Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 21, 2004 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning October 21, 2004 Page 24 of 46 Borup: Right. Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission and Commissioner Zaremba, you are correct, if there is going to be a change in use or an expansion of the use of some significant amount of expansion, all that's going to require a Conditional Use Permit, which would require some parking changes or something else to meet that. So, if your concern is whether or not in the future some significant change to this property is going to get heard publicly by either this Commission or the Council, most likely. I mean never say never, but most changes are going to come back here, so -- Zaremba: And I'm comfortable with that without a development agreement if you are. Moe: That's not a problem. Freckleton: Mr. Chair, just one quick comment. The applicant pointed out that it was his understanding that Wendy's comment regarding police chief approving the plan was simply just that. He wanted to have a shot at it if there was changes in the future. So, I think what you're talking about covers that issue. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. If he did a significant change, it would go out to all departments, including the police department for comment. In that case in some point in there I was previously finished with my motion. Moe: Then, I will second that. Borup: Okay. Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 11: Public Hearing: PP 04-034 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 83 single-family residential building lots and 5 common lots on 25.86 acres in an R-4 zone for Milliron Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC - NEC of North Black Cat Road and West Cherry Lane: Borup: Thank you. Okay. It looks like we do have one hearing left. Gosh. Zaremba: I would move we adjourn. I withdraw that motion. Moe: You didn't get a second. Zaremba: There was not a second. Borup: Item No. 11, Public Hearing PP 04-034. This is a request for a preliminary plat approval for 83 single family residential building lots, five common lots, on 25 acres, R-4 zone in Milliron Subdivision. I'd like to, again, open this hearing and start with the staff report. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 21, 2004 Page 25 of 46 Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. The subject property is here at the northeast corner of Black Cat Road and Cherry Lane. The property, as you can see, was annexed sometime ago, we believe in the late 70s, as part of a larger annexation in this part of the city. However, there was never any final plat approved on it, so it remains annexed, but never had any development plans approved for it. So, the only application that you have tonight is for a subdivision. There is no planned development; there is no annexation or a rezone attached to that plat. The surrounding uses include the Golf View Estates No.5 on the north, Golf View Estates No.4 on the east. Just two different phases of the same subdivision there. Those are also zoned R-4, which is the existing zoning of the property. There is a church that touches the northwest corner. Blackstone Subdivision is across the street on the south side of Cherry Lane. The properties at the corners on the west side of Black Cat there have not been annexed. So, the annexation, as I say, is set. What they are proposing here is this plat that was submitted with their application. A couple of highlights for the plat for the Commission. They are not proposing any vehicular access to Cherry Lane. They have proposed to simply utilize an existing stub street that comes out of Golf View No.4 and, then, to construct a new entrance on Black Cat Road at this location. Open space in the subdivision is generally in two locations. They have this triangular-shaped lot here, which is all open space. A lot of the subdivisions that you see do come through with dual use open space with storm water retention, detention in open space. In this case they actually are proposing to run all their street drainage down to the southwest corner of the property and retain that there. So, that's the second open space area that I was going to point out. They do have a linear path open space up here in the comer, which there is -- the main entry into Golf View Estates Five is right at the north boundary of this property. A little bit difficult to see on this slide, but there is a common lot that is also -- would be a part of this Milliron Subdivision. I guess we will have to get an appropriate pronunciation if that's not right, but -- Milliron is the appropriate pronunciation I was just told. They are -- they have lot sizes that range from 8,000 square feet, which is the minimum in the R-4 zone district -- application says up to 26,504 square feet. That 26,000 only applies to this lot here on the northeast corner, that there is an existing house on the property and that's what that lot applies to. There is about 5.5 percent of the subdivision in open space. The gross density is 3.2 dwelling units per acre. I wanted to point out just two items on the staff report that start on page three. The first one has to do with the side yard setback on North Tessa Avenue. North Tessa is the proposed street name for this first north-south street. This just deals with the site setback on this lot here. City code says that they have to have a minimum of 20 feet of setback on this property to the street and there is a small strip of open space that's a part of this -- this lot here that does come along the side, but it's only about ten feet wide. With a five-foot setback, that would only mean a 15-foot side, so we are just asking for that to be cleaned up. The second special consideration was the design of Lot 9, Block 2. This is Lot 9, Block 2, the center common space. There is a little bit of a potential dead area here that the staff had some concern about. We are asking that -- for the applicant just to coordinate with the police department to insure that their patrol officers don't have a problem with the way that this is currently designed. And, then, the last item that we had for special consideration had to do with the Settler's canal access Meridian Planning & Zoning October 21, 2004 Page 26 of 46 road. Settler's Irrigation District is the irrigation district that serves this part of the city. There is currently a gravel access road along the north boundary. Their plat, actually, shows that to remain and we just wanted some clarification on the record tonight how that's going to be dwelt with, as well as access to the -- to the clean outs for the Settler's canal, which is back there. There is a 30-foot wide easement on that canal. We have recommended that they complete the vacation, if this is approved, that they complete a vacation of the Idaho Power easement. There is an easement for Idaho Power that runs along this portion of the property to serve the existing home and, of course, that would, then, take its power supply internally and would not need that any longer. Finally, we did receive two items into the record that I wanted to point out to the Commission. One is a response -- a written response from the applicant was received a couple of days ago that was addressing the staff report. They are in general agreement with the recommended conditions. And, then, the other item I wanted to point out -- there was a letter received by Robert and Judith Ricketts, dated October 5, that states that they were going to be out of town tonight and could not make the meeting, so they have submitted some concerns with the square footage of the homes and some of the materials that would be used. And so just clarification from the city's perspective, you know, we have -- we have an ordinance that says that this zone has 1,400 square foot minimum home size and an 8,000 square foot minimum lot size. We do not have any ordinances that deal with materials on these homes. The CC&Rs are a civil document that the city does not regulate, which is normally where an architectural committee or otherwise would review materials and so just to clarify, I'm assuming there might be other comments on that front tonight, so -- and with that I guess I'll end staff's comments. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Zaremba: I just want to -- Mr. Chairman, Brad, I just want to clarify or maybe emphasize the last part of what you said. Even though this was annexed and zoned as an R-4 in the 70s, many years ago, the fact that the application is coming now means it has to comply with our current codes today; is that correct? Hawkins-Clark: That's correct. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Okay. Anyone else? Thank you. Would the applicant like to make their presentation? As Brad mentioned, I noticed from the letter agreement with virtually everything in the staff report, wasn't it? Amar: Yes, sir. Borup: Okay. Go ahead. Amar: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Kevin Amar, address 114 East Idaho, Suite 230, here in Meridian. As Brad indicated, this is a subdivision for Meridian Planning & Zoning October 21. 2004 Page 27 of 46 once -- and I'm happy to say that we are able to submit for a subdivision that's already permitted within a zone. We are not asking for any special considerations, we are not asking for any variances, we are in agreement with all of the recommendations that was requested by staff and I will try to go over some of those and we did submit that letter -- did you receive a copy of the letter? Borup: Yes, we did. Zaremba: Your letter, yes. Amar: So, the project itself is 83 residential lots. There is one existing home and 82 new lots within this project. It is an R-4 zone. It was zoned sometime in the 70s. I believe Commissioner Zaremba brought up that we are required to comply with the zoning regulations as of today, not in 1970 whenever it was annexed. With this project we are complying with all of the zoning regulations for this project and for this area. If we look at the surrounding subdivisions, they are also with the R-4 zone, there are on the eastern boundary of this project, as well as -- the eastern boundary, as well as the northern boundary, existing pathways and/or irrigation access roads, along with a pathway. There is a pathway currently that runs as a part of Golf View, as I understand it, all the way on these boundaries. That fencing on our northern and also on our eastern we will coordinate that, as well as the fencing around the park area with the fire -- or the police department to make sure there are no conflicts. Typically what is requested by police departments is no taller than four feet, so it can be seen behind that or over the top of that. That fencing will be put in by us through the course of development. Also, some of the questions that came up -- on this boundary, these lots originally we had at 115 feet deep, which allowed for an easement over and across those lots. We did speak -- or our engineer did speak with Nathan Draper from Settler's Irrigation District and rather than making it an easement, we, actually, created a common lot and these lots would, then, be a hundred feet deep and a common lot for that access road to continue, so there won't be any access problems with Settler's Irrigation District. It will also be addressed with Settler's Irrigation District through a license agreement with them. Settler's Irrigation District will be the entity that will maintain our irrigation pump station. It will be built to their specifications and, again, it will be through a license agreement with them. There are other concerns or more in depth concerns with the irrigation district. My engineer is here tonight, he is the one that actually spoke with them and he would be happy to answer any questions. Some of the other questions that came up -- we initially -- on our common area, we initially had a pathway in here. That was for sewer service, but our sewer will come in through this road. We, actually, removed that path. There was some concerns with the lot frontages and it allowed us to created a more -- actually, be in compliance with the zone on the lot frontage. As far as the common space, this area down here, which is for storm drainage, is not counted in our common area calculations. So, we have still above five percent in just this area. So, that common area is for strictly open space. There is no drainage. It will be just -- it will be down in that area, which, again, is another unique feature that I'm not often able to do and it seemed to work out pretty well on this project. The project itself, as Brad stated, will have a minimum home size of 1,400 square feet Meridian Planning & Zoning October 21.2004 Page 28 of 46 with a minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet. Some of the building materials that will be used -- there will be no vinyl siding allowed. There is a requirement for rock, brick, stucco and architectural on the front of the house, so it is, obviously, more of an upscale subdivision, trying to be compatible with the neighbors. As we look at the compatibility on these lots and these lots, I believe we have one more lot in this area than there are -- than there is here and down at the corner there may be one more lot than there is on this run. But, again, as I stated, this also has a pathway and an area that separates the two or the three subdivisions, I guess, with two different Golf Views here. I believe that - - were the staff comments. We are excited to do this project and we appreciate your time. Again, we are simply asking for a permitted use within the existing zone and would end my comments with that and stand for any questions. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Zaremba: And I would ask one that you may not be able to give the answer to, but I'll try. Even though the ordinance allows the smallest dwelling unit to be 1,400 square feet, given the neighborhood surrounding it, which is also all R-4 and lots of 8,000 square feet, and many of the houses bigger than 14, do you have any assessment of when this gets built out how many of your lots might have a 1,400 square foot house on them? Amar: I can give you my best guess, but the 1,400 square feet, as well as in the other subdivisions, is a minimum. What we have found in our subdivisions is the square footage is significantly higher than that, as that is a minimum, not an avenue, not a maximum. And what we are finding in the subdivisions in this lot size is we are looking at lots on the average -- or homes on the average of 2,000 square feet. So, they are significantly greater than the minimum. That's not to say that -- Zaremba: Even though 1,400 is allowed, it's more typical that they be closer to 2,000? Amar: Correct. That is what we are finding on other subdivisions. So, that's not to say that there won't be a 1,400 square foot home in here, but there will also be something significantly greater than 1,400 square feet, bringing the average to about 2,000 square feet. Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: The other question I have may be obvious and that is did you hold a neighborhood meeting? Amar: We did not hold a neighborhood meeting. Borup: I think we could tell that. Rohm: And I guess the follow-up question to that is why not? Meridian Pianning & Zoning October 21, 2004 Page 29 of 46 Amar: I guess my only response to that is we are doing a use within this zone that's already permitted. This zone was here before any of the neighbors were here, this property was already zoned for that. I, to be real honest with you, didn't anticipate all this opposition, because it is a permitted use within this zone. Maybe that's bad judgment on my part -- Rohm: I'd say so. Amar: I'll accept that. But, again, we are here based on what is permitted in this zone. We are not trying to do anything that's different, we are not trying to do anything out of the ordinary, so I'll use better judgment next time. Borup: And I think that explanation makes sense. Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Amar? Amar: Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Okay. This is the time for the public testimony portion. There was one -- a couple things that I went through a little quickly previously and that's on the time. If we do have -- we do allow extra time if we have someone speak in behalf of a group, like a neighborhood association or anything like that. So, rather than the three minute limit, we can go ten minutes. By that it would be expected that those people they are speaking in behalf of would not be speaking. So, do we have that here tonight? Do we have a spokesman for a whole neighborhood? You, sir? Do you want to stand up just quick right there. How many people is he speaking for in behalf of? Okay. So, that means that you would -- he would be saying everything that you want to say? Well, then, does that mean saying that you would not be coming up to testify? Okay. I guess you didn't get your extra time. I'm sorry, they didn't give it to you. Okay. All right. We were hoping to give you some extra. Okay. Then, like we'd to start with that. As I mentioned earlier, we do have a timer. The green light means you keep going. The yellow light means there is 30 seconds. And the clerk will be monitoring that. And I -- we have got a long list of names and I can either go down that or just ask people to come on up, just right in order -- or I mean just as soon as they'd like to, so let's go ahead and start. Nary: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Yes. Mr. Nary. Nary: If you could, for the purpose of the public record, if you follow the list we'd have a way to acknowledge whether or not they actually appeared and spoke. Borup: All right. We can do that. Nary: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 21. 2004 Page 30 of 46 Borup: Don Burton. That worked out good. Burton: I was here early. Mr. Commissioner and Members of the Commission, thank you very much for the opportunity of speaking with you tonight. My name is Don Burton, I live at 1949 North Pear Tree Avenue -- Zaremba: Sir, will you pull the microphone a little closer to your mouth. Burton: -- Golf View Subdivision. And I am the treasurer, past president of the homeowners association. Our president is out of town tonight. At the end of my comments I would like to present a letter from the homeowners association signed by all the board members and 132 adults residing in Golf View who ostensibly oppose Milliron Subdivision as proposed. I would like to point out the primary reasons for our opposition and some of the possible resolutions, some of which I already heard tonight from the applicant. First is addressing the lot size and house sizes. It is very divergent from what you will find in Golf View. I think this creates a situation where you could possibly have a 1,400 square foot home on the perimeter of Milliron backed right up to a 3,500 square foot home in Golf View and I think we know what that does to property values and which one is going to take the hit in terms of property value loss. Also it is my understanding -- and I have not got this verified -- that there is an option for no garages on these homes. I think down the road that that would be a problem. I'm not positive about that. Borup: No. City code ordinances requires two car garages. Burton: The second point I would like to make has to do with the egress entrance streets, only two, one on Black Cat, one utilizing White Birch Street, which would take a zigzag pattern through Golf View. I was told that Ada County Highway District anticipates that at full capacity this subdivision would create about 800 vehicle trips per day. If you look at the plat layout of the streets, I think you will see that the travel directions will take more than half of those on that zigzag pattern through Golf View. This has an impact on homes along those routes in terms of nuisance and noise and property values, but, more importantly, safety issues for children who live in the Golf View neighborhood. There was discussion by the applicant about fencing the perimeter, which I was glad to hear of, because of the bike path, walking path, that is owned and maintained by Golf View. We do not want that to become a conduit for bike and walking traffic from Milliron into and through Golf View. I will be brief to get to my three minutes and let others speak. In summation, we believe that you will agree with us that part of planning is the protection of existing developments and properties as new development are brought into being. We also believe that as proposed, Milliron will have a significantly and negative impact on the property values, resale marketability, the investment, and the security in their homes currently enjoyed by the citizens of Golf View Subdivision. We believe it to be in the City of Meridian's best interest to maintain similar developments that share contiguous boundaries and utilize main arterials as dividers between very divergent developments. We see Milliron as proposed as being a Meridian Planning & Zoning October 21, 2004 Page310f46 very divergent development from what you have in Golf View Two, Three, Four and Five. Thank you very much for your time. I stand for any questions. Borup: Okay. Questions for Mr. Burton? I do have one. Burton: Yes, sir. Borup: Do you know the -- what the square footage covenants is for -- Burton: Minimum is 1,800 square feet in Golf View. Borup: In all three phases? Burton: Yes, sir. I'm not sure about phase -- I live in phase two. It was 1,800 square feet there. Maybe someone else can address more accurately four and five. I know there are homes along the perimeter there that -- on the north side that are up to 3,500 square foot homes. Borup: Right. But I -- so 1,800 is the answer? Okay. Burton: To my best knowledge that's the minimum. It might be higher than that in phases four and five. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Rohm: I just had a question. On this ingress into Golf View -- Burton: Yes, sir. Rohm: -- is it your recommendation that the developer have access to Cherry Lane? Burton: We strongly believe that that should be in place and that there should perhaps be a speed bump or something to restrict traffic going on White Birch from Milliron into and out of Golf View through that direction. It's a zigzag pattern to get from there to Cherry Lane. It's going to be a right, a left, and another right to get out of there. I think you can see that on this map right there. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Burton: Thank you very much, Commission. Borup: Thank you. Steve Pieper. Pieper: Yes. My name is Steve Pieper. I live at 4695 West White Ash Drive. I'm in phase five of the Golf View Subdivision. My main concern -- my house backs up against the new proposed subdivision and in addition to my concerns about the property Meridian Planning & Zoning October 21, 2004 Page 32 of 46 values with a minimum square footage size of 1,400, that leads to a lot of transition from people moving up after a few years and they start turning into rentals and the quality of my life would go down with rentals behind me, because you have people moving in that may rent and not have the pride of ownership as established in the Golf View Subdivision. It is a more upscale subdivision and I would propose that the board -- or the Planning and Zoning Commission have at least an 1,800 square foot minimum size of the homes. That's alii have. Borup: Thank you, sir. Jason Doms? Is that correct. Would you still like to come forward? Okay. Langland? Ronald Howell? Okay. Thank you. Heather Lainhart? Still wish to come forward? Lainhart: I am Heather Lainhart, I reside at 1801 Golf View. Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, I appreciate your time. I know this is a long night for you. I have a letter from Harry, our president, who wasn't able to be here. He regrets it, but it was unavoidable. A few points that Don didn't bring up. Golf View has a lot of people who have bought there, they plan to retire and they wanted to make their -- make it their home and it is an investment. So, a lot of people feel like the property value question has just really hit them in the wallet. So, that's why you will hear that expressed probably a lot tonight. My main -- main fear is for the safety of the children. I'm begging you, respectfully, to protect the children in this neighborhood. There is a bike path that runs right across the main street that they are going to pull in, White Birch, and there is a lot of trees and things, there is not good visibility there at all, and with the volume of houses, there is going to be a lot of traffic, like Don has mentioned, and I feel that the volume of houses is a problem in my book. There is just too many houses crammed into there and I know it's not high density, but just the problems that will come along with that are going to flow right out into our subdivision and so we feel that since it is connected, it should be a little bit more congruent and equitable in the spacing of things and the way they are. Harry, in his letter, noticed that the comprehensive planning of the city in trying to keep subdivisions somewhat contiguous in style and type of areas and structures, seems to be seriously undermined with this development. Like we said, if they are across Cherry Lane or across Black Cat, that would make more sense to us, it wouldn't affect us. As you can see if you go upwards, there is Ashford Greens and, then, on and they will seem to have the same higher minimum of the square footage of houses and the higher minimum of the lot size and we ask that you would consider that and if you do have any ability to control that and to truly have planning in what Meridian develops into, so that we can have different styles of neighborhoods in Meridian to accommodate everyone's needs as citizens of this wonderful city, we would appreciate it. Borup: Questions from any of the Commission? Thank you. I would point out that I think Ashford Greens, actually, has a good part of the lots are smaller than an R -- than 8,000 foot. That's James Place. Okay. I was looking on the map up there. Zaremba: It's a section within Ashford Greens called James Place and they are considerably smaller. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 21.2004 Page 33 of 46 Borup: Yeah. It was part of the original application. Wayne Hammer. Okay. And, again, just because your name is on here doesn't mean -- you don't have to come up, but -- okay. Alma Hammer, same thing? All right. And I'm going to have trouble, probably, with some of these names, but is it Don Howell? Okay. Thank you. Donna Learner? David Learner? Rick Bachmeier? Okay, sir. Bachmeier: Yes. I'm Rich Bachmeier. I live at 1865 North Golf View Way, which would be on the easterly side of the proposed development where the pathway is. I think Don's covered most of the things that we want to discuss, but to give you an example, we don't have, unfortunately, photos of our subdivision, but it's been said 1,800 square foot minimum, landscaping at the time was part of our covenants. If you look at Golf View, it's very extensively landscaped. Like Ashford Greens, like all the other subdivisions that have been developed. I guess I can't understand -- and I guess it's one of the big concerns -- is why there can't be an ingress-egress on Cherry Lane. I think that's one of the biggest concerns is the traffic flow and if you look at the subdivision directly to the south, there is an ingress-egress. I know there is some standards by Ada County, I think you have to be at least 150 feet from the intersection to put in an approach. There is an existing approach on the property right at that location, there is a curb cut there. I would assume that's a viable ingress-egress. So, why no access to Cherry Lane? I don't understand that. I think with access to Cherry Lane it would alleviate the concerns of the traffic going through Golf View. Obviously, you have to share the roadways and there would be some traffic going through there, which we could, I'm sure, put up with. But if you take potentially I would say probably two-thirds of the traffic in that subdivision and push it through our subdivision, I don't think is a good idea. If you look at the access on Black Cat, it's up towards the middle northerly portion of the development. Why would people typically going to Meridian or Boise go up and around, as opposed to going through that subdivision? I think that at least 50 percent -- and I would guess much more would take the shorter route through Golf View Subdivision. So, I think that access to us is probably one of the -- at least for me personally, is one of the biggest concerns, putting some of that access out onto Cherry Lane. Obviously, there is going to be a lot loss. I mean the developer wants to maximize his lots, they are pretty small lots as it is, but could we give up a lot, an 8,000 square foot lot, to put in another access in Cherry Lane. I think that's alii have. Borup: Okay. Thank you. I might mention just for -- part of the disadvantage, maybe, we have not seen the ACHD report. It just came in and the clerk is going to get a copy of it. That may help a little bit. Is it Diane Aschenbacher? All right. Thank you. Moe: Your time's up already. Borup: And I'm not sure on the next one, was that also Aschenbacher? Okay, sir. Nancy Evans. Care to come up? Okay. Don Evans. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 21, 2004 Page 34 of 46 Evans: I'm Don Evans, 4349 Quaker Ridge. I'm in Golf View Subdivision No.3. I'd like to take just a quick moment and address the size of the lots and the intended purpose of what's going in here. Being a retired builder of not only starter homes, but also upper end homes, I look at a subdivision plot like this or a plan and the first thing I see is starter homes. With the setbacks that is required by the city, the size of these lots, you're going to have probably no more than 1,400 or 1,500 square foot homes on these lots and I assume -- I know that's being a little presumptuous, but reading between the lines this is what we are looking at. We are looking at a starter home subdivision in the corner of upper end homes. I don't think that any of us in any of these other subdivisions are saying, no, this should not be built, that it should not be subdivided, what we are saying is let's get it in compliance with what's already there. Let's save the investment of the people that's already built there. And I think -- there, again, I think the protection of the homeowners that are there should be utmost in your mind. Also, give some consideration is what you are looking at here, in my opinion, is a starter home subdivision. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Andersons? Anderson. Okay. Anderson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Ron Anderson, I live at 4327 West Quaker Ridge. I'd like to start off by telling a little bit of a story. I have grown up in Meridian, went to junior high, high school here, graduated, have lived in several homes, including my parents' home in Meridian, have owned three homes myself in Meridian. Very attached to the community. In fact, served four years on the City Council, as many of you know. And Meridian is very near and dear to my heart and my wife's heart. We plan on making this our home, we plan on living out our lives in Meridian. Having said that, we also, being familiar with the community, have looked at where we want to live in Meridian and for years we had looked at Golf View Subdivision. In fact, I used to drive through Golf View Subdivision two or three days a week on my way to work looking at the subdivision. For those of you who have never been into Golf View, it's a very beautiful subdivision. There is ponds as you come in and a waterfall. There is walking paths that meander through the neighborhood. There is ponds and streams that run along that path. It's a very gorgeous subdivision. We also pay homeowner dues in there to maintain all those amenities in that subdivision. As we have decided to live out our lives in Meridian, we decided to look for a more upscale neighborhood to move into and last year our dream finally came true. As I was driving to work one day, drove through the subdivision and saw the house that I had fell in love with years ago was for sale, so stopped and got the phone number and we called the people and we ended up buying that house and moving into it earlier this year. I am very disappointed to see this project now being presented to come right next door to our subdivision. As you have already heard, Golf View is more upscale. I would say on an average the homes range from 200 to 350 thousand dollars in there. It's people that -- they are not starter homes. And now what's being proposed next to us are starter homes. And I don't mean any disrespect to the developers and the planners on this, but because this was an already annexed piece of property, I believe they felt that we will meet the -- Meridian's minimum requirements, the 8,000 square foot lots and the 1,400 square foot houses and this thing will sale right through. As you heard at the start of Meridian Planning & Zoning October 21, 2004 Page 35 of 46 this, there has been no conversation, no meetings with the homeowners next door in our subdivision and that should happen I think in every development and see what is compatible. The biggest concern that our neighborhood has is incompatibility with the existing subdivisions. Having served on the Council, I know that's a concern to the Council and to you guys as Commissioners. The design of this subdivision is very poorly designed from the roads that access through our subdivision, to the drainage ponds being on the corner -- Cherry Lane is a gateway to our community and we need to put something in this piece of property that will show that we are proud of Meridian. Borup: Thank you. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, we have just been handed a copy of the ACHD report and I would ask that we have about five minutes to read it, so that I'm not trying to read it when I should be listening to somebody that's talking. Borup: I think that would be a good -- and maybe just -- Mrs. Anderson, do you have anything you want to say, too? Okay. That would probably be a good place to stop and I think that would be appropriate. We will take about a five-minute break or so. Some here may want a break also. (Recess.) Borup: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, we'd like to reconvene our meeting. All right. Thank you. Okay. We have had an opportunity to read the ACHD report and we will get probably comment on that a little bit later. Again, those that do not wish to testify, of course, don't need to. Next name we had was Tom and Kathy Henderson. Henderson. Tom and Kathy. Henderson: Hi, my name is Kathy Henderson and I reside a 4457 West Dawson Drive and I don't represent our subdivision, but I am from Ashford Greens and we ditto everything that has been said. We live in custom built homes and we do not want to see starter homes on that corner lot. We are going to miss our onion field. Thank you. Borup: Mark Henderson. Is it Kemp? No? Okay. Tony Gallegos. Gallegos: My name is Tony Gallegos, I live at 4440 West White Birch Court. My house faces the headlights of everybody that's going to be driving and making that corner into this new subdivision and I wanted to take it a step further. I'm totally opposed to that inlet to that subdivision. My background -- I own a small architectural design firm and have drawn probably over 1,000 houses, a number in Golf View and Ashford Greens and James Place and the architectural requirements that I have to go according to draw these house plans for the clients are unbelievable. I mean my landscaping, just on my own home, 63 little plants in my front yard. I mean it was just tremendous. We have put an in-ground pool in. I'm looking at living there a long time. I'm 41, I love the place, we love the neighbors, we have a lot of kids running around in this subdivision, and so my -- in saying that I would like to take this a step further, at the end of Golf View, the Meridian Planning & Zoning October 21, 2004 Page 36 of 46 entrance that will go into Ashford Greens Phase 5, the developer put in a foot bridge. The street was stopped and there was a real nice railing and archway and all that jazz and so that eliminated a chunk of traffic taking the shortcut and I'd like to propose on my own behalf -- and I have talked to a few other people and they had that idea, too -- obviously, if that road is going to have to be there, that we don't created an ingress, but do put a foot bridge there, if it has to be there. Of course, number one is I'm adamantly opposed to it, I would love to just have the thing just shut off right there. My neighbor across the street, he's going to have people driving into his driveway if they make a wrong right turn or me into my front yard. I had another person who has also voiced concern of liability with all of our landscaping in the subdivision, not so much the personal, but the ponds and whatnot that we pay our homeowners dues on to keep everything up and with the amount of children that might be in there, there are some yards that you actually can walk through, because Golf View does deter, you know, the fencing and everything to give everything a nice wide open landscaped look. He was worried about having people walking through his yard getting onto the paths to take shortcuts. So, we are -- like I said, my biggest thing is that ingress area right there and if it does have to be there or if does have to have a road there or something, if we could just knock it down and have a foot bridge, worst case. Thank you. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Don Davis. Okay. Thank you. Patty Slattery? Okay. Millers? Miller: My name is Leslie Miller and I live at 1950 North Summertree Way. I, again, support everything that's been said up to this point. The access, in my opinion, is completely unacceptable. If you're going to go through our neighborhood, I think you have to live up to our standards and terms of square footage minimum, landscaping minimum. Otherwise, they need to section it off as proposed by the person in front me. Also, we all know soon enough that the intersection at Black Cat and Cherry Lane is going to be extremely busy and adding this many homes right there without that extra access is just asking for trouble. Thank you. Borup: Darrin and Denise Bushy? They must have left. Okay. Mr. Amar, have you got some concluding remarks you'd like to make? Amar: Thank you, Commissioners. I'm surprised it's my turn again already. There is a lot of people here. Again, for the record, my name is Kevin Amar, I'm here to address some of the items that did come up this evening. One of the main issues, it sounds like this evening, is the access into Golf View Estates and I'm sure you have had a chance to review -- or now I know you have had a chance to review the ACHD report. When we initially went to Ada County Highway District, we did discuss do we take access off of Black Cat or do we take access off of Cherry Lane. As you know, Ada County Highway District is extremely interested in limiting the number of accesses onto arterials and roads that are principally traveled by people. One of the items that came up was if an access is off of Cherry Lane, it's going to be directly across the street from this existing access. Ada County Highway District would rather see a three way stop, meaning this one, we have got this area and this area, than a four way. It is more dangerous to have Meridian Planning & Zoning October 21. 2004 Page 37 of 46 a four-way access than a three way. That is something they have said over and over again. The other item that was brought up is the access at this point is going to provide better traveling access to the general public. I know the neighbors in this audience may not like to hear that, but that road at this location was stubbed there to provide access for this property in the future. Without that road stub that property would not have been allowed to be developed. In talking to Mr. Milliron, who is here this evening, he would like it all to be onion fields still and he would not have to move. He heard a lot about consideration and he lived here before any of the homes were in here and he has a bigger home than 1,800 square feet. So, his concern is if consideration really is granted, then, consideration should have been granted all around and all of them should have a 25-acre lot. I know that's ridiculous. I know we want to develop. I know we all want to move forward, but what we are doing this evening is providing a subdivision that is extremely compatible with the neighbors. The lots sizes are compatible -- the lot sizes are compatible, it's built within the -- Borup: Wait a minute. You all had your chance and he didn't interrupt you, so let's offer the same thing here. Thank you. Amar: We are -- we are simply trying to provide a subdivision that is better for the city. We could have come in, we could have asked for a higher density, it would have been permitted within this zone, we could have asked for a rezone. We are using the existing zoning and we are moving forward with that. Some of the concerns of protect the children and the nice -- the subdivision that Golf View is, I agree, Golf View is a beautiful subdivision. I have been through it. I think it's a nice subdivision. I don't think this is a starter home subdivision. I'm not even sure where that came from. If you look at the projects around there, in Ashford Greens, in Golf View, Cherry Lane Estates, all of those, they are not starter home subdivisions. We intend on being compatible with those -- with those subdivisions. I really -- I guess the main issue that I heard was the access. What we would like to do is keep that access at this point. I think it will be better overall and it will provide better travel for the general public. I'd be happy to answer any other questions that you might have. Borup: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to talk to Kevin about a couple of things here. I think that from the number of people we have here in the audience tonight, that if you would have had a neighborhood meeting prior to submitting this for our consideration, it's possible that you could have come up with some alternate traffic patterns that would have addressed the appearance of a primary access through their subdivision, as opposed to I think stub streets traditionally or typically are secondary access at best. Not necessarily -- in this particular case you have got maybe a third of the lots that will egress onto Black Cat and two-thirds of them will access through this other subdivision. I think that if you would have had a neighborhood meeting, you possibly could have avoided that by taking another look at having a second access, one on Black Cat and one on Cherry Lane. I think that that's probably a better conclusion, but having not had that neighborhood meeting you didn't get that opportunity. I would ask you if you would Meridian Planning & Zoning October 21,2004 Page 38 of 46 reconsider having a second access being on Cherry Lane, so that you would have one to Black Cat and one to Cherry Lane, so that your primary access or egress out of this subdivision would not be through the adjacent subdivision. Is that something that you would consider? Amar: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Rohm, in discussions with Ada County Highway District, they requested that we have one access to either Cherry Lane or Black Cat. That was in the preliminary discussion when we were doing the design. What I certainly can consider is relocating that access from Black Cat to Cherry Lane. Rohm: I think that if you were to go back to Ada County and specifically request a second access to an arterial road, you may get some consideration, but if you don't specifically press for that, Ada County, more than likely, is not going to make it a requirement. And I'm not speaking for the Commission, that's just my own belief. I believe that they would take a look at this development and they could see that there would be benefits to your own 83-lot development, as well as the existing neighbors to the east. Would you consider going back to Ada County and requesting a second access, not moving the single access, but have one off Black Cat and Cherry Lane? Borup: Do you need to discuss with your client for little bit? Amar: No. I can make the decision. I guess the concern I have, then, is we have the same -- we can make that request. I'm certain that we can make that request. The concern I have with it is we have sat here tonight and listened to neighbors and said we don't want anybody to drive through our subdivision, when they moved into that subdivision knowing full well there was a stub street to their property. Rohm: Absolutely. There is no question in my mind that the stub street was there with the intent that there would be ingress-egress. It's my opinion that that would be a secondary ingress-egress, not a primary and as you designed your subdivision, that would, then, be a primary egress, not secondary. And I think that there is a possible better way to exit this subdivision via Cherry Lane. That's -- I believe that. Moe: I was just -- just was questioning -- you made a comment that when you had met with ACHD it was on your early design, so they had not really seen your lot layout at the time originally when they discussed whether it be Black Cat or Cherry Lane? Amar: No. They did see the lot layout. Moe They did see it and they did note that, basically, two-thirds of this subdivision is going to get access off the stub street, basically? Amar: They certainly saw this design and saw -- and they requested if we had one access, it would be off of Black Cat. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 21, 2004 Page 39 of 46 Moe: Well, I agree with Commissioner Rohm, I'm very disappointed that there is not an access onto Cherry Lane, because, quite frankly, I think that's way too much traffic to have to go through a subdivision and -- you know, I realize you made the comment about going off of Black Cat. I live in the area down the way a little bit, I can guarantee you everybody is going to go through that stub street, because they, basically, are going to take a right off Cherry Lane to go into those homes and so the traffic is going to be maximized through that entrance, not the entrance off Black Cat. And so I, too, would hope that we could go back before ACHD and say, look, this is really what we want to do. Amar: I guess for that reason I would request that rather than an additional access, relocate the existing access. You still have the access off of Cherry Lane, it still eliminates the problem that of going through the other subdivision, because you do -- you would have a primary or principal access at this location. So, the need to drive through Golf View would, then, be eliminated, because they can connect at this location. So, what I'm requesting in consideration is that rather than an additional -- Rohm: I think 83 lots deserves two accesses to arterial roads myself. Zaremba: And I would agree. I would support -- my instinct is there ought to be three ways in and out of this, two of them on the arterials and one of them -- that, then, would get very minor use, the current stub street. I have no doubt that it was always the intent that there be a connection to the stub street and that it go somewhere, but I agree with the other Commissioners, to make that -- I live out in that area as well and I know that the people would use that to get to Albertson's, they'd use it to get -- you know, that stub' street. And I don't think that's the idea behind stub streets. My preference would be an access to Black Cat, an access to Cherry Lane, and the stub street. If you were only willing to move it forward by giving up the Black Cat one to get the Cherry Lane, I would still see that as a better solution. If you think of where traffic is going to want to go, unless they are going to the LDS church, there really isn't any reason to go out the Black Cat entrance at the moment -- and I'm trying to think of what might develop over the next 20 years that would change that. Borup: Well, traffic studies usually show some traffic to the north, you know, someone going to HP or something, but -- Zaremba: And, eventually, if Highway 16 crosses the river, there will be some reason to go north. Borup: -- generally the traffic is towards the freeway or towards town. Zaremba: My preference would be three accesses, but -- and, again, I think 83 residences supports that. Well, 82, because you would lose one, but -- Moe: Well, not only that, I guess I would have another concern and that would be emergency access. By not having anything up to the north, you're going to bring Meridian Planning & Zoning October 21, 2004 Page 40 of 46 everything through Cherry Lane to get back to the northern side -- northern end of that property. I think the Black Cat should stay as well, just for any reason for that purpose. Rohm: Well -- and as we have had other subdivisions brought before this Commission in the past, basically what we have made it a requirement is that as -- in 50 lot increments they have multiple accesses and I think that this is kind of in that same vein, that if you have 83 lots, that's a lot of traffic to push out one direction and I think that it alleviates a lot of the concerns that have been brought before us tonight if we could just make that step forward. Other than that, Kevin, your proposal complies with ordinance, it's within the Comprehensive Plan, and I think that it's our job to try and help come up with solutions that take into consideration the needs of the community and support development within ordinance as written and I think that that would move a long ways towards resolving many of these issues. Amar: I have said this before and I'll say it again, I want my way all the time and all these neighbors want their way all the time -- everybody wants their own way and I have expressed to this Commission what I would request. I'm not sitting there, I don't hold a vote, and so this, really, is up to this Commission. I do know that we have done numerous subdivisions with this exact same scenario and this board approved those same subdivisions with one access and the other access is through -- through existing subdivisions next door. And, in fact, they were of larger lot size than -- or larger total lots than this one. So, I guess I know what I want, but you guys get to make the decision or the recommendation on what I get. Zaremba: Well, my recollection would be that the stub street in most of those developments wasn't oriented so that it was going to end up being the major one and I think our instinct on this one is that this sub street is going to be your major entrance and exit and my personal feeling is that needs to be resolved. Rohm: And I guess to follow that up, I would like to propose to you that that's the direction we go and have some concurrence on your part prior to me making a motion before this Commission and I will tell that I would like you to agree to an additional access to Cherry Lane at North Wale, in addition to the existing access to Black Cat. Would you agree to that -- Borup: Commissioner, I think he has already answered that, how he feels, so -- Rohm: But how he feels - I would like to have a yes or no. Amar: I'll say it again. I don't make the decision. What I want is a single access. Obviously, I am not desirous to lose a lot. If you - if you are only going to move it forward that way, I don't know that I can make a decision. I can't say anything. Rohm: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 21, 2004 Page 41 of 46 Borup: I think that could be -- that can be in the motion. Any other questions for Mr. Amar from this group -- from the Commission? Okay. We have closed the public testimony portion. Zaremba: Actually, we haven't, but -- Borup: Now, we haven't closed the public testimony. We have closed the public tßstimony portion of the hearing. We have concluded. We have concluded. Commissioners? We have concluded the public testimony. As I said at the beginning, after all the public testimony, the applicant has an opportunity to come up and make a rebuttal. This is not a back and forth discussion. Every time someone else talks, then, he also will come up and has another ten minutes to make another rebuttal and I don't think -- I'm sorry, ma'am. Commissioners? Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Borup: Discussion? Or did we kind of cover a lot of that? Zaremba: I personally am not ready to move it forward with the access going through the neighbors. I agree the stub street needs to be there, but not to have it designed such that it's almost intuitive that it's going to be the primary ingress and egress, I'm not willing to move it forward with that. Moe: The point I just wanted to make is as far as -- as far as the lot sizes and whatnot, quite frankly, it meets the ordinance and such and so, therefore, I have no problem with that. But, again, I'm very much opposed to not having access off Cherry Lane. We definitely need to have that and it needs to be explored, so I don't know whether that means we deny or that we continue this, hoping that the developer will, then, meet with ACHD and get this issue resolved. Zaremba: Technically, to continue we'd have to reopen. We closed the hearing. Moe: But we are just speaking at the present time, so -- Borup: Another option could be approve it with an entrance at that location and have it redesigned before City Council. But, then, we would not have a chance to take another look at it, though. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 21,2004 Page 42 of 46 Zaremba: I suspect that once they sit down to do the engineering to put an entrance there, there may be other changes that they wish to make as well and I think we should see those before they go to the City Council. Borup: They may want to reconfigure, you mean? Zaremba: Uh-huh. That may be minor, but my preference would not be to shove it off on City Council, my desire would be to -- Borup: I think they would rather it came to them clean, as we would rather send it to them clean. Zaremba: Yes. Moe: I agree. Borup: I just was pointing that out, that third option. Rohm: Why would we not be able to recommend to -- recommend approval with an addition that they would be required to put an additional stub street and, then, it would be clean from this -- from this Commission, anyway, that that's the direction we wanted to see things go. And, then, the City Council could act on it based upon the motion as -- as stated. Borup: That is one of the options. Zaremba: That kind of a change would require a reconsideration by ACHD, because they are going to have to approve the access to Cherry Lane and, again, the traffic patterns and I think the police department and the fire department could look at it again if that changes and I'm hesitant to send things forward to the City Council hoping that it will look different than what we saw. I would like to see the final thing that's going to go to the City Council. Rohm: Okay. Then, continue with recommendations? Can you do that? Zaremba: Yes. If -- the choices would be at this point leave the Public Hearing closed and recommend denial or reopen the Public Hearing, since I don't think anybody has left and there isn't a notice issue, and continue it. And continue it for specific reasons that need to be resolved before we hear it again. Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we reopen the Public Hearing on PP 04-034. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second to reopen the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? Meridian Planning & Zoning October 21, 2004 Page 43 of 46 MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: I would comment for the record I believe at least 98 percent of the people that have been here are still here and are aware that this Public Hearing is continuous. Rohm: Okay. Now, we need to pick a date. Zaremba: Well, we would want staff to have time with it and we would want ACHD to have time with it, so -- and the applicant needs time to redraw it. Rohm: Okay. Would it be appropriate to ask Mr. Amar how long he would like to have to address known issues? Borup: Mr. Amar. Nary: Mr. Chairman, the ordinance -- just so you and the members of the Commission recall, the ordinance also gives you the authority to require a neighborhood meeting if you wish. Rohm: I believe we have had a neighborhood meeting tonight. Zaremba: I would support the idea of having a separate one. Rohm: That would be fine as well. Borup: Well, that would be a motion that we could make. Moe: It would included in your motion. Borup: Just the input on timing is what we are looking for. Amar: I can get with Ada County Highway District tomorrow in their -- what I have in front of me, the application did not require commission action, it was approved at staff level, so we can get input from the staff as whether this is a change that they will allow or not. So, I think the time frame to get in front of ACHD is tomorrow or Monday. If Andrea Tunning is available. As far as the redesign, pen markings, but I can show you tonight what it's going to look like. It will be a road in lieu of Lot 9, Block 5. That's the one that lines up with North Wells Avenue. As far as any other redesign, I'm not aware of any. Rohm: That would probably change block numbers, too, then, wouldn't it? Amar: It may change block and lot numbers. It will actually add a block. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 4. 2004 Page 2 of 64 Borup: Okay. I just wanted to mention a couple things before we go into the -- before we continue with public hearings. And this Commission -- this Commission hears annexations and rezones, conditional uses, planned developments, et cetera. We do not make a decision on that, we make a recommendation to the City Council, and so that's what -- that's how the motions will be stated, is a recommendation to the City Council. The procedure is that the staff makes a -- gives a brief presentation of the proposal, tonight maybe a brief summary of past ones, and, then, after the -- after staff's information we have -- the applicant has up to 15 minutes to make clarification, their presentation, and also time -- if there is any questions we have, after which we take the public testimony, and we -- that is allocated to up to three minutes apiece for each of those. And we would like to -- and, then, after -- and after the public testimony, the applicant has a chance to come back up and answer questions and maybe any clarifications. So, we would like to proceed with continued Public Hearing, that's CUP 04-036, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a music academy and other future uses. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: We have a request from the applicant to withdraw this application. Borup: All right. Thank you. I got in a little late and didn't read all the stuff on this paper. Appreciate that. Okay. A motion for acceptance of -- Zaremba: I move we accept the applicant's withdrawal of CUP 04-036. Rohm: Second. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from October 21, 2004: PP 04-034 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 83 single-family residential building lots and 5 common lots on 25.86 acres in an R-4 zone for Milliron Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC - northeast corner of North Black Cat Road and West Cherry Lane: Borup: Next item is a continued Public Hearing PP 04-034, request for preliminary plat approval of 83 single-family lots in an R-4 zone for Milliron Subdivision. Again, this -- this is a continued hearing, which is now open. Do we have any additional information Meridian Planning & Zoning November 4. 2004 Page 3 of 64 from the staff? I think there was a few issues as we left last time with hopes they could get worked out. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, that's correct. The Commission had asked the applicant to go to the Ada County Highway District and discuss with them the possibility of amending their plat to connect to Cherry Lane. My understanding is they did do that. The Commission did also ask the applicant to hold a neighbor meeting. My understanding is that happened. I don't know if the Commission received it, but staff did receive at our staff desk a list of the neighbors that participated and attended that neighborhood meeting. We have also received a revised plat, which I think the Commission probably has as well, and, my apologies, I think the world just turned on its side there. North is actually right. South is to the left. And I guess the rest it you can figure out. But, as you can see, in this location here -- this is a new access -- direct access to Cherry Lane that was not provided before. Generally, the other elements of the layout itself have not changed. We have received a list of some of the things that the developer spoke with the neighborhood about in terms of the actual design elements of the houses and the lots and the majority of those -- we were asked can the city enter into a development agreement with the developer and according to the city attorney, since this is not an annexation or a rezone, the state statute does not actually allow a development agreement per se. There is an option, of course, for the city, maybe, to have a contract of some other kind that -- you know, by another name. I guess I'll let the applicant discuss that further, as far as what they might envision. The main concern that staff has is many of the items that -- that the developer and the neighborhood talked about entering into are elements that are not part of city code and if we were to be charged with enforcing those, things like the pitch of roofs and putting a tree in rear yards, et cetera, those are things that we are typically not inspecting or enforcing and so that's just a cautionary statement, I guess, in terms of enforcing something like that. I think with that I'll just end staff comments. Borup: Thank you. Any questions from the Commission? Would the applicant have anything they'd like to add? Amar: A couple things. For the record, my name is Kevin Amar, address 114 East Idaho Street, 230, in Meridian. I do have copies of both the conditions as Brad was speaking of, as well as a letter from Ada County Highway District that l'iI pass out to the Commission. This -- I guess if I can ask for clarification first, I know this is a continued Public Hearing. Is this for new information? Is this -- I don't know exactly what I'm supposed to share. Certainly I can talk about the access and the neighborhood meeting that was requested by this body. If there is additional information or limit it to that. Borup: Commission, is there more stuff you'd like to know? I think most -- we were all here last time. Zaremba: Those two items are of interest to me, but you have 15 minutes, so -- Meridian Planning & Zoning November 4, 2004 Page 4 of 64 Amar: I don't want to take 15 minutes. I hope. Rohm: That works for us. Amar: Okay. It sounds like there is other issues tonight that are -- I don't have a radio advertisement about my project, I will say that. This project -- we were requested at the last meeting to have -- to do two things, look at an additional access onto Cherry Lane and hold a neighbor meeting. We have met with -- and Jessica is passing along to you a letter from Ada County Highway District that has granted permission to add one additional access at this point. It lines up with the access across the street at Coral Creek. That has been approved and it is as you see -- as you see here. So, I believe that -- that satisfies one of the biggest concems. It also -- we were also requested to have a neighborhood meeting. We held that on October 28th here in the chambers at 6:00 p.m. and I have to apologize to Jessica, hopefully we didn't get her in trouble, but we interrupted the decorating for the city party. So, they had to decorate beyond us and the council -- your legal counsel Mr. Nary was helpful in facilitating that neighborhood meeting. But at that neighborhood meeting we had approximately a few more than 40 people. I do have a copy of the list. I have given it to your staff, but if you'd like a copy also you can see that. Does mean times up? We did have quite a few people there and at that neighborhood meeting we were able to resolve quite a few issues. One of the -- the larger ones that we spoke about was this list that you have before you. A lot of these requirements are things that we typically do in the subdivisions, but not things that were known by the neighborhoods, nor by you prior to that meeting. So, these are items that we do require within our CC&Rs. One change, rather than the 1,400 square foot house size on all of it, there will be a 1,600 square foot minimum home size on the - - on the -- Brad's got me messed up here. Borup: North and east. Amar: On the east and the north part of the property. So, those homes that are adjacent to Golf View Subdivision will have a 1,600 square foot minimum home size. The other items -- Borup: That's the only thing I noticed that looked like it probably wasn't already -- wouldn't normally be in the CC&Rs. Amar: That is correct. Some of the things that we have started adding is -- to the CC&Rs -- and this is within the last couple of years -- is actual rear yard landscaping. Previous we let people landscape their rear yards, but we didn't put a time limit on it. We now require that the rear yard be landscaped within six months of occupancy of the home. We also required a minimum of one tree in the rear yard. So, we were finding that people -- as I was telling one of the neighbors, it's for the few that don't finish their projects or their homes. Most people get in and want it to look nice, but there are a few that it takes a little bit longer. So, with this requirement the homeowners association actually has the ability to go out and force people to complete their rear yard and do the landscaping, so weeds and other things aren't growing back there. It also speaks to the Meridian Planning & Zoning November 4,2004 Page 5 of 64 pathway, that it's a private pathway, it's owned and maintained by the Golf View homeowners association and that we will be fencing that pathway on our north and east boundaries. I guess with that we -- I believe the neighborhood meeting was very productive, we got good comments from the neighbors, and I think we were able to resolve -- I'd like to thank Heather -- and I should know her last name. She's told me a couple times, but she was very helpful in facilitating a lot of those comments and helping me address some of those items that were in question. But we certainly have a more informed neighborhood and a more informed developer because of that neighborhood meeting, which is always beneficial. We also have a preliminary plat that's before you with an additional access, which was one of the greater concerns of those neighbors. So, that being said, I would stand for any other questions and thanks for your time this evening Borup: Questions from the Commission? Is there anything else that we discussed last time that we didn't get covered here? Zaremba: Just one question. Are you saying that the list that you have provided us are things that you are going to make sure are in the CC&Rs? Amar: Yes, sir. Zaremba: Okay. Amar: What I'd actually ask -- and maybe we can't put all of these in as a condition of approval or something, but I know in other subdivisions we have, actually, put minimum home sizes in as a condition of approval, so maybe we require at a minimum that the 1,600 square feet on the north and on the east boundary be a portion of the condition of approval. That certainly puts some protection there. I don't know legally what you can or can't do, that's a question for Mr. Nary, but these are something that will be in our CC&Rs. So, whether it's a part of this motion or not, they will be there. Borup: And they are also on testimony. Amar: Sure. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you for doing all that. Borup: Anything else from any of the other Commissioners? Moe: No, sir. Newton-Huckabay: I have nothing. Amar: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 4, 2004 Page 6 of 64 Borup: Thank you. Okay. Do we have anyone else that would like to testify? This is the time for public testimony. Come on up, sir. Nary: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Yes. Nary: Just so the record is clear, for any public testimony, since the only reason the hearing was open was the information Mr. Amar brought that was new, then, any other additional comments should confine to just the new, so that you aren't rehearing all the other stuff that's already part of the record. So, if this gentleman has stuff that's to -- to stuff that's been spoken of tonight, then, that would be appropriate. If it was just something else, then, that wouldn't be. Lerner: It's part of the list. Borup: Okay. And, then, you need to state your name and address. Lerner: Yes. My name is Dave Lerner, I live at 4603 West White Ash. I did have a question and I think it needs to be answered here and maybe you can tell me. One of the things that I wanted added in was the height of the rear fence right now. I live on -- it would be the northern boundary of the new subdivision going in and my question was -" been kind of led to believe through the neighborhood meeting and the homeowners association that we could only have a four foot fence in there, because of the walking pathway. If that's true, there is three more subdivisions just north of us in Meridian there that have five and five and a half foot fences. The top 12 inches or 14 inches are a lattice work. You can see through it, but it kind of makes a nice screen across there and that's what I'm asking. Is that something that could be considered? Borup: You're saying you'd like a lattice on top of the four feet? Lerner: Yes. And I'd also like to say that the neighborhood meeting and the developer went a long way to resolve a lot of issues, so that was a good deal. We do appreciate it. But that's my only question and comment tonight. Is that something that could be included in there? I don't know. I don't know if this is the right place to ask the -- Borup: No. This is the place. Rohm: It's a good place to ask. Borup: And we will discuss that at the end with the developer. Lerner: Okay. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Okay. Yes. Come on up. Then, I will go down through -- I do have a list here now. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 4, 2004 Page 7 of 64 Evans: Do you want to take that as it's listed now or - Borup: No. Go ahead. Evans: Okay. I'm Don Evans, 4349 Quaker Ridge. Borup: You were the first one on the list. Evans: Okay. The City of Meridian has adopted into their building codes a comprehensive development plan, of which Milliron Subdivision, as proposed, is not in compliance with. Meridian City Code 11-10-2, dealing with compatibility with existing and proposed developments, reads as follows: All new residential housing developments in the city shall be designed to insure compatibility with adjacent, existing, and/or proposed developments. It is my understanding that Golf View Estates, which surrounds the proposed Milliron Place Subdivision on the east and the north, contains substantially larger lots and homes than what is being proposed here. There appears to be no effort by development to comply with the City Code 11-10-2, because they have clearly not designed Milliron Place Subdivision to insure compatibility with Golf View Estates. Both Golf View Estates and Milliron Subdivisions are located within the City of Meridian in the R-4 zone. Meridian City Code 11-10-4A requires that any new single-family detached house in R-4 zone must at least 1,400 square feet in size, excluding the garage area. Based upon my conversations with Mr. Woodruff, it appears that this is approximately half the size of the smaller homes in Golf View Estates. Furthermore, the proposed preliminary plat contains no recitation of this requirement, stating that all residential homes shall be a minimum of 1,400 square feet, excluding the garage. In other words, the Milliron Place Subdivision is not designed to insure compatibility with the surrounding developments, but to authorize construction of the smallest homes possible in the R-4 zoning. Similarly, Meridian Code 11-9-1 sets the minimum lot size of R-4 zone at 8,000 square feet. From my reading of the proposed preliminary plat, 61 of these 81 lots, or roughly 80 percent proposed for the development in Milliron Place Subdivision are exactly 8,000 square feet. Or exceed the bare minimum by less than five percent. Again, it appears that Milliron Place was designed almost exclusively to accommodate lots of absolute minimum required size. This is not compatible with Golf View Estates, which has lots of greater size and character. In short, while the proposed development of Milliron Place Subdivision appears to comply with the bare minimum requirements of the city zoning ordinance for the R-4 zone, there appears to be no effort whatsoever to design the subdivision to insure compatibility with adjacent existing developments, such as is required by Meridian City Code 11-10-2. Does that mean time's up? Borup: That means you have 30 seconds, I believe. I'm sorry. It was. Questions from any of the other Commissioners? Zaremba: Have you measured the lots in Golf View? Do you know how many are 8,000 square feet? Meridian Planning & Zoning November 4,2004 Page 8 of 64 Evans: I have not. I know what my own lot is. I don't -- you know, according to information received from the Commission -- or from the -- Borup: Then, are you familiar with the -- what the covenants for Golf View Estates are as minimum size, especially Golf View No.1? Evans: I am not. Borup: Then, how do you know they are not the same? Evans: Well, like I said, I'm taking this from Mr. Woodruff and he will address that issue later on -- Borup: Okay. Evans: -- in this debate. Okay. Do I get to continue, or is my time up? Borup: Yes. That's -- yeah. When the red light goes on, that's -- unless there is any other questions. Newton-Huckabay: You can submit your letter. Borup: Right. Yeah. And it can be submitted in writing and, then, also if there is any questions from any of the Commissioners. Any other questions? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Borup: Okay. Nancy Evans, did you wish to come forward or did you wish to testify? N.Evans: My name is Nancy Evans and I live at 4349 Quaker Ridge Drive in Golf View 2 Subdivision. I'll continue with point two. Nary: Mr. Chairman, before she continues, the only purpose of this continued hearing was not to re-hear all the prior testimony or the issues, it was only for the issues that were raised and brought up by Mr. Amar tonight, which was regarding the access and the home sizes-- N.Evans: And these -- Nary: And that's fine. The last gentleman did not. And I just want to make sure that the record is clear that goes forward to the City Council that the testimony is only related to the new information that was sought by the Commission as the reason for the set over. N.Evans: Okay. Our concern here, sir, is that we are asking you, the Planning and Zoning Commission, or you, the attorney, that you follow Meridian code, which we are Meridian Planning & Zoning November 4,2004 Page 9 of 64 expressing to you, which does have to do with lot size, building size, and adjacent properties, which the Meridian code plainly states. I am under the understanding that as a Planning and Zoning Commission you would be interested in that. Nary: I understand, Ma'am. What I'm saying -- and all I'm asking the Commission to do is to confine themselves to the new information that they sought as to why this was set over. All of that information and the opportunity to present that was at the last hearing. And this isn't a brand new hearing, this is a continued hearing for the limited purpose of what was brought forward by the applicant tonight, not for new -- not for information that could have been brought the last time. Borup: Well, sir, just -- the one that's at the microphone is the one that has -- N.Evans: Well, that's what I'm asking you, too. This -- in our opinion this does -- Borup: No. He's saying from the last plat that was before us. And the lots got -- did the lots get smaller from when it was here before us? N.Evans: Did the lots get smaller? Borup: Right. That's not the plat that we have. It's the same -- N.Evans: We -- this is the same - this is information that we brought before you. The new information to us is that you had this at your fingertips. This comes from Meridian's code and as Planning and Zoning Commissioners, we heard nothing about this from you to enlighten us before. Borup: Mr. Nary-- N.Evans: You didn't seem to be following that. Borup: -- maybe we could -- Zaremba: I guess my question would be what is it that you're saying does not comply with the code? Borup: Well, it's -- the only thing I heard was they are saying it's not compatible, so I think what we haven't discussed is a definition of compatibility and that may be appropriate to discuss -- Newton-Huckabay: Is that the issue at hand is compatibility? N.Evans: Pardon? Newton-Huckabay: Is that the issue at hand? Meridian Planning & Zoning November 4,2004 Page 10of64 N.Evans: Yes. It's not compatible with surrounding areas and we are telling you why according to your code. Borup: No. You're interpreting our code for us. N.Evans: No, sir. Borup: And that's what I'm saying, it might be -- N.Evans: This was interpreted by a lawyer. Our lawyer. Borup: By a -- N.Evans: Our lawyer. Borup: And what's his definition of compatibility? testimony. You didn't submit that in the N.Evans: Yes, he was. He was -- he was submitting it, that according -- and we gave you code numbers. Borup: No. I understand. N.Evans: We gave you code -- what don't you understand, sir? I'm sure what -- Borup: The definition of what's compatible. N.Evans: We are telling you the size is not compatible, the lots are not compatible. Borup: And that's what I'm asking, is what does your covenants say? N.Evans: And that will be brought up. Borup: Okay. N.Evans: But not by me. That's not my part. Borup: All right. Thank you. N.Evans: May I continue? Borup: Yes. N.Evans: Okay. Point two. Milliron Place Subdivision may be brought into compliance with Meridian City Code 10-11-2 by complying with the site planning review provisions of Meridian City Code 11-9-3. The Meridian City Planning and Zoning Commission has Meridian Planning & Zoning November 4,2004 Page 11 of 64 the discretion to require, as a condition of approval, in addition to those items required as minimum development, standards by the Meridian city zoning ordinance and subdivision ordinance, that the development of Milliron Place Subdivision be subject to site planning review. According to the Meridian City Code 11-9-3, the purpose of this review is to insure that the development and construction occurs as it is represented it will occur. Through this site planning review process city staff and potentially adjoining neighbors have the opportunity to address those instances where Milliron Place Subdivision may be in violation of Meridian Code 11-10-2. Presumably this process can include at least assurances that portions of the Milliron Place Subdivision will buffer dramatic differences in compatibility between Milliron Place Subdivision as proposed and the existing Golf View Estates. Point three. The Milliron Place Subdivision may be brought into compliance with Meridian City Code 11-10-3 by complying with the design review provisions of Meridian city code. In addition to the site planning review, provisions for Section 11-9-3, implementation of the design review requirements of Meridian City Code 11-10-3 might also be useful in assisting development of Milliron Place Subdivision. That section reads as follows: Design review. All new residential housing developments in Meridian shall be subject to design review to insure that the proposed housing units are within an established area of community housing needed as defined by Meridian City Housing Plan, which includes HUD housing inventory and housing goals. Borup: Thank you. N.Evans: Thank you, sir. Borup: Harry Woods, do you still wish to come forward? Okay. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, Ron. There was two people on one line. That's what -- Anderson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Ron Anderson, I live at 4327 West Quaker Ridge. I would like to continue -- at the last meeting we talked about you guys would like to have some clarification about the entry on Cherry Lane and also about a homeowners meeting and you guys have heard from Mr. Amar what his version of that meeting was. We would like, as homeowners, to tell you what our concerns were and that's why we are here tonight. Currently -- as currently proposed, Milliron Place Subdivision does not address community concerns expressed in the Meridian comp plan. In reviewing and updating the Meridian comp plan in July of 2002, the comp plan committee expressed a concern of the community that extensive subdivision of property for residential purposes that only meets the minimum lot size and house size of the zoning ordinance creates a lack of residential diversity. The community expressed a strong desire for introducing both lower density ranchettes and higher density apartments, as opposed to the consistent pattern of small lots and small single-family homes. Milliron Place Subdivision as proposed is an extension of entry level or one step up development that prompts this concern. On the other hand, Golf View Estates certainly comports with the desire to establish lower density ranchettes. For this reason development of Milliron Place Subdivision in a fashion consistent with Golf View Estates perpetuates the desire for lower density ranchettes. In other words, the comp plan Meridian Planning & Zoning November 4,2004 Page 12 of 64 supports Meridian Code 11-10-2, which would require compatibility between Milliron Place and Golf View. As proposed, Milliron Subdivision is inconsistent with Objective C and Goal I of Chapter 7 of the land use and housing component of Meridian's comp plan, which instructs that development approvals should maintain integrity of housing areas to preserve values and ambiance of the areas. Milliron Place is certainly well designed and comports with bear minimum requirements of the zoning ordinance. However, because it is substantially different from Golf View and other developments in the area, it does not perpetuate the residential values and ambience of the general area which is proposed. Developments that do not comport with the comp plan should not be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. As proposed, the Milliron Subdivision is inconsistent with Goal I of Chapter 8 of the implementation tools, which requires, with mandatory language, that the Meridian comp plan be used to shape development at this site. That goal reads as follows: The City of Meridian comp plan and related ordinances will be used by citizens and city leaders to shape the future of Meridian and the surrounding area. Much trouble, effort, and public input went into the creation of Meridian's comp plan and any deviation for its terms that may result in approval of incompatible development should be rejected. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. I have too many papers up here. Diane, did you wish to testify? Okay. Ashbaucher: My name is Diane Ashbaucher and I live at 4557 West White Ash Drive, which is north of the north boundary. Okay. At our neighborhood meeting he did answer a lot of questions, Mr. Amar did. He showed us -- when I asked him what type of homes would be built, he said I have some pictures. He would not tell us who the builder is, but I also looked up the registered agent of his development company is Corey Barton. The homes he showed us as examples were not built by Corey Barton and that's what I have to say. Borup: Yeah. I called you before I called him. Are you Harry? Come on up. Woodruff: My name is Harry Woodruff, I'm president of the Golf View Estates homeowners association. I live at 4386 West White Birch Court. And continuing with what Mr. Anderson had to say to you, even if the Milliron Place Subdivision is approved, portions of the Meridian City Comprehensive Plan dictate in favor of signature buffers. Objective D and Goal I of the land use and housing component of Chapter 7 of the Meridian City Comprehensive Plan, require that the city plan for appropriate uses within rural areas. One of the actions required to implement this objective and goal is as follows: Require new urban density subdivisions which abut or are in proximity to existing low density residential land uses to provide landscaping, screening, or transitional densities with larger, more - excuse me -- comparable lot sizes to buffer the interface between urban level density and rural residential densities. Objective C and Goal 4 for the land use and housing component, Chapter 7 of the Meridian City Comprehensive Plan speaks to the implementation of buffer areas between land uses of varying intensity and density. One of the actions proposed to implement Objective C is as follows: To require screening and landscape buffer in all development requests Meridian Planning & Zoning November 4, 2004 Page 13 of 64 that are more intense than adjacent residential properties. Taken together, these two actions set forth in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan would dictate in favor of a moderate transition interface within the design and development of Milliron Place Subdivision to serve as a buffer between the higher density smaller home sizes of Milliron Place Subdivision and Golf View Estates. Specifically, these actions may be implemented in this matter by requesting or forcing Milliron Place Subdivision open space to be located along the common -- excuse me -- along the existing walking path common area at the southwesterly edge of Golf View Estates. By aligning common area for Milliron Place Subdivision with common area of Golf View Estates, the entire area may be enhanced and a broaden buffer implemented as a transitional area. Furthermore, these lots and homes closest to Golf View Estates should be required to upgrade towards compatibility with the lot sizes and home sizes in Golf View Estates. Blocks 1, Lots 7 through 20, and Blocks 5, lots through four of the proposed Milliron Place Subdivision should be expanded in size to accommodate the Meridian City Comprehensive Plan requirements of the transitional interface for buffer areas. This would lessen the impact of the transition between the two subdivisions. In addition, the minimum house size of these lots should be increased from the bear minimum of 1,400 square feet to approximately 2,000 to 2,500 square feet, which will place them in a transitional category between those -- between most of the development in the two subdivisions. Implementation of the buffering design features will help to provide some conformance with the Meridian City Comprehensive Plan, which at the same time protecting the private property rights of the developments of Milliron Place Subdivision. And I have copies of this presentation I'd like to give to you all. Borup: Please do. Woodruff: And I don't know if my list of the comments that Mr. Amar introduced are the same as what he gave you. I assume they are. I also have a copy of a Settlers Irrigation District agreement with another subdivision that it would allow landscaping in the buffer area we have referred to. And if we had time, I would present some pictures of some -- that area in question, what it looked like now and what we have found in common with areas that are not required to be developed or landscaped and our fears of what this may become or what it may look like after the development is finished without cooperation between the two areas. Borup: You're talking about the buffer area on the north along the -- Woodruff: The north and the east. We already have an existing walking path there and that area could be enhanced and developed not only to the benefit -- Borup: Yeah. I thought you were talking about the area, that you were afraid it might not get developed that's on the north right now. Woodruff: Well, it's my understanding that what he wants to do is put a fence up behind the homes. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 4. 2004 Page 14 of 64 Borup: Okay. Woodruff: And we are very concerned with what the area between the fence and our walking path may get to look like -- Borup: But is that -- Woodruff: -- that's not within our area of control. Borup: Okay. Woodruff: It will be within their subdivision. It could be enhanced as a common area to enhance our greenbelt, if you will, and landscaped. But it requires some cooperation on the part of the Milliron development, as well as us, to make it look esthetic. These are copies of the presentation -- those were copies of the presentation which myself and the other homeowners have pretty much read to you. The other list there was a copy of a Settlers Irrigation District, a common type agreement they have with the subdivisions where they landscape areas, and this list is a -- Mr. Amar's list of improvements that he could or might consider making to the requirements. It looks to be the same as what you already have. And if we had time, I would like to present the photos to show you what is there and what is also within an adjacent subdivision or a very near subdivision where the development was not continued through and carried out, what we fear might happen here. Borup: That can still be submitted on the record if you'd like. Woodruff: I can certainly do that. Borup: To the clerk. Woodruff: Do we have time to show it on the overhead thing or would you just -- Borup: Commissioners, would you like to spend some time looking at that at this point? Woodruff: They are very brief and I'd give you a very brief explanation of it. Borup: But I think it's things we have seen before. Newton-Huckabay: I need a clarification. What specifically are we considering tonight? Was -- Borup: We are considering the whole subdivision that was -- it was continued for two items, one, access to Cherry Lane and the second to hold a neighborhood meeting. Newton-Huckabay: And so any product of the neighborhood meeting is what we are -- which we have the testimony to -- Meridian Planning & Zoning November 4,2004 Page 15 of 64 Borup: I guess that's still the way I'm looking at it. If it was discussed at the neighborhood meeting, then, it could be discussed here tonight. And I think that's the case. Woodruff: The developer's opinion of the neighborhood meeting is somewhat different than ours, I believe, and I think this testimony substantiates that fact and shows -- Borup: Well, he just stated what was -- the things that he would agree to do. I don't think -- I didn't remember him saying that there was any unanimous consent at the meeting. Woodruff: No. No. I agree with that. But here, again, I would comment on those things and if you have any questions -- Borup: I have got questions. Any other questions for Mr. Woodruff? Moe: Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. What is the average lot size in Golf View? Woodruff: Golf view lot sizes -- and I don't know the square footage, what that converts to, but they range roughly from -- I'd say a quarter of an acre to up to a half an acre. Mine personally is a third of an acre. The minimum CC&R requirements that are -- or construction requirements in home sizes was 1,800 square feet and -- Borup: Now are you saying that is -- Woodruff: I don't think there are any homes that -- maybe a couple that were on extremely abnormal lot sizes that were done strictly to be able to sell those lots, were allowed as smaller homes. I don't think there is anything in the subdivision under 24, 25 hundred square foot, other than that. Borup: How many phases of Golf View were there; do you know? Five phases? Woodruff: Five in Golf View No.2, I believe. Borup: Okay. And, then, you -- that 1,800 feet, you say that's the covenant? That's what's in the CC&Rs? Woodruff: Well, not that -- I believe that was in the construction guidelines. Borup: Okay. What's in the CC&Rs? Woodruff: You know, to be absolutely sure, I don't -- I wouldn't swear to you that's in the CC&Rs. I don't have those memorized. But it's -- the homes are substantially larger and more expensive than what - Meridian Planning & Zoning November 4,2004 Page 160f64 Borup: I understand that. Woodruff: - is proposed. Borup: Okay. I do have a question on the boundary - the eastern boundary of this development. You were talking about the fence and the testimony last time was -- I had understood the Golf View neighbors wanted a fence there, so that -- so that no one would come onto the walking path. Did I misunderstand that? Woodruff: It's -- I guess it depends on who you talk to. Borup: Well, I remember the majority of the testimony -- Woodruff: Being on the board and trying to represent all the homeowners, we can't speak for every homeowner individually, but we try and represent the majority of those homeowners and I don't think the objection is necessarily to a fence, but what might happen between the fence and the development of the green path that we already have. Borup: But you own that property, don't you? Woodruff: Well, we own up to our pathway and to the edge that borders next to Milliron's proposed subdivision here, but we have no control over it from that point. Borup: Well, if they put their fence on their property line, the rest of it is -- would be your property. Woodruff: I would assume so, yes. Borup: So, you're concerned about them maintaining your property? Woodruff: No. We are talking about the easements that run through there. Borup: Some irrigation easements. Woodruff: There is easements on both borders, is my understanding. Borup: Okay. That's what I wasn't -- Woodruff: And one of these picture shows the -- Borup: -- understanding. Woodruff: Well, it shows both areas, the north and the east boundary. Borup: So, there is an east irrigation easement also? Meridian Pianning & Zoning November 4,2004 Page 17 of 64 Woodruff: There is a large irrigation headgate located on Cherry Lane where the buried irrigation ditch runs north and joins -- Borup: Well, the plat does not show an easement, that's why I asked that question. Woodruff: And that was a question I had about the plat, too. But the irrigation people tell me that, yes, they have a tiled buried ditch there and there is an easement there. But it's kind of contested in that area of the plat also. Borup: Well, the easement -- the easement is stated on the north. There is just-- Woodruff: There is also one on the eastern boundary running to that northern head -- to the headgate on the northeast section of the development. Borup: Okay. We will get some clarification on that. There is not an easement shown on the plat. Woodruff: It was my understanding -- Borup: There may be a ditch, but that may be a local user's ditch, but -- and that wouldn't necessarily show on the easement. Woodruff: Yeah. I didn't understand either, because there is head gates at both locations and the ditch -- the canal company tells me runs between the two. It's buried and has an easement there. Borup: Okay. We will get to -- see if we can find out something on that. Thank you. Woodruff: And I'll leave these photos with you also. Borup: Thank you. Brent Law. Law: My name is Brent Law. I reside at 4888 West Cherry Lane. What I'd like to address might go back to some of last week's meeting, but I don't know, because, unfortunately, everything got kind of -- I felt short changed last week. At this point I feel there is a lot of information lacking. The neighborhood meeting, basically, was to try to clarify a few things, but not a lot was fixed. As you can already hear, one of the questions asked by a commissioner last week was what was going to be percentage of square footage on homes. That was never answered. It was -- it was ignored -- or not ignored, excuse me, it was just kind of brushed over. I feel the outside perimeter, approximately 18 lots, they are talking putting 1,600 square foot homes. The rest of it could be 1,400. We really -- you know, you have got 65 lots that could be 1,400 square foot homes. That's, basically, putting in a starter subdivision and that's what everybody was basically against. I was, too. I don't feel there was enough information given prior to last week's meeting as far as even the meeting he had with the homeowners in the Meridian Planning & Zoning November 4,2004 Page 18of64 area. There just really -- two weeks ago here at the Commission when I walked in I had no clue most of what was going to be discussed, because there had been no given -- no information given whatsoever to homeowners. And when I walked in here I didn't get an opportunity to speak, I didn't put my name on the list, because I had no clue what you were talking about and I just -- my opinion is I feel -- I would really like to see the whole process started over. I think the builder here needs to try to give the homeowners and the people in the area a little more information and some of these things that are being discussed here, it ought to have been done at the meeting, but because nobody was told and we weren't allowed to have a homeowners meeting and really discuss it, because the only problems he addressed at the homeowners meetings was what you guys asked him to do. All the other issues that are being addressed here tonight is stuff that should have been taken care of there. But, again, there we were asked to leave, because there was decorations going on. Now, it's not our fault and, you know, it's great, we appreciate the opportunity to use the building and everything here, but we kind of got short changed on that, too. So, I just feel it's something -- I would like to see it just start over and see if we can't make it work and agreeable for everybody. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Wayne Hammer. Hammer: Commissioners, I'm Wayne Hammer, I live at 4604 West White Ash Drive. And my comments tonight is going to be for the Commission, I've sit there -- I moved into my place a year or so ago and I've looked at the whole area across the -- and I think the oversights of our city fathers and city planners need to be rectified. They sit there and say this was zoned R-4 30 years ago. Thirty years ago a 1,400 square foot house was fairly standard. Times have changed. Someone along the line in the city planners should have seen these changes and came along and not be expecting to put 1,400 square foot houses next to 2,500, 3,000. I think if you will look at the whole square mile of this area, Cherry Lane, Black Cat, Ustick, and Ten Mile, you'd probably be hard pressed to find a 1,400 square foot house in that area and that as the years grew from Cherry Lane Subdivision on out, all the subdivisions grew. Quality homes. One up to -- we had the developers at that time that wanted to build quality subdivisions and leave a legacy to this city. We no longer have that luxury and I'm advocating it's time to take a look -- here is a whole square mile of quality homes. Now, we got a little 26-acre plot here that they want to come in and build -- excuse my term, but next year's slums. And I'm sitting here -- I happen to own a home just across the street where this is located. It's a very expensive home and I worked long and hard to buy that home and I cannot believe that in the whole square mile that we could sit there and in fair honest, no one -- the city planners have let this slip by all these years and just sit there and let it stay at an R-4 and now with our homes at 250 to 400 thousand dollars are going to be faced with 1,400 -- 120 to 140 houses -- dollar houses built next to them, I can't fathom that. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Sir, are you -- you don't think it should be zoned R-4? Hammer: Excuse me? Meridian Planning & Zoning November 4, 2004 Page 19of64 Borup: You do not agree that it should be zoned R-4; is that what you're saying? Hammer: It should not have been. Borup: Okay. Hammer: It should have been upgraded as -- Borup: So, if it was zoned the same as Golf View, would that satisfy you? Hammer: Golf View -- Borup: Okay. Thank you. Hammer: -- is R-4, too. I'm just saying that as they grew, they kept growing bigger and bigger and people wanted quality and now -- okay. I have said enough. Thank you. Borup: Okay. Thank you. I think we can accommodate the zoning. Lainhart: Commissioner, I'm not on the list, but I have a point of information you might be interested in. Borup: Okay. State your name. Lainhart: Heather Lainhart, 1801 North Golf View Way. I have right here a copy of the plat and I just wanted to let you know that the bordering plats, there is not a lot size less than 11,000 square feet and as quickly as I can flip through and do the math in my head, I believe there are no lots smaller than 11,000 in the Golf View Estates developments that are around that. Borup: Okay. And do you also have the covenants? Lainhart: Yes, I do. And I did see that in the covenants it is 1,800 square feet minimum building size. Borup: That's in all phases? Lainhart: I only have copies of two, three, four and five. I do not have phase one. Borup: Okay. Thank you. You're the one I have been -- that had the information I have been trying to get all night. Lainhart: There is one other discrepancy in the CC&Rs I noted previously and that was the setbacks. Our setbacks from the side and front lot lines are much higher than the Meridian Planning & Zoning November 4,2004 Page 20 of 64 city required. So, if you would be interested in anything -- any other information, I would be happy to search through and find that for you. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Questions from any of the other Commissioners? Thank you. Pugmire: I also wasn't on the list, because I have never been to one of these before, so I didn't realize I had to sign up. But my name is Pam Pugmire and I live at 4733 West Austin Drive, which is -- I don't know -- I believe I live within likE! the 300 or 500 feet, so that I was notified about the first meeting. However, I did receive an invitation by the Dyver corporation, but I received it the day after the meeting, so I was not able to attend that, because I received it in the mail after -- post tense. But I know that -- I am in Ashford Greens Subdivision and that the things he's talking about are also very inconsistent with our subdivision. Our subdivision has the golf course in it and so I know that I am paying taxes and my appraisal value is much higher, because I am next to the golf course and everyone in my subdivision is doing that and probably as well as in Golf View Subdivision and our minimum standards on our buildings in that are 1,800 square feet for the very very bare minimum, you know, on the very smallest lots in Ashford Greens Subdivision. So, the things that he's talking about, the 1,600 square feet lots - or 1,600 square foot homes in the very middle are completely inconsistent with my home, which is not very far away from that. So, I just wanted to -- Borup: What street were you on? Pugmire: I am on 4733 West Dawson Drive, which is in Ashford Greens Subdivision. Borup: Yeah. We are looking at a map here. Pugmire: Yeah. Newton-Huckabay: How big is your lot? Pugmire: You know, I don't know lot size, I'm sorry, and I live just on the second home from Black Cat, so I am on one of the smaller -- I have a 2,000 square foot home, which is a little bit smaller, but, you know, still, all my exterior finishes had to be, you know, up to code and everything with Ashford Greens Subdivision, so my taxes that I'm paying are like 256,000. So, it's not a starter home by any means. So, you know, I'm just on the -- I'm the second home in from Black Cat on Dawson Drive. So, you know, I'm not even -- the homes down the street are much bigger lots and much larger homes. So, even me being the -- probably one of the smaller homes in Ashford Greens and on a smaller lot, it's, you know, much bigger than what he's saying would be their minimum. Borup: The plat we have here shows your lots are bigger than most of those down the street, but -- Pugmire: Well -- I don't know exactly, but -- Meridian Planning & Zoning November 4, 2004 Page 21 of 64 Borup: This is drawn at -- and do you know -- also looking -- do you know anything about the section of lots to the north of you, then? Pugmire: To the north of me? Let me look. Borup: This is Dawson here. You had -- Pugmire: Yeah. Uh-huh. Borup: This area here. Pugmire: I have driven around in there. Borup: Okay. Pugmire: I have driven around in there. They are all on the golf course, so, you know, I don't know -- what specifically were you -- Borup: Well, those lot sizes look about half the size of yours. Pugmire: No, they are not. The homes are -- I don't know. The homes in -- Borup: No. The lot size I'm saying. Pugmire: Oh, the lots. Yeah. I don't know exactly. But I doubt that they are smaller, because the homes are bigger and you drive in and Ashford Greens is not at all a subdivision where it's homes stacked right next to each other. And, of course, I assume that you would agree that, you know, homes on a golf course are not going to be that way. So, I could get you that information on lot sizes in our subdivision if you would like. Is that something you would like me to get for you? Borup: Any other Commissioners? No, we have got -- Newton-Huckabay: Is the lot plot that we have to scale? Borup: Yes. I think we have got the information on the -- you said it's 1,800 foot. Pugmire: Yeah. It's our very minimum in our covenants. And a lot of our covenants also -- it's not just home size, but it's exterior finishes and exterior landscaping that makes the smaller homes -- you know, you can have two 1,800 square foot homes that are completely un-comparable and so I believe that that is what sets Ashford Greens and Golf View Subdivision apart, it's not only the home size and the lot size, but the amount of exterior finishing and landscaping as well. And I think that shows by taxes that we all pay -- I'm sure -- do you guys all think you pay a ton of taxes? I pay a ton of taxes and so, you know, we are not just saying, oh, we live in these nice homes -- you Meridian Planning & Zoning November 4, 2004 Page 22 of 64 know, I bought my home -- I live -- have lived in it two years in November and my plan was to tum around and sell it. It was an investment for me. And so, you know, I'm assuming a lot of these people are the same way and we are also paying taxes on those higher levels, so -- Borup: Thank you. Pugmire: Thank you. Borup: Okay. Mr. Amar. Amar: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Again, for the record, my name is Kevin Amar, here to address some of the issues that have come up tonight. Obviously, the impression I had at the neighborhood meeting and their impression was significantly different, as was the impression of some of the other neighbors. I talked to them for quite awhile and I thought we resolved quite a few of the issues. The neighborhood meeting actually lasted -- and I recorded it, so if anybody really wants to fall asleep quick, you can listen to it. But it -- on the tape that was 54 minutes long and, then, another probably ten or 15 minutes afterwards. So, the presentation lasted to maybe 20 minutes and, then, we fielded questions for the balance of that time. So, it certainly was not me dictating to them what we were going to talk about, we addressed many issues from the pathways to the builder. That question came up also. Dyver corporation is a Corey Barton corporation. I told them that that night. It's pretty hard to hide something like that. I have got the tape recording and I can certainly bring this back and we can all listen to it for the next 54 minutes if that's what we want to do. I don't think it's what we want to do. But what we are trying to do with this subdivision and what we were asked to do at the last Planning and Zoning meeting was look at two items, one, the access and, two, the neighborhood meeting. We have done those items. I'm going to address -- it doesn't seem that the access is an issue, so I think -- I don't need to spend time on that. I will address some of the items that have been brought up with respect to the common area and the fencing. First, I will start with the easement on the north boundary. That easement is an active gravel access and it won't even be set up as an easement, it will, actually, be set up as an individual lot that will be owned and maintained by the Milliron homeowners association for two reasons. One, we don't want all the neighbors, meaning all of these lots, thinking they have the right or the ability to fence across that easement. They certainly do not. Settlers Irrigation District needs to access that property. The second reason is maintenance on that area, if you leave it up to each individual homeowner, will be maintained a myriad of different ways. So, if we leave it up to the homeowners association, it will maintain that easement in the event that Settlers does not. Now, currently, Settlers maintains that easement. That's a drive access road to get to their head gates and get to the irrigation water. So, we fully anticipate that Settlers will continue to maintain that easement. Should they not, then, the homeowners association will. And they will be able to -- should there be any weeds, they can do that, should there be any other maintenance items, they can do that. So, we have done this before and we are interested in making this look nice. As we talked about compatibility, I won't spend too much time on it, but we have on our eastern Meridian Planning & Zoning November 4, 2004 Page 23 of 64 boundary the exact same number of lots as they have on their western boundary, so we have a one-to-one compatibility on it. On our northern boundary we have two more lots than they have, although that is counting one here that is across from a storm drain pond, so if you actually look at the number of lots starting from here to this point, there are, I believe, nine lots on our side and eight lots on their side. What we also have is this access easement, which is 15 feet on our property, in addition to whatever is on their property. So, there is a separation from the backyards at a minimum of 20 feet. The pathway is five feet wide. Now, all of that providing more of a buffering and more of a separation from those homes. Our minimum home size has been bumped up and we not -- what we have brought before you this evening, the list of conditions, was -- I actually went to staff and said can we add this as conditions of approval. Well, that is not the norm. We are not asking for new zoning, we are not asking for new annexation. Maybe there are neighbors here that do not like that, but we are asking for additional contracts -- I think that the -- the word Brad used, to insure that these items will be done. And, again, these are minimum home sizes. The area out there is extremely diverse. In fact, I have an overhead -- if I might use this, it will explain some items. What you're going to see is an overhead of the surrounding subdivisions showing the -- not only do we have much higher density than what we are proposing here, but we also have Golf View, which is a slightly lower density. Oh, and I had it all -- I highlighted it thinking that was a good thing. If we look around, there are -- there are subdivisions at this location -- Brad, if I point are you able to read the -- the numbers. I don't know if you can see it. In this area we have over five units to the acre and in this area of have just under five units to the acre. Ashford Green is right at the same density we are looking at, as is Turnberry, as is -- oh, the name of this subdivision. I forgot it tonight. So what we have is extremely compatible with everything else that's out there. We are not doing anything above, we are not doing anything below. We are being compatible with what has been developed. We are doing it with what has been be entitled on this property since the late 1970's. So, we are trying to be considerate to those neighbors, we are adding additional landscaping. They may have -- in their CC&Rs they do have a landscaping section and I can certainly give that to you, that shows -- and it actually has the recording number on it that I will hand you. It shows that they are required to have a minimum of one tree at an inch and a half caliper six feet in height, three five gallon plants, five one gallon shrubs. Now, they may have been required higher than that for the architectural control committee, but that's what their CC&Rs state. And, again, that has the recording number on it, so you can verify that. Really, I think this project is a good project. We have met the concerns; we have addressed the concerns of the neighbors. Unfortunately, everyone is not going to be happy. I realize that. I'm not going to be happy that I had to lose extra lots and do additional landscaping. The neighbors aren't going to be happy that there is going to be a subdivision there at all. They'd much rather have an onion field. It's nice to live next to a field. What I'm asking for here tonight is a recommendation for approval for Milliron Subdivision, still putting in these items that I gave you as an additional contract or whatever we need to call that, so it is insured that these things will be done. I think I'd stand for any additional questions. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 4,2004 Page 24 of 64 Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I have one question for Kevin. One of the testimonies was requesting the six foot fence along that east and north line with the two foot lattice on the top. Is that something that would be acceptable or -- Amar: I don't like the two-foot lattice on top, only because the lattice breaks. It is a maintenance issue. If that's something you're going to require, I will comply with it. Rohm: It was just a question. It wasn't a requirement, just -- Amar: I don't like it. I mean from a construction standpoint from doing it before, I don't like it. The longevity of it does not last. That's why we are putting in vinyl on that boundary also, so it is a longer maintenance type of fence. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Borup: Can you comment on that east boundary on the irrigation ditch? Amar: Yeah. The eastern boundary there are no -- there is no easement on our property. We have researched it. There may be on the Golf View, I don't know, but it certainly is not on our property or within our property. Borup: How about the ditch itself? Amar: There is not a ditch there. Borup: On your property. Amar: No. There is currently a road there. That's how -- there is an existing house in this portion of the property and there is a road that is here that accesses that house. Borup: So, whatever ditch there is is off your property at least? Amar: Maybe it's buried. I wasn't aware that anything was there. I don't know. Borup: Okay. Other questions from the Commission? Newton-Huckabay: There was a comment made on the housing elevations questioning whether or not those were actual housing elevations for your developer. Amar: I showed pictures that night of houses that were built by Corey Barton. In fact, we have had comment on tape that says, oh, he builds a nice home. Now, maybe not everybody believe that. Okay. Everybody doesn't have to believe that. But one resident went in there and looked at Three Oaks Subdivision, which is one of ours in Boise, which is extremely similar to this one, Corey Barton built the homes in there. Another one looked at Sundance. Corey Barton built the homes in there and I was told by both of those that it's a nice project, it looks good. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 4,2004 Page 25 of 64 Newton-Huckabay: What are the lot sizes in Sundance? They are smaller than this? Amar: Oh, yeah. I think the minimum size -- they have some 60s. Probably on average of 65 to 70 feet wide. And that's only going off their plats. That's not my project, Newton-Huckabay: But these are similar elevations to Sundance -- the homes in Sundance? Amar: Yeah. Or greater, because these lots are wider. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Borup: You showed on your map one, two, three, four, five -- I don't know how many different areas there, but you're saying that this project has equal or lower density to all except for Golf View is the way I understood that. The other surrounding -- all the other surrounding subdivisions? Amar: The Ashford Greens Subdivision ranges from 3.1 -- there is St. James Place, which is four. 3.41. 3.04. 3.33. So, yes, we are at 3.2, I believe with the reduction of one lot, we are at the same density that those are. Golf View ranges from 2.83, 2.56, 2.43. On our eastern boundary the density is 2.83 and on our northern boundary it is 2.56. Borup: Okay. And, then, the other subdivisions were all in that three plus range? Amar: Yes, sir. And those were Ashford Greens and -- Borup: No. I meant the other surrounding subdivisions besides Golf View. Amar: Yes. All of the rest were three plus. Golf View is the only thing that is less than three. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions from any of the Commissioners? Okay. Any final comment, Mr. Amar? Ma'am, I'm sorry. Ma'am. Ma'am. I don't know that -- okay. Commissioners, what's your pleasure? Rohm: I think that at this point in time we should close the Public Hearing and have some discussion. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: And with that being said, Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on PP 04-034. Meridian Pianning & Zoning November 4, 2004 Page 26 of 64 Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Okay. Comments? Rohm: Well, to start off with, Mr. Chairman, I was here for the last Public Hearing on this proposal and at that -- at that hearing we as a Commission heard almost everything we heard tonight and the things that appeared to be within our jurisdiction to address via our recommendations back to the developer were to have an additional ingress-egress off of Cherry Lane and to request that they go back and have a neighborhood meeting. The issue over the lot sizes and the zoning, that doesn't change. This property was already zoned R-4 and the developer has the right to develop within the ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan as stated with an R-4. When we requested him to go back and review, we did not ask him to address any of those issues, because they are within ordinance and I think that if you -- and I apologize to you folks that might view this contrary to your opinions, but the developer could have come before this board and requested a rezone to an R-8, because you can move one way or the other within a given development and the developer, from my perspective, tried to stay within that R-4, which is in line with the developments that are adjacent to and it appears to me that even though it may not be exactly what anybody would have wanted, the major issue of the ingress and egress through your subdivisions has been addressed and I think that that is a major step forward from where we were before. And so it was -- I can speak for myself that there was not one testimony that was given last time that was not heard by this Commission and I believe that we tried to do the very best that we could within ordinance and within the restrictive covenants to meet your objectives as we move forward. And that's the end of my speech. Moe: Very well said, as a matter of fact. Mr. Chairman, just a couple other thoughts. Quite frankly, last meeting my biggest concern, as Commissioner Rohm had brought up, was the access point onto Cherry Lane and whatnot. But, basically, in the R-4 the lot sizes that are on this -- on this plat are acceptable. The developer has enlarged some of the lots at the perimeter of Golf View and brought the other smaller -- most of the 8,000 are somewhat centralized, but I think they did do some work on trying to accommodate some of the other lots in Golf View to kind of blend it through. Basically, they are meeting the square foot requirements of the zoning and whatnot and since the last meeting they have gone back and they have increased the minimum size of those lots to the 1,600 square foot on those perimeters. So, I think they have done a good faith effort to try and work with the neighbors. I understand it's probably not what you folks want, but I think they have done some due diligence in taking care of it. Having said that, anyone else? Zaremba: Well, my comment would be that the requirements of the R-4 zone have not changed very much. They are the same right now as we are considering this project, as Meridian Planning & Zoning November 4,2004 Page 27 of 64 they were when Golf View was built and when Ashford Greens was built or at least when they were approved. The building of larger homes is sort of market driven and that's the reason that I asked the applicant what I believe was my first question in the earlier part of the hearing whether or not they thought all of the homes were going to be built at the absolute minimum and the answer to that was no, of course, not, there is going to be a full range of houses in there. Might there be one or two built to the minimum, maybe. But that's something that's market driven and for the same reason that the other R-4 subdivisions, which, in fact, have the same city rules as this one does, the builders chose to build some larger houses is market driven and I certainly see no reason why that wouldn't happen with this project. According to the city code it's identical to the properties around it. Borup: And I was hoping to maybe just throw one thing in. I was doing some calculating -- I was hoping Mr. Amar would have done that, but the lots on the eastern boundary average 11,031 square feet. There is eight lots on the eastern boundary and they average 11,000. Again, that's an average. There is one big one in there, but -- Moe: Right. Newton-Huckabay: I just have one comment before we -- all the information and testimony that was given -- this is a lot of information and it was written and read. It would be - as this moves forward to the City Council, as I suspect everyone can tell the direction we are going, this information submitted ahead of time when we -- would have been a lot easier as a Commissioner and I would think as a Council person, to have been able to review prior to the meeting. You folks have done a lot of work and there is a lot of information here and I would like -- as you get a chance to testify before the City Council on this, I would like to suggest that you submit this information in writing ahead of time as well, because we do get packets before those meetings and we can take that time to review it prior to the meeting and give it the due amount of time and that's my only comment on that. Zaremba: I would ask our legal counsel for an opinion on the best way to incorporate these suggestions. The applicant has already said that they plan to have CC&Rs that will incorporate these ideas. Do we need to make any further reference and, if so, how? Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Zaremba, what I would suggest -- and I think it was brought up previously, is the minimum house size is not uncommon to be included as a condition of approval. It isn't common here, necessarily, but it is not uncommon in this area to include that as a condition and the applicant has consented to that. As to these other ones, my recommendation would be that you -- as a condition of approval that you require these become part of the CC&Rs. That's what he's indicated. These are not enforced by ordinance; these are CC&R types of conditions. Yard lights and pitches of roof and those things. Those are all CC&R conditions and I guess my belief -- my understanding of the testimony from the applicant was that was their intent was to make them part of the CC&Rs. So, certainly it would not be unreasonable to include that condition that those be made a part of the Meridian Planning & Zoning November 4,2004 Page 28 of 64 CC&Rs be included. But they aren't normal conditions for the city to impose or for the city to enforce later. Zaremba: Thank you. Rohm: With that being said, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move that we forward on to City Council recommending approval of PP 04-034, request for preliminary plat of 83 single family residential building lots and five common lots on 25.86 acres in an R-4 zone for Milliron Subdivision and including in that that the east and north lots to have a minimum building lot -- building size of 1,600 square feet for each residential dwelling and to include all staff comments, dated November 1 st, 2004, delivered for this hearing on November 4th, 2004, and including a list of items to be included in the CC&Rs for Milliron Subdivision by the developer Kevin Amar. End of motion. Moe: No. You have got to -- the revised preliminary plat. Rohm: Oh. Excuse me. And including the revised preliminary plat, dated November 2nd, 2004, and delivered to the city. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to have a short recess. Borup: Okay. I might explain -- I think most of you understood that this will, again, be another Public Hearing in front of City Council. (Recess.) Item 7: Public Hearing: PP 04-035 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 62 building lots (8 office, 33 multi-family, 9 single-family attached, 12 -garage lots) and 6 common lots on 12.731 acres in L-O and R-15 zones for Sommersby Subdivision by Confluence Management, LLC - NEC of West Pine Avenue and North Ten Mile Road: Item 8: Public Hearing: CUP 04-040 Request for a Conditional Use Permit (Planned Development) for reductions to the minimum requirements for lot size, street frontage, setbacks and increased lot coverage in L-O and R-15 zones for Sommersby Subdivision by Confluence Management, LLC - NEC of West Pine Avenue and North Ten Mile Road: