Loading...
June 2, 2005 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 36 of 117 Item 13: Public Hearing: PP 05..020 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 16 commercial building lots on 10.9 acres in a proposed C-G zone for Dorado Subdivision by Kimball Properties, LLC - NWC of South Eagle Road and East Overland Road: Zaremba: I will open the public hearings for AZ 05-019 for Dorado Subdivision and we have a correction to make. Item 13 is listed as PP 05-020. That reference number is actually incorrect. The correct number is PP 05-024. All other -- all other information is correct, but the file number should be PP 05-024. So, I will open the Public Hearing on that one as well and the request is to continue that to our meeting of July 7th. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we continue these two public hearings AZ 05-019 and PP 05-024, to our regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning meeting July 7th, 2005. End of motion. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: As we are approaching 9:00 o'clock, which is a traditional time for us to take a break, we will take about a ten-minute break and, then, we will reconvene. (Recess.) Item 14: Item 15: Item 16: Public Hearing: AZ 05-017 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 137.96 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Messina Meadows Subdivision by Tuscany Development, Inc. - on South Eagle Road between West Victory Road and West Amity Road: Public Hearing: PP 05-019 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 491 building lots and 67 other lots on 136.72 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Messina Meadows Subdivision by Tuscany Development, Inc. - on South Eagle Road between West Victory Road and West Amity Road: Public Hearing: CUP 05-026 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for single-family detached residential building units and single-family attached patio homes in a proposed R-8 zone for Messina Meadows Subdivision by Tuscany Development, Inc. - on South Eagle Road between West Victory Road and West Amity Road: Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 37 of 117 Zaremba: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. We will reconvene this meeting. Let the record show that all Commissioners are again present. I will open the public hearings now for AZ 05-017, request for annexation and zoning -- annexation and zoning of 137.96 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Messina Meadows Subdivision. I will also open Public Hearing PP 05-019, request for preliminary plat approval of 491 building lots and 67 other lots on 136.72 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Messina Meadows Subdivision and I will also open Public Hearing CUP 05-026, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for a single family detached residential building units and single family attached patio homes in a proposed R-8 zone for Messina Meadows Subdivision. All of these projects by Tuscany Development, Inc., and located on South Eagle Road between West Victory Road and West Amity Road and we will begin with the staff report. Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. You're correct, this is an annexation and zoning of 136 acres and a preliminary plat for 491 single family residential lots. Yes. Moe: I hope we can maybe -- thank you. Guenther: Thank you. Moe: I can't hear you. Zaremba: Thank you. Guenther: I was going to try to be extra loud. Okay. I think now it's a little better. The Conditional Use Permit for the site is for the development of reduced minimum lot frontages, lot sizes, and this is for creation of a -- like a park style patio -- or not patio, but a parkway home style, which would have different type of frontages on a different private road system, instead of on a public road. And the reduced lot sizes, obviously, is going to be in the roughly 4,000 square range. Actually, it would be 3,600 square foot minimum. The site is located immediately east of the previous hearing item, which is west of Eagle Road and north of Amity and is also north of the Ten Mile Creek, which is the southwestern border of the property. The site is phased in four phases. The first phase would be contiguous to the existing Tuscany development, which is immediately north of this site, which is the Messina Hills projects. The access -- the main access would be taken off of Eagle Road approximately a quarter mile south of the property line. There is a public park that is proposed in this location that was a portion of the original proposal for the compliance with the Comprehensive Plan for Section 29 of this township. And that is in this location here, which will be developed also in the first phase. This is kind of a little better understanding of what you're looking at. The parkway style homes are in this location. The center lines here are the private areas leading into the larger city park. The site does have the same issues -- one of the same issues as the previous project, which is the Ten Mile Creek flood plane, again, along the southwestern border of the project. This does encompass a significant number -- well, quite a bit of -- a number of homes, but, primarily, those homes are located in the fourth Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 38 of 117 phase of this development and, as anticipated, it should be completed and this area is most likely going to be retained within the Ten Mile Creek channel. Thank you. I could not find that word. The site photos here -- this is, actually, taking a photo south of the Messina Hills project, looking west on -- this is the drainage ditch that is providing drainage to the site. This is the Eight Mile lateral in this location here and this is taken immediately off of what is the future De Vinci Way and if you recall from the previous proposal, these trees here is where the Ten Mile Creek comes across -- the multi-use pathway would come into this location at -- through the Messina Meadows proposal and cross the drainage ditch at this location and provide connection into Tuscany Lakes development and into the future city park. This is a photo taken south looking on to Di Vinci. Again, this is not high groundwater, it was raining the day that I took these photos. This is, again, the drainage ditch that is immediately in that vicinity. You can see the Ten Mile feeder in this location that runs mostly through this site in a central locale and hooks into the -- hooks into the Ridenbaugh Canal and provides for irrigation water as a lateral. This is a site photo showing the western portion -- or the eastern portion of the site. There are houses being built currently in Messina Hills proposal and approximately where these trees are here, that is where Eagle Road would be. This drainage ditch does provide a significant portion of the drainage and the applicant has included that into their master site drainage and grading plan and I believe this one is going to be tiled in order to facilitate any type of safety issues that would come with this type of major drainage system in that -- in that location. And that would be drained into the Ten Mile Creek approximately in this location. The standard homes for this site would be this type of a product, which would be the -- fairly similar product to what is in Messina Hills and the parkside styles are similar to these elevations being submitted here. The -- one more point of issue is that this is a two layered comprehensive designation as well. The centerline of -- you can kind of see where the properties break there, is -- north of there is medium density residential and south of this is low density residential. The applicant has indicated that they need a bump up in density. The bump up in density is not very significant. I believe it is to a 3.2, approximately, and, similarly, the largest lots of this subdivision do occur in this location along Amity and through the Ten Mile Creek area, which are between the 9,000 and upwards of 15,000 square feet, which staff is supportive of the bump up in density for that site. Again, there is several drainage systems and irrigation systems that the applicant will address. However, they do not have the significant groundwater issues as the previous development and staff is confident that the conditions of approval should be able to meet the needs of the future residents of the City of Meridian. I will stand for questions at this time. Staff is recommending approval. Zaremba: Commissioners, questions? Thank you. Would the applicant care to come forward? Brown: For the record, Kent Brown, 1800 West Overland, Boise, Idaho. We have been working for some time on this site. Originally, our clients came in and roughly about 70 acres that was adjacent to the Tuscany development that we have previously submitted and they went out and started picking up the other properties before we submitted. Joe, Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 39 of 117 can you go back to the plan that's right after the preliminary plat. Great. What our design has is we have a residential collector coming in off of Eagle Road, Mona Lisa. Moe: There is a pointer there. Brown: If you want to see me shake. Mona Lisa right here. That residential collector comes all the way in from Eagle Road and takes you to the park. We have been working with the parks department on this park site. You also have a collector that comes in this way, feeding into the same general area, and, then, we have a connection to Bellingham that you heard previously. We also have three connections from -- one from Messina Village and two from Messina Hills. This is the Ridenbaugh Canal in this location right here. Many of the pictures that Joe showed you there is -- there is an existing drain ditch that starts at this point and runs over to this point where it goes in with the Ten Mile feeder. We are proposing to tile that the entire distance, all the way to our property line, and in the area that Bellingham was talking about that they had that space, that's a part of this same area. They have a drain in that area. If they tile it, then, they will have that walking path and that's where our walking paths would be. This is the Ten Mile feeder. We have approached Boise project and the Bureau of Rec. about realigning that, picking it up at this point and tiling it to this side of Montigue and, then, having it open from that point through the city park and, then, coming in and tying in at its original location. We are working with Nampa-Meridian as to how that -- they want that to happen and Boise project or -- they are trying to work together on that. This is the Grimmit ditch here that comes across and dead ends at this -- this property. We are proposing right now to pick it up and tile it to our drain, because we are the end of the ditch, we are going to be a part of Nampa-Meridian's pressure irrigation system and we don't need that delivery point. As I promised Commissioner Moe, I'm excited to talk to you about these smaller lots that we have designed. Joe, could you turn that overhead on? I think that shows -- here is Mona Lisa that comes in off from Eagle Road here at this location and goes over to the city park and the city park sits down here. One of the things that we are finding in the marketplace is there is a lot of people that are not like my wife, they don't want to mow lawn, and this would be a great place for them to live, because, basically, everything is maintained. What's exciting about these lots here is you have a traditional street look -- traditional streets here with -- they are private streets, so they are narrower, but we have a little parking lot in the center, but we still have 20-foot setbacks from the garages. So, from a normal street it looks fairly similar. It doesn't look like an alley. It's a street. They have street addresses. And the exciting part for us is what you would normally have I guess considered the backyard, we are dressing up and making it look like the front and you have the front yard that's a little parkway between the houses. We have seen these projects, there is the -- I think it's Prospect in Colorado and there is another one in Pennsylvania, that had similar type of lots. There has also been one in Boise that used alleys. But we are using these public streets. We have thrown in these little parking stalls in the center and provided a means to go north-south also walking. So, you have lots of walking trails in this whole area. The feedback that we have been getting -- and I have been getting it through other projects -- is that certain buyers, because that they are -- how busy they are, they just want a nice home -- and these will be really nice. As you looked at those Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 40 of 117 elevations, it's not meaning that they are going to be smaller, but they are going to be nice homes on these smaller lots, but, then, they have shared space that someone else is taking care of. Someone is mowing, someone -- so, you could have an empty nester, you could have, you know, a single professional or just someone that -- I think my first analogy is someone not like my wife, that doesn't like to mow the lawn and we have got a half an acre and she can feed her fetish and mow as much lawn as she wants, but not everybody wants that and so they are seeing a need that's why they have designed these type of lots. We have also created to the south the larger lots in that lower area. Some of those are quite deep, to meet the other end of the market, that Keith had talked about in the previous application and the larger homes. We have been successful at Tuscany Village, we basically tried to use our experiences there with the alternative street section that the highway district has, that's proposed in this phase also. We are also taking the lot sizes that have been good for us in Tuscany Village and Tuscany Lakes and those and we expect those to be built and completed and moved down into these and so we have created the lot sizes that have been good to us in those and are going down. In the previous application there was much discussion about water. Because we did Tuscany Village and Tuscany Lakes and all the Messina stuff, we are very familiar with the water in the area and we have been doing the testing and this site has, according to our initial preliminary reports, less water than we have been dealing with and so we feel very confident to go forward and are excited to be approved. And I will stand for any questions. Zaremba: Commissioners? Commissioner Moe. Moe: Yeah. I have a couple. Just to go back to the water issue. That's in your planned phase four; is that correct? That area? Brown: You're talking about the Ten Mile Creek; correct? Moe: Yeah. Brown: Where the flood plane is. Moe: Yeah. Brown: A majority of that is in our phase four, yes. Moe: And, then, the other thing is we were -- we were discussing the units near the park and you said that was a public street. You said it's not an alley, it's a public street, so -- what's our width on those? I'm trying to -- I mean it's not public street width, is it? Brown: We have -- we have Montigue that goes in between the two -- Moe: Right. Brown: -- is a public street. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 41 of 117 Moe: Right. Brown: And this is also a public street that wraps around here and, then, this is a street here and this is a street here and this one are private. There is three private streets in there. Moe: Okay. What's the width on the private streets? Brown: Twenty-four feet. Moe: Okay. Brown: That was something that we worked out with Joe Silva and the fire department. Moe: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: there? Could you kind of point out those alley-loaded homes around Brown: Joe, could you go to the elevations? Okay. From the private street we have a door access, so if the pizza delivery guy comes and drives to the street access, that's what he's seeing. This is the same elevation for a two-car garage off of that private street. That's the back of the house. That's the ugly side. Joe, go to the other one. That's the front. That's what you would see from the park side. And I know it didn't come up here and it wasn't something we asked for, but the setbacks are very clear in our conditions, but these houses have five foot from the property line from each other and what we are proposing, if you were to look at that elevation again -- or the site plan, we are proposing to grant easement to let's say this house for all that area in between those houses and, then, this guy here would have all the area between the next two houses. Newton-Huckabay: So, they don't build fences. Brown: They don't build fences. So, actually, we have more room in between our units from the fire department standpoint, because we don't have a fence just five foot off of the building, we have ten feet in between the buildings, which I think is an added -- in the area where you would have a backyard with a bunch of fences going out, that's -- that nice elevation that we are seeing here, with a parkway in the center, we are hoping that, you know, the mailbox and all of that stuff can be out there and that these people will walk back and forth and they have places that they walk to that connect to paths and that's, I guess, one of the reasons why I'm excited about it. Newton-Huckabay: I think it's a really cool idea. I will be interested in seeing how it does. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 42 of 117 Brown: We have a builder for those lots, too. Moe: Just looking at your plan here, it actually shows those private streets to be 20 foot. Is there -- Brown: Initially there was and we worked with the fire department -- Moe: Oh. Okay. Brown: They had some other comments, they had some things they wanted us to do, and we agreed to 24-foot and there is a condition in there that says 24-foot. Moe: Thank you. Zaremba: I have a couple questions. One, there was some discussion -- although I don't think there was a condition. Discuss, if you would, parking for the park. Is there a plan for that? Any off-street parking? Brown: We haven't proposed any. That -- go to the site plan. The next one. There. We have a single sided street here. The parks department -- basically what we have agreed to do for them -- we are giving them the park, we are greening it up, and, then, they need to take care of the restrooms, the parking, and anything else that they want to do. I discussed some options with them, but it's against what these guys want, but it's similar to what they approved on the boys and girls side is some parallel parking. You don't eat into a huge amount of area. They could just have parking at an angle right there and they could back out into the travel way or you could provide enough room that they could back out. But that's something that the parks department will do in the future. Zaremba: Okay. And the other -- I appreciated your testimony on the previous issue about the flood plane, but it would be nice to have the same discussion on the record for this one. You're comfortable that removing the culverts on the project to your east is going to solve your flood plane problem? Brown: Correct. As previously discussed on Bellingham, we have a letter from Paul Coonts that's in here stating that from his -- his knowledge and experience that when those three culverts are removed that that will alleviate the problem. We had -- Moe: That would be to the west, not to the east. Brown: I'm sorry. To the west. Correct. Zaremba: To the west. Brown: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 43 of 117 Zaremba: I did misspeak. Brown: We had the same experience on Tuscany Lakes when we did that application and we -- it goes back to a detailed versus a non-detailed and he's done a detailed analysis and so now he can file a detailed study when those culverts are removed. Zaremba: So, you're comfortable that FEMA's acceptance of your letter of map revision is going to be forthcoming without too much difficulty? Brown: Correct. Zaremba: Is that what you're saying? Brown: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Moe: Just one more for just clarification. When you say you're going to green up the park, does that include the irrigation for that greening up? Brown: That's correct. Moe: Very nice. Brown: We are going to be grading it, because there is a number of ditches and drains on it now. We are going to be filling that and alleviating that. Moe: That is a great amenity for the city and for this development. Brown: One of the things that I think is -- to help give you a little comfort is that the Ten Mile really starts at Columbia Road, so not much further south it -- at Columbia Road it basically starts at the creek and that's where they used to water the stages that would go out to Kuna and there was a -- there is a hill that they'd go up and they cross right there, but there was a spring that kind of starts the Ten Mile and the Ten Mile, then, follows along and comes up to this site. So, you know, a mile and a half is all that there is, the distance between us and there and three-quarters of that first section is golf course that it runs through, so -- Zaremba: Thank you. And Steven Stark, please. Stark: My name is Steve Stark and my family and I live at 2630 East Amity Road. We are the property down on the bottom there. That property right there. And we are being affected dramatically by the development of Messina Meadows. We know that development is inevitable, but we are asking the Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee only to approve the application conditional on the developer taking some action to mitigate some of the impact on us. Some of our concerns are our property line Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 44 of 117 -- on the east side of our property line. The proposed plat map shows property being developed inside our long established fence line. We have a fence line along the -- on the east side there. This long-established fence line is evidence of an agreed upon boundary and our attorney has advised us that by the doctrine of boundary by acquiescence, the fence is a legal border for our property. We have thousands of dollars in trees and landscaping along the east side there and we'd like to keep them. Another thing that we are concerned about -- could you go to the site plan also, please, Joe? We would like the developer to protect us from light glare and on the southeast portion of our property there is a -- kind of an unconventional driveway that points right into our bedroom window there as you come into that bend there -- Moe: Could you use the pointer, please? Stark: Right there. Yeah. There we go. There is a driveway there that feeds two lots there and that points that -- points right into our bedroom window. I went out there and looked out there and you can see right into our -- my wife was in our bathroom and you can see out there, so -- the other concern we have is this road right here comes down and it goes into the back of our bedroom windows and, then, Lynn Acey's property is right here and, normally, he drives up and down his driveway here, but he's going to have an access here and he has to drive around behind the house and around and that will be shining in that way. So, anyway, we'd ask the developer to protect us from light glare and this proposed plan has headlight glaring into our house from three directions, from the north and the east and the driveway from Lot 6, Block 9, and we'd ask that you, please, add a berm and a six foot vinyl fence, a solid privacy fence, together high enough so glare from traffic doesn't enter our house and change the direction of that South Messina Way would -- while still allowing us access for future development, would also help us. In addition, we have horses and we have a hot wire around our property and I think anything less than a berm and a six-foot fence would give you a hazard for non-horse people reaching over the fence to a hot wire. So, it will be hot wired when this development is done still, so -- because the horses will chew on a vinyl fence. I'd like the developer to address the lack of privacy. Our house, if you look at a picture that's on the front page, it's all windows facing the foothills, all the windows, we have got like 15 sets of blinds in all those windows there and we ask the approved plat would restrict Lots 6, 8, 9 and 10 of Block 9, to single story houses, so people cannot peer into our house. Our bedroom, bathroom, dining and kitchen windows all face northeast. In the event the flood plane is narrowed, your property is built to our west; we request a six-foot vinyl solid privacy fence along that west line. Like right now it's in the flood plane, you couldn't put a solid fence, but in the event that that was narrowed and built right, you know, develop that whole area, we would ask that they fence that. Standing water -- all that we are concerned with is that -- we are concerned about -- there is standing water on Eagle Road right now. That picture was taken yesterday, so -- and all we want is a guarantee the development doesn't create standing water on Amity Road, you know, because we have had three cars drive through our fence in the past five years and standing water would create ice problems and more of a hazard, so -- or any flooding on our property. We presently flood irrigate and we want to be -- make -- be assured we can keep our ability to irrigate our pasture and we would like -- Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 45 of 117 request to have pressurized irrigation. And utilities, we have sewer and water service when available to be stubbed out to our property line, so in the future when we are in the city we would be able to hook up to it. And, you know, on the zoning to R-8 versus R-4, I mean we are clearly in low density residential down there and there is no reason to make it R-8. If R-8 means 3,600 square foot lots, there is no reason to make low density anything other than R-4. And Kathy and I have lived in the houses we are talking about. You know, we were talking about the alley houses and small lots, we have lived in those houses. You can't call them medium density and -- and they are far enough away from us where it's not -- I'm not saying it's a big issue, but it's not medium density. It's high density, no matter how you look at it. Anyway, we are in a low density and we would ask the Commission to leave it R-8 -- I mean R-4 -- leave it R-4. And in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan, the low-density designation, so it's not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. And, thank you, I'm done. Any questions? Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions? Newton-Huckabay: I have one. On this property, have you talked to the developer at all? Stark: The developer has never contacted us at all. I found out through the grapevine who the engineer was. Mr. Brown was very helpful. He showed me the plans, told me who the developer was. I called -- he had a -- a young man came out -- the young man . that came out, his name was Shay, he wasn't sure if the property next to us was the developer -- that the property would be developed or not. He was very unsure. He said he thought it was, but he wasn't sure. I thought it was important to get it on -- you know, since he wasn't sure, I thought it was important to show up and make it clear. Borup: So, he came out to you and didn't even have a copy of a preliminary plat? Stark: He did not. Now, Kent showed it to me. Borup: Okay. So, you already knew, then? Stark: What's that? Borup: You already knew that it was? Stark: Was what? Borup: That it was being developed. Stark: I wasn't positive I had the right one, other than -- you know, in other words, I thought I was positive, until he came out and said he doesn't know for sure. Borup: But you had a copy of this? Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 46 of 117 Stark: No. I didn't have a copy of -- Borup: Kent showed you a copy of this? Stark: Yeah, Kent -- I went to Kent's office and he showed it to me. Borup: Right. And you didn't know what your property -- where your property was on this? Stark: Not -- I knew where my property was. I did not know that they were going to put stakes ten feet in on our property line until they came out and did it. Borup: Oh, that's what you're talking about. Stark: Yeah. Right. Yeah. Came out and did it. Yeah. Borup: And your statement on that was because you were or your previous owner made a mistake on the fence line, this other property owner should be penalized? Stark: No. My statement on that is Idaho. I sought the advice of an -- Borup: I understand. But it was still -- but they still improperly -- they put the fence in the wrong location. Stark: I think it was put in the late 70s, early '80s. I have no clue how old that fence is, but it's extremely old. There is mature trees along the fence line. There is irrigation along the fence line. I'm saying that because the developer comes along, I should not lose my irrigation ditch, my mature trees, and the fence line. It should be -- I should follow state law. It's a fence that's been left alone for years and years and years and when I bought the property, the property owner showed it to me and said that's your fence line and that other fence line is the other seven acres. Borup: Who told you that? Stark: The owner I bought it from. Borup: You didn't get it surveyed, then? Stark: No. No. There is no survey in that area. Yeah. We went back and asked for old surveys -- Borup: Well, I mean when you bought the property you didn't ask for a survey? Stark: No. No. But the person we bought it from owned the property around us, too. So, there was no reason for us to doubt that. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 47 of 117 Borup: I had another question on -- that the road that came in from the side you -- Stark: Yes. Borup: Is the plat showing your house location, is that fairly accurate, or is that -- Stark: No. It's-- Borup: It's not accurate. Stark: It's not accurate. No. In fact, it shows Lynn Acey's barn as being a dinky little barn and it's huge. It shows our shop being huge. It's dinky. It's not to scale and it's not accurate. What I did -- Borup: So, the location of the house was not accurate either? Stark: Not on that drawing. Right. That I had that we got from the city. Right. It's not accurate. In fact, if you take that driveway and head in there and take a flashlight, it will shine right into our bedroom. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Can I finish my question now? Borup: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: On the property line, do you want -- on that east property line -- I know we have the question of where the property line actually is, but, then, do you want a berm and a vinyl fence? So, you want to take out the trees anyway? Stark: No. I want to be assured that -- I don't want our trees taken out. What I do want is glare protection. So, if you have to raise up a six foot fence, that's fine, but we don't -- what we don't want is we don't -- the plans call for a five foot vinyl and that would not be adequate for glare control. And I don't want to tell somehow how to do glare control, but I do know I don't want the people 50 or 60 feet away from our bedroom with headlights in our bedroom. That's what -- Newton-Huckabay: No. I understand. I'm just trying to understand -- Stark: In other words -- Newton-Huckabay: If the mature trees are on the property line -- Stark: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: -- and they are grown up and, then, a five foot fence -- Stark: Won't do it. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 48 of 117 Newton-Huckabay: Is there enough room? I mean will -- Stark: I don't know. Newton-Huckabay: What are your mature trees screening now? Stark: Well, they are -- we have one -- one extremely mature tree that's been there -- a deciduous tree right there, but it's not right where that driveway is, it's a little further down here and we have some, you know, 20 foot tall evergreen trees that have been there. So, I'm not saying I know how they are going to do it, but I do know I don't want a car pulling in here 50 feet from my bedroom shining right in my bedroom window. Newton-Huckabay: Right. Stark: That's what I don't want. I also don't want to be in our bedroom and have cars coming down here and have the headlights on the back of our house. I mean the boys' bedrooms are upstairs and our bedroom is downstairs and all of our windows are -- to the bedrooms are facing northeast and so they are -- you know, they are wide open to all the cars coming down those two ways. And, Lynn, when he drives up and down the driveway here, it's no big deal, you know. But if they are going to access this from the road and come around and face our house every single time you pull into the driveway, it's going to be -- it's going to be a glare problem. Moe: What do you have on your north property line as far as -- Stark: Barbed wire fence. Moe: Barbed wire fence? Any other obstructions -- Stark: And a hot wire. Moe: So, in fact, a berm could be built there? Stark: Yeah. Yeah. Moe: I guess what I would be curious about is if something was done, would it be able to be built on your property, if it was paid for by others? Stark: Yeah. I'm not imagining like a 35-foot berm, you know, I'm imagining a small -- I'm just saying that a six foot fence -- Moe: No. I understand. Stark: -- is probably not adequate for -- Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 49 of 117 Moe: What I'm, basically, referring to is if we have -- we have a plat that's put out here and, you know, dimensions and everything else, I'm just trying to get a -- Stark: Yeah. There is plenty of room back there, yeah, for that. Newton-Huckabay: I guess that was my question that wasn't articulated well. Is there room on your property for a berm? Stark: Well, there is an irrigation -- irrigation ditch right along that fence. Moe: On the southeast not, but on the north it would be fine. Stark: Right. So, yeah, the north side there is not a problem. There is no irrigation -- the water flows this way, you know, so -- on this side, if we were to get pressurized irrigation, we could give up the ditch and there could be a small berm built there. So something adequate to stop these -- you more -- usually when you pull into a house, like if you pull into this house, there is a house and a garage and stuff like this, but if you're pulling into a driveway that's pointing right into our house, it's different and there is not one, but two houses when they pull in there. Newton-Huckabay: I wonder if that lot could be made more triangular? Stark: This is the only where there is -- Newton-Huckabay: Sorry. Did you get what I said? Stark: But as long as there is access from this road coming this way, we are going to have the same problem. Newton-Huckabay: Right. But if there was a house there -- Stark: Right. Yeah. Right now our nearest neighbor is 300 feet away -- or 350 feet away. And so what we would like is to mitigate some of the impact of a total lack of privacy we are going to have is -- that's why we are asking for one story houses in these four lots is -- is for some measure of privacy. We are going to lose all of our privacy, but we'd like some measure, so we are not -- like have a wall of houses with people right there. Zaremba: Okay. Any further questions from the Commissioners? Thank you, sir. Stark: Thank you. Zaremba: Let's see. No one else has signed up to speak, but this is an opportunity if somebody would like to. Sir, come ahead. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 50 of 117 Groves: Commissioners, my name is Craig Groves. I reside at 3920 East Shady Glen Court in Boise, Idaho. Let me first publicly apologize to Mr. and Mrs. Stark for not taking the time to visit with them about the impacts of this development on their property and I want to assure the Commissioners that we will take an opportunity between this meeting and City Council to visit with them and try to adequately address their concerns. One of the reasons -- the reason we didn't visit with them, the property that lies -- the property that they -- that lies to the east of theirs and runs back and flags back in the back of their property, we worked on trying to acquire that property for a year and a half. We didn't actually get a final agreement on that property until about less than 30 days ago. She agreed to annex and sign the -- allow us to submit the application. We didn't have a firm price or terms or anything like that and so we were, frankly, up in the air on whether that property was even going to be part of the -- of the plat. So, we do have an agreement with Mrs. Hall that owns the property, she lives down in Utah, and so, you know, consequently, that's really the reason we never talked to Mr. and Mrs. Stark, because didn't know if we were going to develop next to them or not. Now, we do know that. We appreciate their concerns. We will try to address their concerns. I would like to point out just a couple of things. The private lane or alley that comes in off of -- that comes in on the east side of their property and has one lot there, that access is quite a ways north of their property, okay, and I'm not sure that it's really going to have an impact, from my perspective, on their windows. This right here, okay, their property probably -- their property sits -- according to the map, sits more like right here. So, that lane coming there is -- is quite a ways north from their backyard. Borup: So, you're saying the plat that we have is accurate? Groves: We believe it's pretty close, yeah. Borup: Mr. Stark said it wasn't. Groves: Yeah. Well, we will get some surveys out there and verify that. I don't want to be controversial. I did want to indicate, too, that these three lots right here, you know, again, those are way -- way north of his property. They are a hundred -- almost 130 feet deep -- I think 126 feet deep. From this point here where the stub street is in the back of his house, we estimate to be nearly 300 feet. Okay. But with that said, we fully intend to -- to be good neighbors and see if we can't work a solution out that's good for everybody. Thank you. Do you have any questions? Moe: Well, yeah, I guess I would, because you say that you will work with them to kind of work things out. Hearing some of the items that he has discussed tonight, are any of thos.e options feasible, i.e, berms and six foot fencing and whatnot to screen out some of the glare areas and whatnot? Groves: Well, you know, I can't make any commitments at this point at this hearing. I will say this, you know, there were a lot of things that were discussed. There is the issue with the -- the boundary line on this site and, you know, frankly -- Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 51 of 117 Moe: That was my next question. Groves: Yeah. We did not pay -- again, we paid zero attention to it, because we didn't have a firm agreement on this property right here until about 30 days ago. Okay. But now that we have a firm agreement and we realize that we have a boundary issue, we will -- we will address that adequately. There is an issue about pressurized irrigation versus the irrigation ditch that they have there, we will address that adequately. The berming, the fencing, you know, all of that will be addressed and I think we can come to a reasonable compromise on things. Moe: Okay. Borup: The plat shows five-foot fence. That is your intention, rather than a six-foot? Groves: Keith, what we have done in the past -- the perimeter fencing along Eagle Road and along Amity, that perimeter was six foot. The interiors were five. You know, I guess we could consider addressing this as a perimeter here. Okay. But all the perimeter fencing that we had along Eagle Road up in here, that was a six-foot and I think the fencing on the back boundary -- I guess I don't remember if that was -- I think that's five. Borup: That's more of an internal type fence. Groves: Yeah. That was an internal fence there. This one here surrounding this property, yeah, we can work with that. Borup: So, unless someone's got a vehicle that their headlights are taller than six feet, that would probably -- Groves: Yeah. Borup: No monster trucks through there. Groves: Right. Again, let me apologize to Steve and Kathy. We will sit down and talk with them. Any other questions? Zaremba: Thank you. Yes. Wait until you get to the microphone, please. KStark: I'm Kathy Stark and I live at 2360 East Amity. On -- currently where that road comes, the lone house there, their house -- I don't see it shown on there, but their house and their barn and everything they are going to be removing. Okay. They have a light post that's back where their barn is at, so that post -- that light shines in our bedroom. If a car parks next to their house, sometimes I get up and close my blinds, because it shines directly into my house, which is about the same area where that road is going to be butted in. So, it doesn't matter what it looks like, our house is at an angle, it's not -- it's not straight, it goes like this, and so all of those windows, to get privacy from all Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 52 of 117 those lots, I would need to close blinds -- I think it's 14 windows. They will be looking directly into our home and the lights will be shining directly into our home. Borup: The car lights you're referring to? K.Stark: Car lights. Yes. That's correct. And what I'm concerned about is the road behind us, is, you know, the elevation. You can see lights coming from a long ways away, so if you have a fence, I don't know, I haven't had a fence back there, so -- and we haven't had anybody driving back there, but I know, you know, the road's like this, I don't know what the elevation is, but I am concerned about headlights constantly flooding the whole back of our house, which would be our bedroom, our bathroom, our family room, our kitchen, our dining room, it's a huge -- I mean basically our whole living space. And a five foot fence, if you drive and look, it's kind of low. If you drive around Tuscany and look, there are places where it's five and there are places where it's six. It may not seem like a lot, but six feet versus five on the perimeter of our property would be very very big. Zaremba: That would help. K.Stark: It sure would. And if the fence was at a grade where it's not lower -- below road grade or -- I don't know what that's called. Sorry. That would make a difference as well. And drainage is another issue. With Eagle Road you can see all along Tuscany there is a lot of water. I am very concerned about the water along Amity. If that happens on Amity and it being dangerous, because the driving 60 miles an hour, you know, people go a lot faster than that. We have had three people crash through our fence. If there is any water, there will be ice. Zaremba: Do you have a sense that the issues that were very concisely raised -- and we appreciate your husband's presentation, along with yours. Do you have a sense that they can be resolved or -- or are they deal breakers to you? K.Stark: Do I believe he will resolve those from his discussion tonight? Zaremba: Uh-huh. K.Stark: No. I have been told by the neighbors that Tuscany built around on Locust Grove, that they were told different things and it did not happen. It was not in writing, at a meeting, and it did not happen. So, I am quite concerned that -- I don't believe when he says he will work it out. To whose satisfaction? Rohm: So, are you saying that a six foot fence is acceptable and a five foot fence is not? K.Stark: I'm saying five foot would not be acceptable. Rohm: Well, I mean if we can establish what is acceptable, maybe that's -- Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 53 of 117 K.Stark: Along the back I think it needs to be bermed, along the back. The north -- is that north? The back of -- yeah. Would have to have a berm. I don't think six feet -- that property right at our barbed wire fence actually goes up, so when we flood there is no way we could even get water to the back and to the property back there, because it actually goes up. So, I don't know how long it -- how far back it continues to go up, but I know it's -- where our fence is at, along the barbed wire, it goes up a ways and so I think it has to be bermed along that back. Borup: And you would allow that berm on your property? K.Stark: I don't -- I personally don't want it on my property. I want it on his. Borup: Well, your husband stated earlier a berm on his -- on your property would be -- so, you two aren't in agreement on that. KStark: I don't agree on that. Borup: Okay. KStark: But, hey, that's for us to work out. Borup: But you feel a six-foot fence on -- KStark: With a berm on the back would make a huge difference, because as I'm sitting there and I have to flip my blinds everyday on the whole back of the house because of light from traffic, I think they should change the road, then. Angle it towards the house that's already there. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I'd like to throw out a suggestion. Maybe -- there are a lot of issues, plus a legal issue potentially, with the property line. Maybe it would be appropriate, rather than to say, okay, you folks work this out between now and City Council, maybe continuing the whole -- what if there were more houses around -- a neighborhood meeting to work things out and come back. Zaremba: I can see some sense to that. City Council has regularly said they don't want us to send unresolved issue to them. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I mean the point being that they are getting invaded on all three sides of their property. I think that it's reasonable that -- it may take time to work out. - Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 54 of 117 Zaremba: Just for curiosity -- Joe, when you put the current picture up on display from the previous one, there appeared to be juxtaposition. Would you toggle back and forth between the two of them a couple times? Yeah. Just those two. No. Yeah. The aerial view and, then, the plan view. Yeah. Go back and forth between those two. Guenther: Mr. Chairman, they are not to scale. Zaremba: What I'm looking at is where their property is in relation to where I see the two houses. So, they are not exactly to the same scale, but -- Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I'd like to ask the applicant one other question. One issue that we didn't discuss is the single story on those houses on the east side. Is that -- what are planned in those lots on the east side of their property? Brown: Just so we keep him happy, I'm Kent Brown, the applicant -- or the engineer's representative. And I will address yours in just a second. I wanted to go with these headlights for just a minute. Obviously, we haven't surveyed their house. We don't generally go around onto other people's property and survey it. What we do is we take an aerial photo and if you understand how they use these aerial photos, they stretch them, they make them and, then, our technician, he tries to find the roof and what looks like the roof and sometimes they are totally off. I mean as to -- but they are in the general right location, when you really look at it. What they are sometimes seeing is a shadow. When they window in and magnify that, they are seeing a shadow of the house and so -- I mean we are talking, you know, at the most five, six feet or something like that that it's off and the photos are I think '03 photos, so barns and different things that are modified in between, sometimes those things happen between the process and, yeah, don't have them on there. We should have shown the property, the house to the west, that should be on there. It would help us. But if you look at the preliminary plat -- Borup: It's on there. Brown -- you see the Stark's house and we have one lot that is adjacent to their house and as you look at that lot and you consider that the first house there is going to have a 20 foot setback, that 20 foot setback makes that house, basically, block anything from the east that would be shining into their home and this road and driveway comes into the north of their home. So, the headlights are -- this house would be here and the road is coming in here and the Stark's house is to the south of where this stub street or street curve goes up. And, then, the three lots to the north are adjacent to their vacant pasture ground. I guess, you know, we are here to be approved. We want to be good neighbors. I have talked with the Starks before we ever submitted the subdivision, I showed them -- I showed Mr. Stark a copy of the plan. He talked to his neighbors and found out that they were all in the process of selling. So, I spoke to him before we ever Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 55 of 117 submitted. He called me recently, I talked to him again, he said he had talked to Shay, which is one of the people that work for Tuscany Development, Inc. He said that he would work with them on the fencing. We are here to work with them on the fencing. One of the things that happens when you do a berm, though -- and we have had this over and over again, is they want the fence to be on the very top of the berm. Well, then, you have the top of the berm, if you put it at what the property line is supposed to be, then, how is the developer to maintain, in this situation, the west and south side of that berm? You know, it's -- you almost have to put the center of the berm on the property line to be able to allow them to take care of their side of the berm -- we are not going to go on the other side of the fence to go over and pull weeds or, you know, whatever that are over there. So, I mean if you choose that that's what you have to do tonight to move us forward, we are going to continue to work with the Starks. Mr. Grove had said that that's what he's going to do. But we are here to be approved tonight. So, if you feel that you have to do that -- I don't believe that it's necessary. I offered to show the Starks -- go out with a survey rod, raise it up, show what, you know, a two story house elevation would be, to show them that it doesn't block, you know, the mountains, if that's what they are concerned that the view is, because the horizon is so much. To the north of the Starks the property is falling away and we have done a topo, we have done a survey, we know what that is. This property line business, with it being ten foot off, yes, state law says that if you have a fence on your property and you pay taxes on that property that you have a fence on, then, it's yours. Our previous owners before have been paying taxes on what they own, which has been ten foot over onto the Stark's property, according to the information that we get from the assessors and all the stuff, the title reports and stuff that surveyors had and that's why the property line is located where it is. My client has told me he's even willing to work with them on that ten foot, if that's -- you know, helps them, he's willing to work with them on that. I mean we have 126 foot deep lots there and the lots on the other side of the street -- just a second. Borup: One hundred forty-two. Brown: So, we have plenty of depth in there that that ten foot could be -- and still keep the lots. You're working on two ends there, too, is that they were concerned about the density and we have these huge lots down next to them and it provided -- the largest lots in the development are all against their property and we try to take that into consideration in the design. We tried to take that in consideration that we were dropping down into low density in that portion of the development in the Comprehensive Plan. Our density is to the north in our parkway lots. Basically without that we don't even really need the PUD. I mean we -- we could just do a straight R-4 sub and -- for the whole piece of property. But we tried to do something that I think is a nice development. Do you have any questions? Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions? Borup: Just a couple I have, Mr. Chairman. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 56 of 117 Zaremba: Commissioner Borup. Borup: So, you're -- well, one, I don't know if you know the answer to this question, but what the density would be south, the quarter section line, the area that's in the -- Brown: That was part of the discussion that was in your staff report that -- from Joe at the very beginning was 3.2 south of that line. Borup: Oh, that was just in that area. Brown: Right. Borup: That's -- I guess I didn't understand that that was just -- Brown: That's what he was making reference to is south of this line right here is where the low density starts and we have 3.2 -- Borup: Separating that section -- Brown: Right. From the northern portion. Borup: Then, is your understanding -- and I may have misunderstood Mr. Stark, but I thought I had heard him say that the property -- he bought the property from the individual that owned both. Brown: Probably from the seller. Yeah. Borup: Okay. So, it sounds like the person that owned the property put the fence in himself. The fence that's off was put in by the individual that owned both properties. Brown: You're asking me to guess. Borup: So, you're not sure on the previous ownership, then? Brown: I know that they did sell to them, as I understand. And I'm trying to remember from the deeds. Moe: Along the same line in regards to that, just -- I just want to make sure I heard you correctly and that is that you possibly could work with them in regards to that ten foot, moving it to the east. Or I mean, basically, your lots will change out there, then. Brown: If we need to. I mean we are trying -- we are trying to be amenable, whether they talk to them -- my clients talk to them, I have talked to them a couple times, the Starks, and the discussion we have had tonight with Mr. Groves as we have been sitting here, he's told me that, you know, he wants to work with them, so we can talk to them about that ten feet and maybe the ten foot ends up being -- if we have to put in a berm, Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 57 of 117 where the berm goes, I mean that's why we would like to continue to work with them, but I mean if you feel that you have to approve us to do that tonight, I kind of disagree, but we are here to be approved tonight. We don't want to be tabled for a month. We will continue to work with them and work out -- Newton-Huckabay: You didn't like my idea. Brown: I didn't like your idea at all. We have been waiting a long time to get to this point. I mean we have -- I think I submitted it -- Rohm: It sounds to me like -- Mr. Chair, it seems to me that we've just got a single issue between two neighbors and if we could just give them an opportunity to talk for five minutes, we could wrap this up and be done, I think. I think that it would be wise to just let them talk for a bit and see if they can come up with something that we can put in a motion to move forward and, then, it's -- it's a resolved issue that's not going to come up at City Council at the next stage and it would take -- Newton-Huckabay: Well, the property line -- Rohm: No. The property line does not end up being a stickler for either side, if they can put the berm on the property that is in question, then, work it out and we can move forward tonight with a recommendation to the city that's accepted to both property owners. That seems to me the right answer. Zaremba: The two ways to do that would be to take like a five minute recess or to table this to the end of the meeting, as opposed to continuing it to -- Rohm: Well, I don't want to continue it. I'm with the applicant and I don't think anybody wants to do that, but if we want to table it until the end and let them -- give them some time, let's do it and get it resolved. Brown: We will do what we can. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. and Mrs. Stark? Zaremba: So, do you want to table these three items to the end of this meeting? Borup: I have a question for Mr. Brown that may affect their discussion. That's just on that Stromboli -- Stromboli Way curve. Have you looked at doing a bulb there or something, rather than a flag lot? Brown: We have. I mean -- Borup: Did it work okay? Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 58 of 117 Brown: Not really. I mean -- so, you're saying instead of that little common drive, to extend out a bulb. Zaremba: And have two pie-shaped lots. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I -- Borup: Well, one pie-shaped lot and -- I don't know. It worked on this piece of paper. Maybe it doesn't work when it's drawn to scale. That would stop the headlights going down. Brown: I believe that the house that would be built on that lot adjacent to them is going to block -- that's my opinion. I mean that's why I really question -- Zaremba: Along with, perhaps, a six foot fence. Brown: And a six foot fence. But we are definitely amenable to go talk to them in the next few minutes. Newton-Huckabay: I was going to make a comment that if the house is actually south of the flag lot, it's -- if you can agree on that, you don't have an issue with that lot. Like you said, you only have the one -- southern half of that lot. Brown: And I guess one of the things that we could do is agree that if it's not, that we do something else. I mean that's -- Rohm: With that being said, Mr. Chairman -- Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Newton-Huckabay: Do Mr. and Mrs. Stark get to comment whether or not they are willing to do that, meet for ten minutes? Borup: If not, then, I guess we could proceed without the meeting. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I -- Mr. Stark would like to make a comment. Zaremba: We have a question for Mr. Stark. Let's have him come to the microphone for a moment. Stark: Steve Stark, 2630 Amity Road. The first lot is 80 feet, the second lot is 80 feet, and the third lot is 82 feet going from our north corner. I took a tape and measured it down and the driveway coming is in the vicinity of the house. If the car pulls in perfectly straight and stops, then, we are not going to have a problem, but if the car pulls in and turns at all into a driveway, it's going to be pointed directly into our house. It's close enough where the light will spill into our house no matter what. I mean for sure I was Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 59 of 117 out there with a tape. Another thing is if someone tells me that we want to resolve it in good faith, but I'm wrong about that, I'm wrong about the fence, I'm wrong about all this other stuff -- we have a personal friend that had dealings in the past -- not with Mr. Brown, but with a developer that didn't happen the way they were told it was going to happen. I don't want to do anything in good faith. I'd like to resolve it, but I don't like to be told I'm wrong about everything and, then, be told, but, however, we are going to work with them, you know. I'm not wrong about that driveway. It's pointing -- it's close to our bedroom and it's invasive. The other thing is I never said anything about a view. I don't -- you know, I understand that if you live in a valley you lose a view, but I mean I'm being quoted as saying I'm going to lose my view. You know, I know I'm going to lose a view if you build houses, but what I don't want is like a total lack of privacy. We have a -- we went to a different part -- first of all, we could not find a flag lot like that with two -- one driveway feeding two houses in all of Tuscany. We looked all through there and we couldn't find one. Another thing is we have a neighbor that lives up here that was by Tuscany and they built two story houses right behind his house. He had a rural house, he has cows and pigs and all that other stuff, put these giant houses right behind his property and it's invasive and what we would like is to mitigate some of the lack of privacy by having single story houses along that property line, so -- Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Stark, are you and your wife willing to spend some time and table this hearing until the end of the meeting and talk with the developer -- Stark: Yeah. Yeah, we will. Newton-Huckabay: -- and see if you can work it out? Stark: Yeah. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Let's do that and, then, if it's okay with the Chairman and -- Zaremba: I would entertain such a motion. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we table public hearings AZ 05-017, PP 05-019 and CUP 05-026 to the last item on our agenda for this evening. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.