? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Anna, a question for you on this East Falcon. Was there a recommendation that that be stubbed across? Maybe you mentioned it earlier and I missed it. If there is not, why not? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, East Falcon is an existing street. It already stubs to the Kaczysnki property. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Borton: So, this -- when I see the cul-de-sac, that exists until that property develops? Canning: Yes. The property line is actually on the other side of those numbers right there, so it has access right along there. Borton: But that cul-de-sac eventually goes away; is that correct? Canning: No. Borton: So, when this property develops that remains a cul-de-sac or is it stubbed through? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Borton, if the Kaczynskis decide to redevelop, we have seen folks ask for an exchange of right of way with ACHD where they do remove the turnaround portion in exchange for some of the property that they have. They could do that. So, they could vacate a portion of that cul- de-sac and put it in green space or some other use. Borton: Okay. Thanks. De Weerd: Thank you. Anything further, Council? • Meridian City Council February 27, 2007 Page 39 of 100 Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. • Bird: Before we close the preliminary, I do -- we have made two or three developments go back and -- when they have backed up to acre, acre and a half lots, and had them take out and I didn't hear the testimony from the two -- or the two neighbors there sorry about the depth as much as just having square footage size. The smell of horses or cattle -- I guess if you buy out there you'd expect that, because it is still rural out there. And that's not -- that's not something that you're sneaking in afterwards. Darin -- and I realize that it does cost a lot of money to develop these. You pay a lot of money for the land to start with. But we have always -- and I don't think they were worrying about the depth as much as having some width, too. You compare -- I don't know what those run, I don't have my scale on it, but I would guess those are maybe 80 foot lots down at their property? Canning: For the record, sir, this is 154. This is 85, 80, 139 and 44. Bird: Okay. That -- yeah. The ones that are -- I wish there was a way that we could figure out to have two lots there instead of four. I think that would back up and we may — Kingsbridge, which goes to the east there, do it and I'd just like Darin to -- other than cost, is there a reason? I mean cost is a major item, I'm not trying to -- Fluke: Councilman Bird -- or Madam Mayor, Councilman Bird, I didn't tell you the full story on how we got to where we are today. We had a layout that showed 61 lots. We had our entrance further to the east, which complied with all the standards, but in the interim you and ACHD approved a Comprehensive Plan amendment with a site plan to the property to our west. In so doing it locked them in on a driveway here and, then, we, then, had a conflict with a driveway here — with our approach. So, we moved it over and we added another stub and in so doing, you know, we lost a couple of lots. We tried to kill two birds with one stone and do what your staff had requested, which was rework this area, which I might point out was a very difficult layout to begin with. I would simply say that esthetically it's not going to work. If I have to lose two lots down here, you can see if I were to erase that lot line I would lose one lot and I'm going to have one huge lot. I could scootch these over a little bit and make it work, but if I lose two, I'm going to just have freakish wide lots in there that don't comport to anything else within the project. The only reason would be because one lot in the subdivision to the south has an exceedingly long lot line. That's all. And so it's esthetic, as well as a cost issue. Bird: Madam Mayor? How about taking one lot? I mean you have got X amount of feet across there, lineal feet. Getting them a little bigger. I mean -- and I'm just throwing this out. I'm not -- I would like to — I'd like you to suggest doing it. And I'm not -- I'm not telling you -- you know, I'm not telling you that it's going to fail because of it, okay? Fluke: Yes. • Meridian City Council February 27, 2007 Page 40 of 100 Nary: Feel free to do what you want. 0 Bird: Feel free to do what you want. I would -- and, no, in no way, shape, or form is this a threat or anything. I mean -- I just would like it to work. I think you got -- it's a nice development, don't get me wrong. Other than I understand where those people are coming from. But I also say something. One of these days a developer is going to walk out there and those guys are going to take their acre and a half and probably want to put eight units on that. Fluke: Well -- and we will have the built-in opposition right here for it. Bird: And you will have a bunch of people there, but is there any way that you think it's feasible to get that down from four to three lots? Fluke: Madam Mayor, Members -- Councilman Bird. It's feasible by just taking out an eraser and doing it. It's certainly not the preference of my client to do that for the afore- stated reasons. If the Council feels strongly in that way, I would assume that you would condition it to that way, but having -- I mean I'd just like to be on record as having made my case. Bird: No problem. I appreciate it. De Weerd: You know, I guess just to expand on what Mr. Bird has been saying is this Council has consistently tried to look at that transition and we know the situation -- oftentimes we do find that the O'Nner's preferences are certainly motivated when Council says, you know, we would like to see a minimum of this, go back and just get it done. And I guess I -- we worked with Dartmoor and Kingsbridge. I know Kingsbridge was a much larger development, but you can push some of that higher density up towards the road and have a better transition and I guess that's what we have tried to remain sensitive to is how do you transition and it is all single family housing, but it is a perception, too, of my open space that I paid for, it's nice to have that transition and a better flow than what we are really seeing there. So, I would echo Mr. Bird's comments, but you can see that: I won't be a tie breaker, I'm just another voice up here. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Yeah. Darin, I see your Lot 6 and 11 is over 11,000 square foot and none of your four across there is that. And I realize when you come to a comer and you get cul-de- sacs, it's tough, don't get me wrong, I understand that. But, man, I just wish we could just get some 15 to 16 thousand square foot lots across that back. And I don't know, I mean — you know. Fluke: Madam Mayor, if the Council decides to condition us in that manner, I'd simply ask for the flexibility to work with our layout. We won't change the street configuration, • Meridian City Council February 27, 2007 Page 41 of 100 0 but to work in the northern part of the development to see if there is an opportunity to pick that lot up elsewhere. like I said, I can easily enough reconfigure those by dropping a lot to put fewer lots against that subdivision to the south. I would simply ask that you give me the flexibility, then, to find that lot up north, if I can, without changing the street layout at all. And I would just further ask that you send me on my way, rather making me bring it back. I won't change the street layout, so you will see what you have is what you have, it just might squeeze another lot in up north. Bird: Well, I think the Mayor stated my preference is that if you can -- you know, if you can get the square footage down there a lot better, you can have a little smaller up -- another lot up there. But I would ask if that's the way it goes, that at least you bring the preliminary plat back before the staff. We don't have to see it, but, please, take it back to them. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, as much as I would like to accommodate Mr. -- or have you accommodate Mr. Fluke's request, it has typically not worked out well. We need to have you approve the preliminary plat. Bird: Okay. I have no problem with that. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I would also comment that the staff has not had time to go through the landscape plan. That would be a reason to continue. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, let me clarify. When you have required that folks lose a lot in a particular area, we are able to do that. It's the adding or making up for the lot in another area that typically doesn't turn out well, so -- De Weerd: Certainly, Council, vie could continue this to a specific date, if you would so desire. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: So far it's just been one vote and you don't get to break a tie, so what do the other Councilmen feel? I mean do they want to see larger lots down on that -- and they have had -- you know, the way they are going to vote. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. • Meridian City Council February 27, 2007 Page 42 of 100 0 Zaremba: My comment would be -- and let me preface that comment. In the staff comments they mentioned that this was before the Planning and Zoning Commission on November 2nd, December 21st, and, then, again, on January 18th. I was a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission on November 2nd and December 21 st and those two meetings did nothing but continue it on to the next meeting. So, this is my first substantive look at it. I did not really see it on the Planning and Zoning Commission. Their decision on the 18th was after you had graciously appointed me to this Council. So, I was not there. I have to admit that this is not attractive to me. I realize the parcels that are included in it make it an extremely odd shaped piece of business and I'm sure they have gone to some difficulty to work in as best as they can. Seeing four cul-de- sacs in a city that has professed that we are against cul-de-sacs is not comfortable for me. Seeing the access to Eagle, which, if I noticed the aerial right, there are currently five residents that use that access to Eagle. It seems to me that probably works okay for five residences, but to etch into stone that that is forever going to be the access for an increased number of residential units, not -- probably not only this project, but the property to the southeast, then, is going to keep that same access. The three properties it looks like to the west between this project and Eagle would probably maintain that same access. I would much rather see a larger picture of where this access matches up with the development on the other side of Eagle Road for their access. I like the access to Victory. It aligns with the subdivision across. I'm uncomfortable with this access to Eagle. Unfortunately, if this project is approved, that pretty well means that forever this is where that access is going to go and I would want to until the property to the west between here and Eagle was included and the access to line up with the development across the street. Plus, the four cul-de-sacs in this one. I have no problem with the density. I think it's right. If the housing were to align that way could see subtracting a lot on the south and adding one on the north someplace and maintaining the density, I don't have a problem with that. I just feel that the four cul-de- sacs and the location of what will become the final access to Eagle is not comfortable for me. And I'm not sure continuing it would change my opinion on that. De Weerd: Okay. Fluke: Madam Mayor, could I just make a quick comment regarding the cul-de-sacs? Because that was an issue we looked at for sure. Councilmen, I respect your opinion on this and I understand what you're trying to do is get connectivity. I would point out a couple things for you. One is Falcon Drive is existing public right of way now. We have zero control over this cul-de-sac or its location on Eagle Road. It is what it is. That's where it was platted. The one across the road was approved by this Council and ACHD and I have no control over the fact that it doesn't align either. So, I find that to be a high bar that's a little bit unfair to hold this project to. But to mitigate your concerns I would point out that this does provide better connectivity, because now you have got a connection up to Victory Road where before you did not. And, in fact, part of ACHD's problem with the previous alignment was we had an approach here that came into the project and it made almost a straight shot if you came up here and they were concerned about cut -through traffic coming from points south and cutting through the project to go to points east and that was part of their rationale for making us move it over to here to 0 Meridian City Council February 27, 2007 Page 43 of 100 E make it a little bit more difficult. But we do provide that access to Victory Road. And I would submit to you that most of the trips they will be going to Boise, if not going up Eagle Road to the freeway, will be going east on Victory Road from that access right there. The majority of the lots do, in fact, have easier access to go to that. So, as far as the other cul-de-sacs that we designed, I could have connected this, granted, but it didn't gain us much. In fact, it loses a lot, because this is fixed and this is an existing house that we were trying to maintain. So, it made an ugly lot here with a road on, essentially, four sides of it and lost a lot without getting much benefit. The same is true of these. We could have connected these, but, again, it didn't provide much, except for losing lots within the project. We were trying to hit that three dwelling units to the acre that the city was looking for in the area, you know, to make the project pencil. You all pointed out correctly that it's expensive land, because, you know, each one of those five acre lots has a house on it. There is one here, there is one here, there is one here, and there is one over here. And two of those we can't maintain, obviously, but, two, we tried and that was part of our -- our challenge in this layout. So, it's been -- this thing's been over a year in the planning process to get in front of you today by a long way. Zaremba: I would have -- Madam Mayor? I certainly would have to admit that I would not want to have to try to design for this particular shape of property that you're working on and I know it has a lot of problems in it and, on the one hand, basically, I think you did a good job with what you were given, but I just have a little difficulty with a couple of those things. Fluke: I understand. De Weerd: I guess just to muddy the water a little bit more, can you tell me a little bit about your open space? Fluke: Your ordinance provides for parkways in lieu of, you know, a -- sort of a park area and that's what we opted for in this case, because it's a low density project. We have only six lots within the project that are less than 10,000 square feet and of those six about three of them are one or two hundred square feet less than 10,000 square feet. Those are large lots and lots of that size don't demand a lot of dedicated open space or play area within the project and so what the client had opted for was to do the open space in a parkway configuration, which, as you know, creates a more traditional feel in the project and, actually, a feeling of more openness. Those lots are fairly wide, 80 feet and up, and with the addition of the parkways it gives it a real nice low density feel to it and allows you to get the open space that the code requires in a method that the code allows for. De Weerd: The triangular piece, what is the plan? I see on the plat here just says lawn. What is the idea for it? Fluke: We assume that that will accommodate storm drainage on that lot and, again, in compliance it will be landscaped and it will be open, but in the event of a hundred year storm it would fill with water and, then, slowly seep in. 0 Meridian City Council February 27, 2007 Page 44 of 100 De Weerd: What slope? Fluke: Oh, it would be no more than about four to one. I forget exactly what the Public Works standards are. I'm sure Len could tell us, but whatever those standards are we will comply with them. De Weerd: So, it will be a pretty obvious drainage area. Fluke: Four to one is pretty gentle. It will all be sodded and you only need to leave a sand window, you know, where you actually infiltrate and so it's a question of design. We have done them all over the place. Burney Glenn and Cedar Springs and all those projects have similar -- I mean the realignment is that that was the left over piece and so we -- you know, it didn't make any sense to go into the lot north of it and so we will accommodate some drainage in there and landscape it nicely. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Council? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I agree with some of these concerns, amongst others, this transition issue, I don't necessarily need to restate some of the remarks already put forth on them. What I would like to see -- and I tossed the idea out, is that this matter be continued to March 13th -- Mr. Nary, correct me if my understanding's wrong -- it would be nice to continue it on all matters to March 13th. I know Councilman Rountree will be back, then, as well. I'd like to invite Darin to meet with Mr. Turner or the Dartmoor Homeowners Association group and kind of work together to discuss this transition issue that Councilman Bird has invited -- invited the opportunity for you to propose with reducing at least one lot down on that southern portion. I think, again, Councilman Bird did a pretty good job of describing the balancing act in wrestling with transition areas and trying to be sensitive to existing homeowners, like Mr. Turner, as well as developers who are trying to meet budgets and have to lose a lot. It's difficult on both sides. If that doesn't work I'd invite the applicant to tell me otherwise, but I think March 13th should give enough time to redesign -- get together and meet and perhaps we will see you in the vestibule in just a few moments talking with each other to come up with a date and, then, come back on the 13th and go from there. De Weerd: Okay. Bird: Is that a motion? Borton: Having said that, I would move -- if there is no further discussion, I would move that we continue Items 15 and 16, AZ 06-046 and PP 06-048, to Tuesday, March 13th. L Meridian City Council February 27, 2007 Page 45 of 100 Bird: Second. 4) De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to continue Items 15 and 16 to March 13th. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Borton: And Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Borton: presuming that would provide the opportunity for the landscape plan to be reviewed by staff. Item 17: Public Hearing: VAC 07-002 Request to Vacate a public utility, drainage & irrigation easement common to Lots 1 & 2, Block 1 of the Olson & Bush Industrial Park for Lanark Street Easement by Ronald W. Van Auker — De Weerd: Okay. Direction taken. Okay. Item 17 is VAC 07-002. 1 will open this Public Hearing with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is a project on Lanark. It's the west side of Eagle Road approximately a fifth of a mile north of Franklin Road and the Eagle Road intersection is highlighted there before you. You may recall that recently you approved annexation and — or a rezone of this property and now you are — to accommodate the site plan that they provided that evening, they need to vacate this easement. It is a ten foot wide, which is five feet on either side of the existing lot line for public utility irrigation and lot drainage easement. Again, the property is currently two lots and just the plat has an easement on that interior lot line that they need to vacate. Staff is supportive of the vacation and to our knowledge there are no outstanding issues before Council. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Anna. Any questions for staff? Would the applicant like to come forward. Any comment? Van Auker: Good evening. My name is Ron Van Auker, 3084 East Lanark in Meridian. Well, junior, if that matters. De Weerd: I was going to ask. You don't look like Ron. Bird: We know the difference. Van Auker: Taking some age -altering drugs. Anna pretty much summed it up. I just -- if you have any questions I'll feel free to answer them. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions? Oh, come on.