Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 3, 2005 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3. 2005 Page 20 of 89 Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing for CUP 05-003. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Yes. I move that we forward to City Council recommending approval of CUP 05- 003, for the hearing date of March 3rd, 2005, with the transmittal date of February 25th, 2005. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 9: Item 10: Item 11: Public Hearing: AZ 05-003 Request for an Annexation and Zoning of 76.72 acres to a R-3 zone for Kingsbridge Subdivision by Vision First, LLC - 4070 South Eagle Road: Public Hearing: PP 05-004 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 130 single-family residential building lots and 3 common lots on 76.72 acres in a proposed R-3 zone for Kingsbridge Subdivision by Vision First, LLC - 4070 South Eagle Road: Public Hearing: CUP 05-004 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development consisting of single-family residential lots in a proposed R-3 zone with reductions to the minimum requirements for street frontage and request to exceed the maximum block length allowed for Kingsbridge Subdivision by Vision First, LLC - 4070 South Eagle Road: Zaremba: Next on the agenda we have three related items, nine, ten, and eleven. So, I will open all three public hearings. This is AZ 05-003, PP 05-004, and CUP 05-004, all relating to Kingsbridge -- Kingsbridge Subdivision by Vision First, LLC, at 4070 South Eagle Road and we will begin with the staff report. There are plenty of seats down in the front, if anybody that's hanging out in the hallway would care to have a seat. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Meridian Pianning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 21 of 89 Canning: That's okay. I wasn't ready, Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission, just to give you a brief background again, this is the Kingsbridge Subdivision, which came before you last year and in the fall of 2004 they did prepare an annexation and zoning, preliminary plat, and Conditional Use Permit for the same property, the same 76 acres and in that application the proposed lot sizes were below the 8,000 square foot minimum of the requested R-4 zone and the gross density was about 3.1 dwelling units per acre. On September 16th your Commission voted to recommend denial of the annexation and the Conditional Use Permit and, then, you voted to deny the preliminary plat. Then, in October the applicant's request for reconsideration of a revised plat that included 18 fewer lots and increased minimum lot size was not acted on by the Planning and Zoning Commission, so it went on appeal up to. the Council. The Council did consider the applicant's appeal and the -- so they considered all three applications, but they did ultimately deny all three applications after the Public Hearing on December 14th. So, that's just to get you caught up a little bit. The findings for denial were approved on January 4th and the basis for the denial was the lack of transition between the project and the large parcels around it and, again, it's an unusual situation where we have a number of five and ten acre lots that surround the property and, then, one acre lots in the Dartmoor Subdivision. The other reasons were the amount of traffic that would use the existing street, Dartmoor Street. The proposed density was too high. And it was not in the best interest of the city at that time. Let's see if we can get an overall one. There is an overall one. In response to the City Council's denial of the previous application, they have revised their plan and have done the following items: They include more traditional lot sizes at the project perimeter. They have increased all the project perimeter lot sizes, as you can see, and I can go back on some of those zoomed ones. And the applicant's letter goes into more detail on some of these lot sizes and I'll get to that, I'm just trying to -- I'm going to go through the staff report first and, then, I want to get to the applicant's most recent letter, dated March 1 st, because I think that that best summarizes some of the details of the application, The gross density is significantly lower. They have come back with a request for an R-3 zone, instead of the R-4 zone, The minimum lot size, I believe, it states in the staff report 12,000 square feet, but I believe it's actually up quite a bit higher than that. And the estimated additional traffic on Dartmoor is less than 300 vehicle trips per day, based on the new layout. Just to remind you, this portion of the property on the Comprehensive Plan is designated as low density residential. The southem portion, as shown here that connected to Eagle Road, is designated as medium density residential. The applicant has request -. or has provided a -- submitted a planned development to request reduced dimensional standards and those are, instead of a 90 foot minimum for a lot frontage requirement, they are requesting a 60 foot minimum. Those are on non-cul-de-sac properties. And, then, instead of a 40 foot minimum on cul-de-sacs or approximately 90 degree curves, they are requesting a 30 foot minimum. For block length, instead the one thousand foot maximum, they are asking for 1,325 feet, approximately. There are just two blocks that exceed the maximum thousand foot block length. And, then, of the 130 proposed lots in the original application, there are 25 that did not meet the minimum street frontage requirement for proposed R-3 zone, so it is about a fifth -- only a fifth of them didn't meet the frontage requirements. All of the lots requiring reduced lot frontage are intemal to the Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 22 of 89 subdivision and are not on the exterior boundary. In exchange for those proposed modifications to the R-3 standards, the applicant is providing the following amenities: Over ten percent open space, a community park on Lot 10, I think I have a -- there we go. I believe this is the community park here. And on -- that's on Lot 10, Block 1, and that contains a swimming pool, a barbecue area with picnic tables, and a tot lot. There is another park that has a water feature, benches, Then, there is a walking path along - - within that park and, then, along the tree lined corridor. The landscape buffer is on the corridor with Kingsbridge -- along Kingsbridge Drive, which is this one here, and it goes down and, then, out to Eagle Road. And that has a detached sidewalk and, then, a walking path on the south side of the Ten Mile feeder canal, which is here. Small open space pockets, bridge and monument sign, and, then, ornamental streetlights. Under the special considerations on page nine, I did want to point out that -- that the applicant is proposing three stub streets to the adjacent properties and Craig notes that he's generally in favor of the stub streets, but I think that he wanted one shifted approximately 50 feet east, so that it could -- would better match up with redevelopment of the property that it was stubbing into. And, then, the existing residence is on this lot right here, We are having -- it's -- there is a large residence on that property that currently takes access off of Zaldia Lane, that in the past this property, because it was in Ada County, was served by BFI. BFI is willing to go down county private lanes. Once the property is annexed, it would be serviced trash collection by SSC. SSC is not willing to go down county lanes, So, we have required that this lot bring their trash out to this property - it seems like such a minor detail, but this is the only one we haven't come to an agreement with as far as staff is concerned. And I know the public will have other concerns tonight for your consideration, but they need to get this trash out to this street, so staff wants to see that this property actually has ownership of a portion of this common lot and I believe the applicant is concerned about not having control over the maintenance of the landscaping in that area. So, staff feels that this could still have a landscape easement on top of it for now, that would go away upon redevelopment, but for the time being the applicant could have access to this, just for the sake of putting trash out on that street to be picked up by SSC. And, then, finally, the applicant has made a number of commitments in the letter that is dated March 1 st, 2005, and we do recommend that if the Commission chooses to make a favorable motion on this -- or a favorable recommendation on this application, that you include those conditions -- or that you include that letter in the conditions of approval as additional commitments by the applicant and that would be under the Conditional Use Permit for the planned development. Craig has not recommended a development agreement. I think he has tied this to the Conditional Use Permit. The -- you may want to ask for legal advice on whether that should be in there or in just the conditions of approval. I'm going to go ahead and go through that letter now. You can ask him later. He perked up when he heard his name, but now I'm not going to let him talk. The applicant -- let's see. The first thing that they address in their letter was just how they went about meeting with the property owners and as you get to the last paragraph on that first page, it is concerning the properties -- and this is the revised layout that you're looking at on this screen. They removed I believe five of the lots on this -- and the applicant might be able to help me out or correct me later, as the case may be. They removed a number of the lots in this area to increase the minimum lot size from just over 12,000 square feet, they are now Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 23 of 89 between 15 and 16 thousand square feet, so' a significant increase in the square footage. That did reduce the total number of lots from 130 to 125, excuse me, build- able lots. And it reduced the overall project density to 1.63 dwelling units per acre and increased the average residential lot size to 17,200 square feet. The applicant and the neighbors also worked on a number of issues related to the perimeter lots and the height of the house sizes. They came to an agreement that approximately one half of the perimeter lots where there were existing residences close by, that they would limit the height of those lots to single story, but, then, on the other half they would be allowed to do two story. And those lots are detailed in that letter. The third issue is in regard to an off-site improvements that the applicant has agreed to and that's to construct a concrete sidewalk, curb, and gutter in Dartmoor -- and let me see if I can -- so, along Dartmoor Drive. And, again, these are off-site improvements. They have agreed to do a concrete sidewalk, curb, and gutter extending along the north side of Dartmoor Drive from the Kingsbridge sidewalk at the current end of Dartmoor Drive to the school bus stop at the Eagle Road entry, together with a painted crosswalk from the Gideon cul-de- sac to the north side of Dartmoor Drive, a painted stripe delineating a pedestrian walkway on the south side of Dartmoor Drive. They have also agreed to install a vinyl privacy fencing, extending along the entire north property line of Kingsbridge and install either a five-foot wrought iron or six-foot vinyl privacy fence on all other project perimeters. They have proposed a 25-foot rear yard setback on all perimeter lots and those -- that would be done through the CC&Rs. And they have -- well, if you adopt that -- if you adopt these conditions, then, it would be a condition of this approval. It wouldn't just be in the CC&Rs. And they have created in a new five-foot landscape strip south of the six foot vinyl fence to install on the southerly lots abutting Zaldia Lane. And, then, Zaldia Lane is down here at the southern end of the project. And, then, let's see, they grade the 20 foot buffer strip along Zaldia upward to the fence line and there is just some very particular items here. Again, I just wanted to emphasize that these are -- these are items that the applicant has voluntarily agreed to do that -- in their discussions with the neighboring properties. These were not city imposed conditions of approval. So, I think with that I will try to stay out of trouble and leave it at that and I'll let the applicant -- I know they have a prepared presentation for you as well. Zaremba: Any questions from the Commissioners to staff at the moment? Canning: I forgot to mention. Staff is recommending approval of this application and there are numerous letters with -- expressing concerns with this application and primarily it is the density. There is one letter of support from one of those surrounding neighbors in your packet as well that I wanted to point out, because sometimes they don't come to testify, that I just wanted to note that there was one letter of support and now I will answer any questions you may have. Zaremba: Those were in our packet. I did see the one is support and several opposed. Okay. The applicant -- thank you. Meridian Plannin9 & Zonin9 March 3. 2005 Page 24 of 89 Canning: And it's going to take me just a second to get ready for -- I guess it's not for you. Is it for you? Are you doing the slide presentation? Okay. It will take me just a second to get it prepared for them, Commissioners. Nary: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mrs. Canning had raised one issue about the letter of the 1 st and if this Commission was going to give a favorable motion, whether it should be part of a development agreement or part of the conditions of approval and my recommendation if the conditions in the letter are acceptable to the Commission and part of the motion for approval, if there is one, that we make that part of a development agreement, rather than just conditions of approval, so that it's clear that those are continuing obligations that go with that development and whatever development goes on that property, that all of those improvements are going to be made. Zaremba: So that the proper format would be to attach this to the annexation and zoning and have a development agreement that references the applicant's letter. Nary: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Elliott: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is Ken Elliott. E-I-I-i-o-t-t. I am legal counsel for the applicant Vision First, LLC. Our address is 661 South Rivershore Lane, Suite 120, Eagle. 83616. It's good to be back here before the Commission this evening on this project. Our goal in coming back to you is to develop a planned community offering a range of lot sizes and home products to meet a wide variety of age groups, family sizes, incomes, who wish to move into south Meridian. The Commission may recall this is our first project in Meridian. I will say we have learned a lot since the hearing last September, based on our meetings with neighbors and the rather pointed comments of the City Council members at our hearing in December. The city planning director even encouraged us to change the name of the project to try to clarify that this is a re-filing. However, we are proud of the name Kingsbridge, we are even prouder of the project that we have now before you tonight. The name was chosen for the prominent bridge that we plan to build crossing the Ten Mile feeder canal and, historically, it's also a small village located immediately adjacent to the Dartmoor Nature Preserve in England. So, we thought it was an appropriate name for a new community next to Dartmoor. Our new plan for Kingsbridge has dramatically changed from the preliminary plat presented to the Commission last September. I have given you a table, page one in your packet, that details the revisions to the plat. You will notice a considerable evolution from the original plat denied by the Commission back in September, to the revised plat that we, then, presented for reconsideration where we had down-sized it by 18 lots. That was, then, appealed to the City Council. Finally, the current preliminary plat before the Commission this evening is Meridian Planning & Zonin9 March 3, 2005 Page 25 of 89 based on direction we received at the City Council hearing in December. The results of that hearing are that we eliminated 95 more lots from the project, we increased perimeter lot sizes on the northern tract to an average of one half acre in size, perimeter lots on the R-8 zoned or designated tract on the south to an average of 16,000 square feet. Several of the City Councilors said they look at our property as an island surrounded by rural development, in contrast to the isolated pockets of rural land that are surrounded by city as it grows through annexations. We still believe our original plat of 237 lots, with 11 percent open space, community pool, park, park and other amenities, was consistent with the future land use map designation of low density residential and the R-4 zoning recommended last fall by the planning staff. However, we have also come to appreciate that our property is somewhere unique, because of the large number of clustered rural residences on acreage lots surrounding the site. We believe in strong communities, with elbow room, parks, and walking trails, that encourage neighborliness and promote an atmosphere in which parents can raise healthy, well-adjusted kids, and the remaining difference, I think, in our prospective and that of some of our neighbors, is that we strongly believe that these goals can be achieved on 10,000 square foot lots and in a well-planned neighborhood with a strong homeowners association and not just on one acre lots. You will doubtless hear from several remaining opponents tonight. From our conversations with the neighbors, we believe that a silent majority -- or, at the very least, a quiet one third to one half of the Dartmoor residents are now satisfied that we have done a reasonable job of addressing their concerns. We are hopeful that we have gained the quiet support or at least neutral acceptance of many of those neighbors who spoke loudly in opposition last September. My letter to the Commission, dated March 1st, has now been detailed by the planning director and it confirms our agreement to additional changes that were not reflected in the application. We have deleted the five lots on the southern tract. We have designated 22 of the perimeter lots for single family dwellings or single story dwellings, rather, and we have listed a group of amenities that were requested by the Dartmoor neighbors for pedestrian safety and for the buffer between our neighborhood and theirs and we will agree to whatever form of condition or development agreement that we are directed by the city to confirm that. I understand you will hear testimony this evening from Brady Turner, who is the new president of the Dartmoor association. I'm hopeful that he will be willing to acknowledge the differences of opinion among the Dartmoor neighbors and that they are no longer a united front opposing the project. However, the letter that Mr. and Mrs. Turner wrote to this Commission on February 21 st, and it's in the record, gives little indication that any compromises were made to address the neighbors' concerns. The letter says that we have not adequately reduced density in the current design, that our project is distinctly urban in character and that we failed to consider the City Council state of preference for much lower density, specifically, Councilman Bird recommend that if something came in approaching R-2, he would support it. Mr. urner has the right to his opinion. He certainly is entitled to express that this evening, I just don't think his opinion is supported by the facts that are -- that will be demonstrated by our application. Let's look now at the revisions we made to the project since last fall. The number of residential lots have nearly been cut in half from 237 to 125. The average lot size has nearly doubled from 8,400 ,to 17,200 square feet. Essentially, we are almost up to the 18,000 square foot minimum required for the R-2 Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3. 2005 Page 26 of 89 zone. The minimum lot size has increased from 7,000 square feet to 12,000 square feet. The range in lot sizes has -- is now between 12,000 up to over 33,000 square feet. The gross density per acre was -- as staff mentioned, just over three per acre, 3.09 in the original application, we are now down to 1.63 dwelling units per acre. Page four of your packet is a table of residential projects approved by the city over the past couple of years south of Overland Road, extending from Linder Road on the west, to the city's area of impact boundaries on the south and east. There is a consistent pattern of gross densities in the range of 2.5 to three dwelling units per acre on R-4 zoned land. To our knowledge, Kingsbridge, with its gross density now proposed of 1.63 per acre, will be the lowest density residential project in the City of Meridian. 1.63 is well below the two units per acre maximum called for in the city's R-2 zone, which is the lowest density rural residential zone found in the zoning ordinance. Back to the chart. Our total daily vehicle trips, because of the reduced density, have been cut from 2,268 down to 1,235. Because of that reduced density and the reconfiguration of our streets, the daily trips through Dartmoor projected are reduced from 800 to less than 300 vehicle trips per day. The number of density of the lots around our perimeter generated considerable discussion at both the Commission and City Council hearings last fall. We listened and we have responded to the concerns of our neighbors. The total lots on our north boundary we have cut from 22 to ten. Total number of lots on the east boundary from 16 -- actually, that's incorrect. It's down to eight, rather than just ten lots. The south boundary along the Ten Mile feeder canal from 20 down to eight. And those along Zaldia reduced from 12 to six. We have also enhanced the landscaping along Zaldia Lane in response to the neighbors' concerns to the south. This is a diagram of a cross- section showing the way we plan to grade up the 20 foot buffer strip from Zaldia Lane up to the property line, adding an additional five feet of relief, then, a six foot vinyl fence on top of that berm at the property line and conifer trees 20 feet on center all along the south side of the fence, rather than inside the backyard of each lot, as we had originally proposed. We expect to hear testimony from property owners on Selatir Place that the one half acre lots all along our northern and eastern boundaries do not create a harmonious transition from the rural one and five acre lots to the north and east. As I mentioned earlier, we have more than tripled the lot sizes along our eastern boundary from 7,000 to over one half acre. I'd like to show a quick Powerpoint presentation here. It's coming. This illustrates the view of our half acre lots from the three closest backyards on Selatir Place. We have drawn large houses with 60 foot wide by 40 deep footprints, full two stories in height, with roof peaks at 32 feet. These illustrate 4,800 square foot homes, probably among the largest that would be built in Kingsbridge and, yet, they still have 80 feet clear between the homes on the one half acre lots. Basically each house has two 40-foot sideyard setbacks, even with the large footprint. The closest backyard on Selatir Place is 450 feet away from the nearest Kingsbridge home and we will get to that in just a moment, I believe. Here we go. That's the Johnson residence, about 450 feet. Further north the Lavigne backyard is more than 600 feet from our nearest house or more than two football fields away.. If -- and I hope when the city approves annexation of the Kingsbridge property, the adjoining five acre lots on Selatir Place would be entitled to apply for prompt annexation and zoning for three dwelling units per acre or up to 15 homes on each of those five acre parcels. Now, the present owners may have no plans to redevelop within their lifetime and that's certainly Meridian Pianning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 27 of 89 their choice. If that's the case, their rural lifestyles will be preserved by the five acre lots that they purchased. The nearest new home in Kingsbridge will be in the case of the Johnson residence, about one and a half football fields or in the case of the Lavigne residence, more than two football fields away. The number of lots adjoining the rural lots has been cut in half from ten to five. For comparison, we also prepared a prospective view of the ten houses that would have been built if our previous plat had been approved. And, frankly, we see a great improvement and, frankly, an understanding for the concern expressed last fall. The difference in openness and vistas between the two densities is traumatic and we firmly believe we have created a harmonious transition that's sensitive to the lifestyles and the property values of the adjoining property owners. We have been in touch with three potential builders for our project. Scottsdale Homes, SH Homes, and Moose Creek Builder. These are three quality builders active in the Meridian and Eagle markets and these are samples of the types of homes that we would expect to see in Kingsbridge. There is no mention of a one acre lot in any of the residential districts in the city zoning ordinance and we must presume that the city considered and rejected such a land expansive development pattern for its future residential growth, keeping in mind the cost of extending public water and sewer to those one acre lots and the inevitable sprawl as the city grows. Meridian's Mayor pointed with pride last fall to the explosive growth of the city's employment base, particularly as a direct result of Silverstone and EI Dorado. The projection is that 14,000 jobs will be located in those two business parts by the end of 2005 and we just want to create a vibrant community that addresses a small portion of the city's housing needs south of the freeway, in close proximity to the major job centers, while being sensitive to the existing rural development on the adjoining county properties. We respectfully urge your recommendation of approval of the three applications and thank you for your consideration. Zaremba: Thank you. Questions from the Commissioners for Mr. Elliott? All right. Borup: I do have just one, Mr. Chairman. Zaremba: Commissioner Borup. Borup: I refer to your letter on single story homes. You say -- I think you state that single story homes on adjoining lots in close proximity. Do you have a definition of close proximity, what -- how many feet are you considering close? I saw your demonstration here -- Elliott: Up to about 100 or 150 feet. We-- Borup: Something close to 150 feet. Elliot: One slide we missed for the presentation tonight is the designation of those -- there are many copies I think here in the audience, but anywhere there was an existing house close to our perimeter, we designated a single story to -- Meridian Piannin9 & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 28 of 89 Borup: So 100 feet? Elliott: It may even be slightly more than 100 feet, but it's -- there is a clear line of demarcation between the ones that are close and the ones that are not close and that's what we tried to show, the closest one on the eastern boundary is about 450 feet. In Coons Hollow we have two northwesterly home sites, they have their building envelopes by plat at the northern ends of their five acre lots, the two easterly ones are at the south end of the lots, so they are far removed, six or seven hundred feet from our boundary. Borup: Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Okay. This would be time for public testimony and I do have the sign-up sheet. Let me ask first, though, is there a spokesman for a homeowners association? And are you speaking on behalf of many people? We will start with you, sir. Turner: Good evening. My name is Brady Turner. I live at 3678 South Caleb Place in Meridian. I have been asked to speak for all Dartmoor homeowners this evening. I understand that I have ten minutes; is that correct? Zaremba: Yes. Turner: Okay. We recognize and thank the applicant for the good progress that they have made in reducing the density and enlarging the perimeter lots to help ease the transition. However, our primary concern is they have not gone far enough. The current proposal is only a one step density reduction from the previous proposal, from R-4 to R-3. The applicant states that their project is low-density rural residential zoning. However, R-3 is rural medium density residential district, not low density. Section 11-2 - - or 11-7-2-A of the city code states R-2 rural low-density residential district. The purpose of the R-2 district is to permit the establishing of rural, low density, single family dwellings and to delineate those areas where predominately rural residential development has or is likely to occur. The proposed development is entirely surrounded by rural properties one acre and larger. Even at R-2 zoning the minimum lot size is 58 percent smaller than the largest surrounding property. I'm not sure where Mr. Elliott got his information, but at our homeowners meeting last Tuesday evening, all of the homeowners of Dartmoor Subdivision agreed that R-2 zoning and not R-3 zoning is compatible with the surrounding properties. The Dartmoor homeowners association and all homeowners continue to stand unanimously in opposition. Our feelings are supported by the City Council in previous application hearings. Councilman Rountree stated, quote: We have an enclave, but reverse to the kinds of enclaves we typically deal with, the city surrounding a rural area, and in this case we have a rural area surrounding the city. The applicant stated that they meet the density conditions for R-2 zoning. If they meet the R-2 density requirements, then, we ask the project be zoned R- 2. Councilman Bird previously stated, quote: I think this setting, with the rural around it, I just can't go for the density. Now, if it was R-2 or something like that, I probably could Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3. 2005 Page 29 of 89 support it. Commissioner Zaremba, you stated last time before we were -- before that, quote, you were comfortable with low densities as we go towards the exterior of the city, particularly as they surround existing low densities. In this case the property is completely surrounded by low-density rural properties. There is no future city annexation path from Kingsbridge. Moreover, it is on the fringe of Meridian's Comprehensive Plan, which stops with the properties on the east side of Selatir Lane. This will be the first annexation by the city into this section of Ada County. You have the opportunity tonight to create a rural buffer between the cities of Meridian and Boise and avoid the urban sprawl that spreads from city to city in so many metropolitan areas. We proposed at the City Council hearing on the last application that Kingsbridge be developed and marketed as executive homes, drawn from the executives and professionals working in the Silverstone, EI Dorado business parks, St. Luke's Hospital, and other Meridian businesses. This would give Meridian an opportunity to attract homeowners who would otherwise live in Eagle due to the lack of this type of executive homeïn Meridian. Mayor de Weerd has previously stated, quote: I also agreed with the testimony that this is an opportunity for the executive houses. She further stated, quote: Those jobs coming in do provide some opportunity for housing that currently doesn't exist. This is certainly an opportunity to provide choices in our city for different housing stock. The type of housing that surrounds it in this rural area --and it is a city's area of impact, so it is supposed to be urban, but since the homes that surround this are not very -- excuse me -- are very nice, high quality homes, it doesn't make sense trying to urbanize this area that is very rural. We all know how congested Eagle Road is. I don't need to remind you of that. I work at Hewlett-Packard and what used to be a 12 minute commute for me is now 35 minutes and that's on a good day, if I'm lucky. And Eagle Road is only going to get worse. The applicant, we feel, with a little creative marketing, can use this to their advantage and provide an opportunity for the executive home buyer to look closer to their place of work and not have to traverse some of the most heavily congested roads in the state of Idaho. Schools in this area are already over capacity. R-2 zoning would help to reduce the impact on schools. We believe that the R-2 zoning would be compatible with the surrounding acreages, create a transition between Boise and Meridian and attract executive home buyers working in Meridian to live in Meridian, as. opposed to Eagle. We would support this proposal at R-2 zoning with larger perimeter lots as transition. We do not support this development at R-3 zoning. We have a number of secondary concerns, some of which have been addressed by the applicant. We still remain concerned about the volume of traffic along Dartmoor Drive. Of course, reducing the zoning to R-2 would have the greatest impact on reducing traffic volumes along Dartmoor Subdivision. We would also like to see the applicant make Ivy Way Drive, which is right here, between Kingsbridge Drive and Maryvale Way a cul-de- sac. This would further deter traffic from coming down Dartmoor Drive and it would be a simple plat change. To insure safety of the pedestrians from both Dartmoor and Kingsbridge Subdivisions, we would like to see sidewalks installed along both sides of Dartmoor Drive to Eagle Road. Since these proposals are all off site and cannot come under a development agreement, we respectfully ask the city, as a condition of approval, to enjoin the applicant to negotiate a contract with the Dartmoor homeowners association to construct these sidewalks at applicant's expense prior to the completion of phase one of Kingsbridge. The applicant has offered to install vinyl privacy fencing Meridian Pianning & Zoning March 3. 2005 Page 30 of 89 along Dartmoor Drive to the cul-de-sacs, but is apparently under the impression that the homeowners do not want that. I believe there is confusion on this point and we have at least one homeowner that would like to reopen discussions on that point. We thank the staff for the recommendations to prohibit construction traffic along Dartmoor Drive or the ditch riders access to the Ten Mile feeder. However, since the recommended placement of the signs at the entrance -- at the entrance to Kingsbridge Subdivision, construction traffic will have already driven through Dartmoor before seeing those signs. We feel this needs to be addressed further. One option would be to install speed bumps just to the west of Kingsbridge on Dartmoor drive to further discourage construction traffic. We also feel that this needs to be a condition of approval. The applicant has offered to restrict some of the perimeter lots to single story homes in the CC&Rs. We feel this is a wonderful concession, we really like this. However, we feel that many people don't read the CC&Rs prior to building their homes. We would like to have those lots restricted on the title deed and the plat as well. We are concerned that the development of this property will reduce the irrigation tail water flowing off the previously irrigated land into the Dartmoor pond, which has been used for our fire suppression and irrigation. We are also concerned about the location of the storm water basin, roughly at Newbridge Drive and Benter Way, that is right about there. The general slope of the land slopes down in this direction and down in this direction from the holding pond. We are concemed also that there is no holding pond on the 20 acres to the south of the Ten Mile Lateral. Historically, our water -- storm water and drainage has been piped across the Ten Mile Lateral in a feeder pipe, roughly about here, into a ditch that is, then, fed into the Dartmoor irrigation pond. We need a guarantee that the storm water runoff from the -- within Kingsbridge will be contained within Kingsbridge and will not contaminate our irrigation or domestic water, nor will runoff flow across any Dartmoor properties which are at a lower elevation. I don't have time to discuss the remaining recommendations that was in the staff report. We thank you for a lot of the excellent recommendations that you had made. We would request and agree with Mr. Nary that the city enter into a development agreement with the applicant to insure that these recommendations are fulfilled. In closing, while the applicant has stated that they met with the homeowners, what was unsaid was the proposal for their review was submitted on January 14th and the meeting with the homeowners did not incur until January 26th. Based on the comments made by this Commission and by City Council, it was the homeowners' understanding that it was your desire that the applicant would meet with the surrounding homeowners to resolve outstanding issues prior to submitting a new application. We were very disappointed that this did not happen. We feel that there is still a number of issues that need to be resolved before providing our support for this project. However, this hearing deadline did not allow sufficient time to allow continue ongoing negotiations. We are, therefore, asking this hearing be continued to allow time for the homeowners and the applicant to resolve these issues and come to an agreement that both parties can support. Thank you for your consideration. Zaremba: Question for Mr. Turner? Borup: Yes. I had one. I don't know if we have ever heard -- how many residences are there in Dartmoor? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3. 2005 Page 31 of 89 Turner: There are 15 -- there are 15 homes in Dartmoor. Borup: Okay. And do you know what the square footage would be of the smallest home? Turner: The CC&Rs require a minimum of 2,000 square feet. Borup: Two thousand. Okay. Turner: I believe my house may be one of the smallest and it's currently 2,400 square feet. Borup: All right. Thank you. Turner: You're welcome. Zaremba: Any other Commissioners? Thank you. Mr. Turner spoke clearly and eloquently and we understood his points. We have quite a number of people signed up and I will go through the list, but if you are a person who signed up and Mr. Turner was speaking for you, would you, please, indicate that. We understood what he said. Let me begin with -. I believe it's Lisa Becker? Becker: Lisa Becker. Anna, could you, please, put up the map that shows our property? Canning: It will take just a moment. Becker: Okay. Good evening, Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Lisa Becker. I reside at 3421 South Selatir Place in Meridian. I have three issues that I want to talk with you about today. The density of the transition lots. There is no landscape buffer along the east side. And there is incompatibility with the land use in the existing area. I can show you where we live. We live on five acres right here. I wanted to talk a little bit about the lot size comparison. This is a scaled representation of our lot. It's 5.4 acres. This is what they want to put beside it. Half acres. I don't consider that transitional density. What we are proposing is one-acre transitional density. This is a representation of one acre scaled to size compared with our lot. The Comprehensive Plan states that new urban density subdivisions which abut low density residential land, use landscape screening or transitional densities with larger, more compatible lots. So, I think we need to talk about what larger, more compatible lots look like. I don't feel a half acre is a larger, more compatible lot up against five acres. And they do that in the Comprehensive Plan to buffer the interface between urban level densities and rural densities. Kingsbridge has actually provided neither a landscape buffer or larger compatible lots against our property. I agree with the comments earlier. Mayor de Weerd stated that she would like to see a high-end executive development in this area. I talked with the developer about the beauty of the lots that would be adjacent to us. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 32 of 89 One acre lots would have an unobstructed view of the mountains forever, looking out over our five acre pastures. He could actual get prime price for that. So, we are proposing that you combine Lots 5 and 6 -- he has five and six into one acre lots and Lots 3 and 4 into one acre lots along the southeast edge of the property. We are proposing that he provide landscaped buffer. Currently, the only buffer that's there is the irrigation easement and it's just a weedy fire hazard. So, we ask that you follow the Comprehensive Plan, which talks about how new zoning must be harmonious with the current development and just to give you a feel for the -- the feel of that area, they are basically surrounded completely by five and ten acre lots. Dartmoor has the smallest lots, they are one acre, but, basically, it's surrounded all by five and ten acre lots and its home values are between 350 and a million dollars. So, that's the feel, that's the character of the area that we want to preserve. Appreciate your time. Zaremba: Thank you. Bob Becker. You're welcome to state that you agree with the previous speaker. Is that what you're indicating? You wouldn't disagree with your wife, would you? B.Becker: There may be only one -- there may be one point. Zaremba: Please state your name. B.Becker: Could you bring up the picture of the surrounding property -- our properties? Bob Becker. I reside at 3421 South Selatir Place. Zaremba: Thank you. B.Becker: Our lot's right there. This lot right here, this is 2.71 acres. That was a requirement as a buffer lot when they put in this subdivision right here, which is called Bremerton, and these are one acre lots and they put a 2.71 acre buffer lot between these larger lots and our subdivision and these one acre lots. So, I don't think it's unreasonable to require one acre lots back here against a 5.75 acre lot, a 5.41 acre lot. A 5.41 acre lot. I'm sorry. This is the 5.75. This is the 5.4. This is the 5.41. Thank you. Any questions? Moe: Yes. One. If, in fact, you had acre lots there, would you be opposed to do two story homes in that area, then? B.Becker: No. Moe: Okay. Thank you. B.Becker: Anything else? Thank you. Zaremba: Frank Shoemaker. Meridian Pianning & Zoning March 3. 2005 Page 33 of 89 Shoemaker: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Frank Shoemaker. I currently am building a home approximately right there on Zaldia Lane. Five-acre parcel. Address is 4497 Zaldia Lane. The developer proposes a 50 percent ratio of homes along the area right there. I believe there is a ratio to -- as a transition period for Dartmoor. On this side in here he has 22,000 square foot lots. That's approximately a ten percent ratio. Down here on Zaldia Lane, the south end, he has 16,000 square foot lots, which is approximately a seven percent ratio. He argues that because that area there is zoned medium density, which it is not, it is in the Comprehensive Plan as a future consideration. I guess currently it's RUT zoning, rural urban transition, one home per five acres, with one home per one acre with city services extended. Because of the high density and the medium density he proposes against our five and ten acre lots there, he proposes at least over 17,000 square foot -- or 16,000 square foot lots. That area is no different than that area or that area. We should be the same, no matter what the conclusion is, on these perimeter lots, we are perimeter also. The developer -- we have asked for one level homes and the developer has -- has identified I think three or four homes right through there as one level. However, there are two lots right here, I believe Lots 8 and 10, that he does not designate and we would appreciate those to be one level homes also. Because my house is right here and Phil's are right there, so that is a direct view of our property there like so. If he would like to move some two story down here on South Eagle to buffer the extensive traffic noise, that would be -- that would be all right. In conclusion, I would like to say that the -- as stated here earlier this evening, the City Council suggested estate size lots. The lots that are proposed are not estate size lots. It appears to me the developer is more concerned with satisfying the needs of the Dartmoor people, because the perimeter people, as you can see, they have a 50 percent ratio that backs up to them, we have a ten percent and a seven percent ratio abutting the transition area, which I don't think is correct, but I do appreciate the one level homes. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: I have a question of Mr. Shoemaker. Zaremba: Commissioner Borup. Shoemaker: Yes, sir. Borup: You had made a statement on estate size lots? Shoemaker: Yes, sir. Borup: What is the definition of an estate size lot? Shoemaker: Something bigger than what we have, I guess. I guess it's in the minds of the -- I would think they should be -- I would like to see one acre lots, personally. Borup: But where is that definition? Meridian Planning & Zonin9 March 3, 2005 Page 34 of 89 Shoemaker: The definition of estate size lot? Borup: Yeah. It says -- that's what I was just trying to -- you're stating that it's in the mind of the beholder. Shoemaker: Yeah. Right. That was the Mayor's statement, you know, estate size lots. I'm assuming it would be something close to a one-acre parcel size and not something that's a high density. Borup: So, is the consensus that Meridian does not now have any subdivisions of estate size lots? Shoemaker: That is exactly right. Everything is over in Eagle. That's where the estates -- that's one acre and the estate size homes are over there. Meridian, we have the high density in-fill projects and -- Borup: So, Meridian Greens and some of those fine subdivisions like that would not be considered -- Shoemaker: There is some portions of Meridian Greens that are very nice and they have almost one acre lots I think on the south end of that project, but on the interior of that project, when it first started, those were the small lots also. Borup: South end are 15,16, I believe-- Shoemaker: They are large enough to have detached shops approved on them, so -- but -- any other questions? Borup: Okay. I have none. Newton-Huckabay: I just have the same question that Mr. -- or Commissioner Moe had for Mr. Becker. If you had a one-acre lot, would you want a one-story house? Shoemaker: I guess there is give and take every place, but I'm going to hold tight with the one level homes, because I don't -- I think the -- depending upon the setback, the way it is right now, those lots on the south end of the project, you know, they butt right up to that buffer zone and landscaping in a two level house. Driving down Zaldia Lane or the view from my front yard, two story -- big two story homes would have to be built there. If it's on acre lots -- I would prefer to have one acre. I would prefer to have one level homes, as to the two story, period. I think the reason we have two story homes in the majority of our subdivisions is because the lot sizes are so small that it dictates in a certain price category that you have to have that two-story configuration. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So-- Meridian Pianning & Zoning March 3. 2005 Page 35 of 89 Shoemaker: I prefer one level. No. Zaremba: Thank you. Jeff McKee. Newton-Huckabay: Can I ask a question? Zaremba: I'm sorry. Hang on, Jeff. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I have so much paperwork in front of me on this project, so you will have to forgive me. Was there not -- was it along Zaldia Lane that there was going to end up being approximately 11 feet height -- Borup: Yes. Five foot berm with a six-foot fence. Newton-Huckabay: Five foot berm and a six fence along all of Zaldia Lane --- or the property -- is that -- yeah. Okay. Okay. Thank you. We can continue. I was done. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Jeff McKee. All right. Thank you very much. Marked in the column for against. Sharon McKee. Thank you. Okay. Also marked in the column against. Jean Marie Patteson. All right. Thank you. Catch up on my paperwork here. Michael -- and it looks like it starts with an R. It might be Reef. All right. Thank you. Also marked as against. Tim Rule. R-u-I-e. Also Renee Rule. Neither appear to be here at the moment, but they are both marked as against. They are also Dartmoor residents I'm told. David Lavene or Lavigne. I'll let you pronounce it when you get here, sir. Lavigne: Commissioner and Commission, thanks for your time. My name is David Lavigne. It is pronounced Lavigne. I live at 3317 South Selatir Place, which is located right there. And I have to say I concur with everything that Mr. -- Brady said and went through in his presentation. He did a great job. And there is a couple points that I wanted to go over. One of them was -- and still seems to be the major consensus is the density surrounding the RUT zoning of Ada County, the transition -- the lack of transition lots and one of the points I wanted to bring up about it was Mr. Elliott kind of brought up in his proposal is we are now at 1.6 homes per acre, which has come quite a ways from what he was originally -- the original proposal was and I appreciate that and -- but if you look at -- I have looked at all the surrounding properties and you look at all these exterior properties, they are all five, ten acres, and ten acres and one acres, if you total all those properties up, you got about 115 acres. There is actually 31 homes on those acres. That means there is -- the density for that surrounding area is .27 homes per acre. Okay. We got 1.6 compared to .27. That's six times the density of what's there. So, that's pretty extreme. And you talk about there is 50 percent transitions between Dartmoor and proposed half acres -- there is ten percent of transitions, but that's six times the density of what is currently right there right now. Sure, there may be some future changes down the road, somebody might redevelop something or somebody sell their parcel off, but this is what's here now, this is what we are looking at. So, that's kind of what I wanted to bring up. And I'm sure everybody's seen some of the articles in Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3. 2005 Page 36 of 89 the Statesman just recently in last Sunday's paper, some of the issues and whatnot, and I can't believe that annexing this property is something that's actually going to be good for the City of Meridian right now. As Mayor de Weerd had said in our December 14th meeting, she said I think this is a great development, but I think you need to find someplace else in Meridian to put it. So, I agree with those comments and that's all I have to say. Thanks. Zaremba: Thank you. Tammy Cook. Okay. Was already spoke for. And that would be probably R. M. Cook as well. Okay. I believe it's Tim Petsch -- possibly. P-e-t-s-c- h. Okay. The last three are -- I mentioned are all marked as against. Lisa Petsch also marked against. Thank you. Bradford Deadman. Close? Deadman: My name is Bradford Deadman. My wife and I live on 3644 Zaldia Lane, Right here. I'll never be able to hold this steady. Right at a pinpoint. Right at the back of this five acre plat. As usual, I regularly print up my remarks, but as you have seen twice now, I -- the recent comments I hear are driving me in a more urgent direction. The first one is I was quite uncomfortable with comments Ken Elliott made regarding the silent majority, in the hopes that one third to one half of Dartmoor would be in support of this project. Also the attack on Brady Turner. He tried to -- he tried to debase Brady Turner's credibility as a proper representative of his neighborhood and I feel that's unjust. One thing that I'm quite curious about is on page four of the packet that Ken Elliott provided you, he cites that there is an example here of where there is several other subdivisions that were built along this model where there weren't opposing neighbors. I'm quite curious if -- and although I'm not asking you to refer to it, unless you wish, but I'm quite curious if, indeed, all the perimeter property owners showed up in opposition to those other projects that were cited. On the slide referred to regarding David Lavigne's property on Selatir, there was a remark made that his home is two football fields away from the closest comparable lot. And, of course, as David indicated earlier, his property is right here. Well, I pretty clearly see on the same map -- or the same slide that there is a home right here, another one right here, with adjacent properties right here. So, I almost feel that it's a bit unfair to compare -- in an effort to devalue David Lavigne's argument that his home is in too close proximity -- approximately two football fields, when, indeed, there are several homes closer. Moving onto what I really came here to talk about. My efforts along Zaldia have been to talk to several of my neighbors. Along the Zaldia property here, of course, I have talked to Phillip Shoemaker and Frank right along here -- or, excuse me, Phillip and, forgive me, gentlemen. I have spoken with my other neighbors here, here -- or, excuse me, the owner of both of these properties is here this evening. I have spoken to a gentleman that owns property along here, Bott Lane, it's been very interesting -- in fact, that we are working way, as you know for the night here, we have worked our way slowly around Dartmoor, around Selatir -- we haven't spoken to Terri yet, but that's coming up. All the way around to Zaldia and the same argument continues, that we are all in support of good subdivision development. We are all in favor of a one acre plat. We are all in favor of one level homes as a perimeter. The one thing that if -- I guess I'm done. But I just want to let you know that we are all still in that same position again. Thank you. Meridian Pianning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 37 of 89 Zaremba: Thank you. Deadman: Any questions for me? Zaremba: Donna Rich. Okay. I can't make out the next one, but it might be Kelly something or other. Somebody who marked neutral. Okay. Do you care to speak? Rich: I do. Thank you. Kava Rich and I live at I live at 663 East Lake Creek in Observation Point, which is fairly close to the proposed neighborhood. I speak to you tonight as a proposed buyer in this area. We have had many homes south of the interstate and we are very interested in staying in south Meridian, mainly because of the traffic that is found on the other side of the interstate. I am looking forward to purchasing an estate size property. Commissioner Borup, I do not know what the criteria for an estate size property is, however, in this section of Meridian I would think that the neighboring comments of the one acre lots would be appropriate for an estate size. That happens to be the size that I would like to build on also. We have done some extensive looking out -- we have been trying to find some lots to build on and there is just not much to be found in south Meridian. To find any estate size property you have to go to Kuna and I'm not interested in living in Kuna. I love Meridian, I love to live in Meridian, I do not want to move to Eagle or Kuna to find a lot size that I need to build an estate where I can raise my three boys, which need at least an acre to run on. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Any questions from the Commissioners? Thank you. Tim O'Brien. All right. Thank you. Marked as against. Must be Theresa Turner. I assume Mr. Turner spoke for you, Okay. Also marked as against. T. Wallace. Thank you. Marked as against. And Lori Wallace. Same. Okay. Rich Schuttsman. Is that close? It begins S-c-h-u-t-t-s-m -- I'm not sure what follows that. Thank you. Rich and Brenda both. Rich. I'm sorry. Okay. Phil Allen. Okay. Lori Allen, then. Allen: Well, I gave you a plat -- my name is Lori Allen and I live on Terri Drive. Right there. And my neighbor is sitting behind me and he will probably speak, too. He's right there. Kingsbridge has made some progress, some superficial effort to appease us so we would go away and quit arguing, perhaps, but the bottom line is it is still way too dense and an unsolicited speaker came from some other neighborhood and came to tell you that she would buy the property and I'm a realtor and I know there are many other people who would be more than interested in acre properties. So, I hope that you will try to make that work and put acres on at least the perimeter and maybe the half acres on the inside and we could serve a lot of people that don't have that kind of property right now. Thank you. Oh, one more thing. That map does show you how dense it is when you superimpose his project on top of that. Like that it doesn't show you. And, then, he goes back to the plan that just shows his plan without this landing area. So, I put them together and hope that you can see how busy it gets. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. I believe we are looking for Lee Moncarr. Please. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 38 of 89 Moncarr: My name is Lee Moncarr. 'live at 3415 South Terri Drive, about right there. And, actually, with all the properties around, my house is probably the closest to anybody and I'm thinking probably out my back door to their back door in this area is probably less a hundred feet. It's just sad that my house was configured that way, but my house was probably one of the first ones in the whole area in '74 when it was built. And spent a year and a half remodeling and adding on. This is way too dense around here for our area, you know, and that's the same complaint everybody has. If this does go through, I would surely hope there is a stop sign right here within the next year, because that's a mess. And I know -- I watch people -- and I have done it myself -- right here at the bottom of the canal, anytime between like 4:00 o'clock to 6:00 o'clock you go through Thousand Springs to get over to Victory to get through, because you will sit there for 20 minutes easy and I have seen people come through Victory and go through Tuscany to pop out over here on Rome to get out, to get south, because you can't get through in that area for a good two hours and if this is going through, this should be kicked open four lanes clear down passed all this, because this is a nightmare for traffic. I sat last night and watched eight people tum and go through Thousand Springs to get to Slate Creek to come through on Simms and out Brady's Jewel right there to get through. And it's just -- it's the same going this way on this, you know, you dump all these people out here, the traffic is going to be even more horrendous, but the whole situation just doesn't quit fit. One acre lots would be nice. They are proposing four -- two single level homes right here between us and Aliens, which is neat, but, you know, I guess I can't help it. If they are going to put a perimeter fence here, a six foot fence, and, then, have a 25 foot buffer zone to their backyard for another fence, from what I understand they are having a pathway or walkway along back here, they are going to pipe that ditch in and that's going to be nice, because we get rid of the weeds factor, but, still it -- I don't know. I think it all comes down to -- I'm not even going to say. That's all. Zaremba: Thank you, sir. Sandy Moncarr. Anything to add? In support of your husband. Also marked against. Okay. One name that was only on one of these lists and that is David Seegmiller. Seegmiller: Mr. Commissioner, Members of the Commission, my name is David Seegmiller, I live at 4880 Bott Lane. I own a property right here off of Zaldia Lane and Coons Hollow. I wish to speak to two points. The first is that Mr. and Mrs. Beckhurst spoke well of the transition and the larger lots. I ask that you consider that along the southern end of Kingsbridge to the five-acre lots in Coons Hollow Subdivision. The second point is regarding the 1,200 -- estimated 1,235 vehicle trips per day through the subdivision. And all of those trips will be directed along Eagle Road. And as was stated previously, the traffic situation there is not good. At the Silverstone business development on Eagle Road south, Eagle Road turns into a two-lane road. The intersection of Eagle and Victory is a four way stop with a flashing red light. There is a fire station -- rural fire station, which is to be built on Eagle Road, but it's not built yet. Eagle Road has not been widened yet and an intersection, which is -- well, it will be widened, has not been improved yet, as well as the remaining two-lane stretch down to Kingsbridge Subdivision. So, I think as far as the issues relating to emergency Meridian Pianning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 39 of 89 response and vehicle trips and congestion need to be addressed. Now whether this subdivision is worthy of approval or not, these are separate issues which regard timing and infrastructure, which also need to be addressed. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Isn't that project -- that road-widening project getting underway in 2005? 2006? Zaremba: It sounds like there is a consensus for 2007 on that project. Okay. That was the end of the list of those that had signed up. If anybody who didn't sign up cares to speak and nobody spoke for you, this would be the time to come forward. Kell: My name is Bob Kell, K-e-I-I. I live at 1820 Mace Road, Eagle, Idaho. I am a real estate agent for Sell-Equity Real Estate and also a partner Kell-Shaller Land Development. I am representing the two sellers of the two properties here. What we looked for when we brought this property to the buyer is the larger piece on the north, in the future Comprehensive Plan was 2.7 houses per acre. The lower part in the future Comprehensive Plan was eight houses per acre. Right now with their proposal at 1.63 houses per acre is drastically lower than your recommended -- or your future Comprehensive Plan recommendation. The other thing we look for in land is the proximity to the freeway. We knew that the Eagle Road and the stop light at Eagle and Victory would be coming soon and the industrial park there at Silverstone. And we also looked at other developments in north and west Meridian. We looked at the four and five and six houses per acre. I think I saw another housing project tonight either earlier or coming later, 450 houses on 155 acres. This is drastically lower than that. I'd just like to ask you to approve it. Thank you. Zaremba: Okay. Anyone else? Krasinski: Good evening. I'm Chantelle Krasinski and I live at 3475 East Falcon Drive. We are the neighbors to the Moncarrs right here. This is our property right here. A five- acre property. And we agree that the developer has come a long way. He met with us after he submitted his new proposal and we had talked to him about one acre properties around the perimeter -- around the entire perimeter, and he indicated he did not think that he would be able to sell those and with all the building on the one acre properties in Eagle and the huge demand for those nice houses and those nice properties, I disagree that he couldn't sell those. I think he could and it would be a nice transition from the five acre properties and the ten acre properties and, then, you know, maybe half acre on the interior or at least an R-2 throughout, like the Council member suggested. I think Meridian is a great place to live, but I know that Eagle is looked at differently I think because they have the larger property lots and some people do want that. I think the smaller properties on the interior surrounding the city with public transit might be able to help those people out and, then, I think as you go out further from the center of the city, having some bigger properties just gives people more choices and Eagle Road right now, at the intersection with the four way stop, just isn't set up to handle high density Meridian Pianning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 40 of 89 and I don't think it has to be high density. I think we can have the high density closer in and, then, as we go out we can have lower density and, then, everybody gets a choice of what they would like for their property. And that's just my opinion. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Anyone else? Sir, come ahead. Hill: My name is Julian Hill. I live at 12543 West Highland. I'm, actually, in Boise right now, but I'm only about a mile and a half, maybe, away in the subdivision just south of where we are talking about. I work as a loan officer for a local mortgage company and I have probably three or four different families who are expressing interest in that area as far as wanting to buy properties there and they are under the assumption -- they are more interested in the one acre parcels, as opposed to the smaller ones. So, that's alii have to say. Zaremba: Thank you. Anyone else? All right. Thank you. Mr. Elliott, you have ten minutes. I assume you have been making notes. Elliott: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm not sure I have ten minutes of notes, but I will try to wrap up quickly. Again, for the record, my name is Ken Elliott, appearing on behalf of the applicant Vision First, LLC. This is not a high-density project. We, effectively, are building at an R-2 low rural density density, which is the lowest called for in the entire City of Meridian zoning code. Our average density 1.63 units per acre, average lot size 17,200 square feet, that nearly reaches the threshold of the minimum size for the R-2. The reason we have asked for some flexibility is to allow a broader range of lot sizes. Our lots now will be a minimum of 12,000, which, as I said, meets the R-3, also a rural density in the city's code. The executive projects that some of the folks testified and I commented on, Island Woods, The Island, Two Rivers up in Eagle, they have 8,000 square foot lots. Our minimum lot size will be 50 percent larger than the smallest lots in those executive projects in Eagle. They also go up to a half acre. We have about 33 lots, about one quarter of our total, will be half acre lots, we think that's a good proportion to target the executive estate lots. In my view a half acre lot is an estate lot. I believe that the city zoning code and comp plan support that as a low density, rural designation within the city. About half of our lots are between 14,000 and 21,000 square feet and, then, only a quarter of them are in the lower range of between 12 and 15 thousand square feet. We think it's important for a vibrant community to offer this range. We don't want to build an executive enclave for Kingsbridge, we want to have a variety of family sizes, of incomes, of age groups, we think that's essential to building a good community that will have that staying power. The prior filing before meeting with the neighborhood group, we did -- after the City Council hearing we were on a very short fuse to ask for reconsideration, so we went ahead and redrew the plan drastically in response to the City Council's comments and, then, sought reconsideration at the January 4th hearing when recommended, then, that there not be reconsideration, but that we re-file the application. We had the work done, we went ahead and re-filed it. We fully intended and, in fact, did meet with the neighbors two times after that, we felt that we had responded to all the neighbors' and the City Council's concerns in drastically redrawing the plan and that's why we presented it to the neighbors after filing. Meridian Planning & Zonin9 March 3. 2005 Page41 of 89 All the surrounding lots are in the county. They are on septic tanks, they are on wells, they were all built before the tremendous growth occurred that has happened south of 1- 84 in the past ten years. The city's plan and the city's area of impact agreement with Ada County contemplates that there will be a large amount of urban development south of the freeway and we think that with the reduced density to 125 lots we have created a harmonious transition from the existing rural lots to the more urban densities, both south and west of our project. The comment that the Mayor made in December that this was a great development that should be put elsewhere referred to our 200 lot -- 219 lot project. Rather than moving to another location, some property that we didn't own, we opted, instead, to cut 95 lots from the project. Lori Allen referred to that as superficial progress. We have gone from 237 lots, the project that the Commission saw last September, down to 125 lots, 112 of the original lots are gone, only 125 are left. That's just about 50 percent of the project that's gone. Our average lot size, again, was at 8,400, now it's 17,200 square feet. The traffic arguments, we think that, in fact, our project is in the right place at the right time. If we develop one acre lots all the way to Kuna, the traffic on South Eagle will just get worse and there won't be enough houses in close proximity to the job centers to house all the people who are going to be moving to the city. ACHD has the canal crossing north of Victory Road on Eagle in its immediate construction program, I believe it still is 2005. Once that's completed they have funding for the improvements of the Victory and Eagle intersection. We will be building frontage improvements all along our Eagle Road frontage. We are creating additional width of Eagle Road for a left turn pocket southbound and for decel and accellanes northbound at our main Kingsbridge entry. In response to the concerns about water quality and quantity, the ground water issue, we have a letter in that packet that I presented to the Commission from our project engineer Gordon Bates of the Land Group that addresses those concerns. We think that it's a lot more responsible and compatible now that urban services are adjacent to our property, to extend public water and sewer through our site and develop an urban project, rather than one-acre rural lots with another 57 or 75 wells and septic tanks put in the ground. We think it will be much better long term for all of the rural residences in the surrounding area if this project is put on public utilities, which is what we propose. If there are any specific questions from the Commission to our engineer, Mr. Bates is here and available to answer those questions. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions you would direct to the engineer? Questions for Mr. Elliott. Moe: Yes. I do have one. Based on your -- the hearing with City Council, was there any discussion with your group whatsoever about doing any perimeter one acre lots and whatnot to try and do some transition? You know, going from the five down to a half- acre, you know, that's quite drastic as well. I mean I was just curious, was there any discussion at all with your developers? Elliott: We discussed going up to one half acre around the entire perimeter, which when we met with the Dartmoor neighbors a year ago they were more than happy to accept. We -- the project that the Council objected to had 8,000 square foot lots on the east and north and south boundaries. All of those have now tripled. So, we haven't gone up to Meridian Planning & Zonin9 March 3, 2005 Page 42 of 89 one acre. We don't think that's an affordable or responsible way to develop land that's served by public water and sewer, but we think that half acre lots are great executive home sites and will meet the portion of the market that will be able to afford those. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: Commissioners, do we need discussion before we close the Public Hearing or are we ready for that? Borup: I'd like some discussion, but it can be after the hearing is closed. Zaremba: Does staff have anything to add? Canning: Yes. I did want to say one thing. I was out of the room at the time, but I believe a statement was made about not being consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation. It is consistent with the low-density designation. I poured through the Comprehensive Plan for some idea of the estate residential. There is no definition of estate residential. There is a discussion of ranchettes, which would be one acre or larger, but there is nothing in the land use policy that refers to ranchette housing within the city limits. Now, there is other discussions about the community as a whole. So, I'm not sure where to guide you on that issue. My recollection of the City Council hearing is that there weren't any specific sizes mentioned. I believe the range was -- that was generally discussed was a half acre to an acre and that's just my -- my recollection of it. I didn't go back and research the minutes. I have to tell you that I think requiring one acre of this entire area would not be consistent with the -- with what a city is and what the City of Meridian is. I know that Eagle has a different view, but I think it's important to state that. Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners? Rohm: I think, Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the public hearings on all three items, nine, ten, and eleven. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? The Public Hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Discussion? Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Meridian Planning & Zonin9 March 3. 2005 Page 43 of 89 Rohm: Looking at this map, which was entered into testimony, I see that there are some stub streets to the adjacent properties. Well, stub streets are placed in a proposed development with anticipation that as the adjacent properties are next to properties that have been brought into the city, they, too, then, have an opportunity to develop themselves. I'm not saying anyone individual or any of you will be developing, but these stub streets are placed within a subdivision, so that those options are made available and I think that it is unlikely that this will be the end of development in that part of the city and I support you folks in trying to maintain a rural feel to your properties, but I also believe that transition can't be -- remain everything as it is, because -- otherwise, you would end up with five acre parcels throughout this property, just as the parcels that are divided that each of you live on currently and -- Zaremba: I'm sorry, we can't -- the Public Hearing is closed. Rohm: In any case, I wanted to make these comments, because transition is a difficult thing in many areas and I think that by taking a look at this proposal versus what had been brought before this Commission before, has significantly altered the proposed development, from my perspective, and in my view does address transition. So, that's my comments on this at this time. Zaremba: Thank you, Commissioner Rohm. I would have to say that I perhaps take a slightly opposing view to that. And, again, based on the same demonstration that we have been given and I think the reason I feel differently about this one, the majority of subdivisions that we get are around the edge of the city, as is this one, but their perimeters are current - currently farmed farmland. The difference that I see in this project is it's really an in-fill. It already has developed land around it. It's no longer in the middle of farmland that may eventually develop exactly the same way as the proposal is. The majority of people that have spoken have indicated that they have no intention of breaking up their house and I realize we hear that even from large parcels of farmland, people will come and say, you know, my 100 acres is next door to this and I'm never going to sell it and, then, two months later we get a proposal for them. But I think the difference on this one is that it actually is in the middle of developed land. Yes, five acres and one an acre and, you know, five and a half acres, are large developments, but this is an in-fill to that and I see some room for treating this subdivision differently than we would one that's surrounded by currently farmed farmland. Rohm: Then I would say, then, why have stub streets. I'm-- Zaremba: I would question that as well. They don't go anywhere. Rohm: If, in fact, they are never going to go anywhere, why would you put a stub street in that -- I'm -- it appears to me that a stub street is put in with the intent that it affords the possibility of future development down the road and so if, in fact, you're putting the stub street in, then, that -- with the assumption that there is still that potential and -- anyway, that's as I view it. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 44 of 89 Zaremba: I certainly see your point. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Director Canning, you made a comment earlier about you don't think that's what the city is about. Could you expound -- I didn't really follow the vein of your statement there. Canning: This is -- cities are about being urban and one-acre lots are not urban. There are issues associated with providing services, it's difficult, it's expensive, it's expensive for the city to maintain, especially for ACHD to maintain roads at those kinds of densities. In my professional planning -- planner role I don't think that one acre lots are suitable for a city. Now, I understand that the city wants a variety of the housing product type and when this application first came in I suggested that they go with half acre to three-quarter acre lots in recognition -- and that was going against my grain in all cases. If you usually hear me in a pre-app I don't say that kind of stuff. But I recognized in this case that it was important. But in my estimate that -- this is your decision to make, but I just want to caution you against going for a full one-acre subdivision. It's not something that's really contemplated in our -- I don't believe it's contemplated in our Comprehensive Plan. I have looked through it and -- Zaremba: Would we be able to guess if this were not annexed and it remained in the county, what density would the county approve? Canning: The county will not allow this property to develop unless it's denied annexation by us, because it is next to the city limits of Meridian. They will not allow development, unless it is provided urban services. So, they would be allowed one unit per five acres. That plan to develop at one unit per five acres would have to include a redevelopment plan at urban densities of three units to the acre. Zaremba: I didn't understand that last sentence. Borup: Yeah. They have done that in the past where they wanted it to be able to redevelop at three acres, so -- I mean three per acre. Normally they'd require the house put to one side, so in future redevelopment you could have the additional lots. Zaremba: They would allow currently only a density of one house on five acres, but you would have to so position that house that it -- Borup: And, then, the design of the subdivision. Canning: Exactly. Zaremba: Okay. Canning: And regarding stub streets, since you asked me a question. Zaremba: Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3. 2005 Page 45 of 89 Canning: Remember, that this is forever. These lot patterns are forever. These aren't - - you know, now even though that the folks living in these five acre lots may want to stay there for five, ten, 15, 20 years, 30 years from now we are going to be wishing we had stub streets and I can tell you that much. I mean it's -- these decisions you make last a very very very long time, so -- Rohm: Thank you. Zaremba: Commissioner Borup, you appear-- Borup: I do have some thoughts and I don't -- some of them are questions. I -- you know, the large lots in Eagle, I know a good number of those are not on sewer. Some of them may be and some that are and I think that's already been discussed, that the city ordinances don't really even discuss one acre lots and I think because of that it's just -- it's not something that's practical for city water and sewer. Comments on effect of surrounding developments -- this is from looking at other projects that we have had come before us and seeing the experiences over the years, but there is a big difference between impact on a development that has access through an existing development and another one that abuts the backyards, much lessor impact, if any, when it's the back of the properties that are adjoining them. I don't know if this was -- I guess this has been alluded to, but I think that a land owner or applicant should have some expectation that the Comprehensive Plan will be followed on property that they purchase or look at purchasing. It's been stated the north property is low density, which is up to three units per acre. The other is medium density, three to eight. We are not even discussing anything of that density now. And I guess -- and I need to just mention some of my personal experience. I live in a one-acre subdivision, surrounded by five acre subdivisions, so -- not surrounded, but on -- across the street are five acre lots. Over the years that has changed and -- you know, I now -- I landscaped the whole acre and it's a job to mow and garden and that whole thing. A lot of the people in our subdivision half of theirs is weeds, some of them have pastures, a couple of them have horses that's got nothing but dirt. The same thing in the subdivisions across from us, five acres, were all just pastures with the -- and that's it. But what's happened now is most of those five acres have now become very high density subdivisions, 45 foot lots, with office buildings near our subdivision. That's how -- that's how the five acres have developed. You know, when we -- in our neighborhood we were expecting to be -- we thought we were in a rural neighborhood. I'd love to see a subdivision gone in there of a third to half acre lots, rather than -- rather than 4,000 foot lots. And, then, finally, just -- I hear a lot of interest from people calling me, asking about lots, and the biggest interest I hear is in the third to half acre. They want a large size lot where they have got room to play, room for a yard, they don't want their neighbors right up close, but they are not really looking to maintain an acre lot and all that that entails. Twelve to eighteen thousand foot lots I think there is going to be a lot of demand for and a lot of -- and it's going to be upper end homes that are going to have an interest in that type of thing. That's alii have got to say. Meridian Pianning & Zoning March 3. 2005 Page 46 of 89 Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: A couple of comments as well. Based upon what this subdivision was originally to what it is now, you know, doing my review of this project, you know, they have done a Vf~ry credible job of reducing the size of this project down, based on some of the Council comments and whatnot. I do believe they have done a good job, but bringing it down into -- into a size that, quite frankly, it does meet the Comprehensive Plan requirements, if, in fact, we do annex this into the city and based also on the applicant's letter of additional items that they have agreed to take care of in regards to single story at the perimeters and whatnot, I think they have gone a long way to try and please the neighborhood. I realize that some of you aren't going to be happy, but I do believe that they have done a credible job with the plan, so I will be recommending an approval. Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I -- I don't think any of the people who live around this development are being unreasonable in wanting one acre development around the perimeter. I think this is probably -- though I have to say it, probably one of the nicest developments that's come before us in the year that I have been on this Commission, with these elevations that they are showing, the type of development they want to create, and the lot sizes, but I always have to fall back on would I want to live on my five acres next to a half acre lot. Probably no. I would be in favor of recommending looking at the feasibility of putting a three-quarter to a one acre lot on the perimeter of the development and I would say on the south -- the southern most portion and along the lane, that one you're already getting over eleven feet of height, in essence, that natural and final barrier. I'm not so sure that one acre lots going into -- and given the Comprehensive Plan density in that area, but I do think -- I would agree with the neighbors on the one acre on the rest of the perimeter. So, I will be voting recommending denial on this project, based on those statements. End of comments. Zaremba: Well, I would comment that I'm not sure that we necessarily need the City of Meridian to cross Eagle Road south of Victory yet. Even if it were a county in-fill project, I think it would develop to the densities that are compatible with the property around it. I agree with those that have said there is a place for large lots in a neighborhood like this and I believe they would sell handsomely. I'm not into the economics of real estate, but there is a place for them and, to me, the solution to that is to leave it in the county. I'm not convinced it's in the best interest of the city to be jumping Eagle Road at this point. It may happen some day, but we have plenty of other places to develop and I think my opinion on this is that we shouldn't even annex it. I'm not convinced it's in the best interest of the city. Borup: I guess that would depend on what type of development we want to attract to the city and we have had a lot of comments that, you know, a lot of the upper end Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3. 2005 Page 47 of 89 homes are going to Eagle. To me it looks like this is an opportunity to bring some of that here. Rohm: I agree with that a hundred percent. Borup: I mean -- yeah. Newton-Huckabay: As the project stands? Borup: Yeah. Yeah. These -- you know, four or five thousand square foot homes are a decent price tag. You know, the lot sizes are probably comparable to a good part of Meridian Greens, which is usually the only subdivision that we seem to have to hold up as an example of what we'd like to see. Observation Point, I guess, is close to that, but the lots in Observation Point are a lot smaller than these. The same thing with Bear Creek. It's got a section that's got, you know, half a million dollar -- six hundred thousand dollar homes, smaller lots than these. Newton-Huckabay: What are the -- what's the lot size of Bear Creek? Borup: Well, they have got different sections, but in the teens. Canning: Chairman Zaremba, this discussion seems to b.e going toward house price. You're making me nervous. Borup: Okay. I understand, Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I -- Zaremba: Have we had sufficient discussion to be ready for a motion? Rohm: I had another question. When making motions, do you have to make the motions in the order that they are listed as in the zoning first, the preliminary plat second, and the CUP third? You have to make them in that order? Zaremba: Yes, I would, and particularly the zoning one needs to be first, because the other two are not relevant if we deny the zoning. There is no jurisdiction. Rohm: Well -- all right. But until the City Council acts on it, we -- even at that there is -- Zaremba: That's true. Ours is a recommendation. Rohm: Ours is a recommendation and my only point was is if there was no consensus on the preliminary plat, there would be no need to make a motion for the zoning and I believe that there is not a consensus -- Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3. 2005 Page 48 of 89 Borup: Well, we don't have to have a unanimous consensus to make a motion and a vote. Rohm: Well, I was just thinking in terms of the preliminary plat, if we have got it passed, then, I would go onto the zoning, but -- it's just a question. It doesn't have to go that way. Zaremba: I believe I would do them in the order. Rohm: All right. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chairman, I think we are ready for a motion. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-003, including all staff comments for the hearing date March 3rd, 2005, including the transmittal date of February 25th, 2005. And I don't believe there is any changes for the zoning. Zaremba: This would be where you would ask for a development agreement that we mentioned -- Rohm: Okay. Okay. In addition to the staff comments, there is a letter received from Vision First, received March 2nd, 2005, dated March 1 st, 2005, and signed by Kenneth Elliott. I'd like to have this entered in as recommendations for the development agreement associated with this development. End of motion. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor please say aye. All opposed? No. Newton-Huckabay: No. Zaremba: We have three in favor and two against. That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO NAYS. Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of PP 05-004, to include all staff comments for the hearing date March 3rd, Meridian Planning & Zonin9 March 3. 2005 Page 49 of 89 2005, with the transmittal date February 25th, 2005. Do we need to address this again or is that -- Zaremba: I don't believe so. Rohm: Okay. Canning: I think because it has specific things directed at the preliminary plat, it would be safest to mention it again with the preliminary plat. Rohm: Okay. In addition to the staff comments, the letter from Vision First, dated March 1st, and stamped as received on March 2nd and signed by the developer Kenneth M. Elliott, would be included as input for this motion as well. End of motion. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? No. Newton-Huckabay: Opposed. Zaremba: We, again, have three in favor and two opposed. That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO NAYS. Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of CUP 05-004, to include all staff comments for the hearing date March 3rd, 2005, and the transmittal date of February 25th, 2005, including all staff comments. End of motion. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? No. Newton-Huckabay: Opposed. Zaremba: We, again, have three in favor and two opposed. That motion also carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO NAYS. Canning: Chairman Zaremba, before you leave the issue, I'm sorry, there was a new preliminary plat dated March 2nd. The staff report was based on a different preliminary plat. Can you just give me a moment to verify with the applicant? Meridian Pianning & Zoning March 3. 2005 Page 50 of 89 Zaremba: Yes. Borup: I think the difference between the two is there were lots eliminated and some of those other concessions. Canning: Chairman Zaremba, yeah, the pictures I have shown you tonight are of the one that was sent to the neighbors and the one that the letter is based on. But the staff report had a different preliminary plat date. So, the correct date would be the March 2nd date. Zaremba: Okay. Do we need to amend the motion to reference that plat? Nary: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if -- that was the basis of all the testimony that you have received, so to make it clear from the record that that's what you have based your decision on, then, that should be part of your motion. Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm, would you care to amend -- Newton-Huckabay: So, everything that we had -- all the copies that we had in front of us tonight and on the board were the amended one? Rohm: Right. Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I would like to amend all three motions to include the plat dated March 2nd, 2005. Moe: Second. Zaremba: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion to amend carries five to nothing. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: All right. Thank you all very much for your input. There will be another Public Hearing in front of the City Council on the same subject. And we traditionally take a break about 9:00 o'clock, which we have passed. We will take about a ten minute break and reconvene. (Recess.) Item 12: Public Hearing: PP OS-ODS Request to amend the Preliminary Plat (PP 02-007) to add seven additional building lots for Heritage Commons by Brighton Investments, LLC - west of Locust Grove Road and north of Ustick Road: